No More Freedom of the Press?

Unfortunately, much of my "blogging" these days takes place on Facebook (under Ed Hanks), and so it doesn't appear here. But every once in a while a fascinating discussion comes along which deserves to be here too. Here's one about Obama and Freedom of the Press, along with some commentary, and my response.

I then posted a link to an article about how the White House Communications Director was "explaining" (bragging) that Obama's press office "controlled" the media. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113347

Now, as a former Speechwriter and Press Secretary, I'm very well aware that this is the ideal goal of any press secretary -- to "control" what the media says about their candidate or official. But I felt this went a step too far.

A man named David Guenthner, a former reporter and longtime PR professional who's currently Director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, responded. I hope he doesn't mind my hijacking his words -- they WERE posted on MY Facebook page, so I feel entitled. Besides, in the thread of comments I ended up agreeing with him, to a large degree, and he posted that he agreed with me. So this is more education than debate, fueled by two PR hands...

David's Comment:

This is much ado about very little. What's discussed as "control" in the headline and the quote is actually message discipline. If you're in a prominent enough position where you have reporters dedicated to covering you (e.g., president or governor), it is your job to put your guy and your story of the day in the news to the greatest extent possible. Limiting access and the number of people authorized to speak on behalf of the administration or the campaign is an appropriate tactic -- and can be effective unless it is overused.

My Response:

David, you're a PR professional, and so you know what you're talking about. I've been a PR professional too, and I understand exactly what you mean, and I agree so far as that goes.

But Obama has crossed a line, and camped out there, where no one before has had the nerve or disregard of press freedom to camp. Clinton did use this tactic to great effect at times, but only for limited projects or periods of time. The press wouldn't let him get away with it. The fact that Helen Thomas (of ALL people!) identified and expressed shock at the Obama Administration's behavior is a sign that it's not business as usual -- not normal political hardball, but a crossing of the Rubicon -- because it's become policy.

Obama's Administration has determined that anyone who doesn't cooperate gets locked out. The press is already half-willing to let this happen. They're addicted. If they don't have that constant hourly news-feed, they can't feed the people. So they're at Obama's mercy, to a point. Obama's feeling his way with this, and if we allow him to get away with it, there is a serious possibility it could morph into a de facto loss of freedom of the press. State control of the mass media, even if there's no way they can control alternative or web media.

But just wait... Obama's reputed to be working on ways to control web media, too! And conservative radio! And if he has those, he's got mass media AND alternative media under state control. Very dangerous, even if it seems "natural" to trained media professionals like you and me who've become inured to hardball politics.

...


Then, David posted this thoughtful link to a Newsbusters story:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-philbin/2009/10/21/morning-joe-fox-feud-administration-really-playing-rest-media

A great exchange, all around!

EDIT (additional thoughts from me, on this point):

I'm reminded of how things have changed in the Senate, with regard to court appointments.

Time was, the President's nominees to the federal bench, Supreme Court or otherwise, received 100 out of 100 votes. To see otherwise was an exception to the rule.

The way they were to be judged was on the basis of whether they were qualified. Whether or not the senator agreed with the nominee on political issues was NOT to be the basis for determining a yes or no vote. That just wasn't done, as the court was meant to be non-factional and non-partisan (though that was a polite fiction, starting even from the early days of the Republic).

With the most obvious exception of Felix Frankfurter, I believe, in FDR's time, this was the way the Senate operated up until about Pres. Reagan's time (if there are previous signal examples, I'm not aware of them). It was then, with nominees like Bork and Thomas, when the Democrats first inserted political aims into the nomination process, and they've kept it up ever since (and the Republicans have joined in, after the fact, though to hear the media talk the Republicans started it).

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I don't think the non-partisan process did Republicans any good. Look at O'Connor, and the fact that 90% of GOP appointees to the federal bench are pro-abortion, and not very conservative in any respect. I believe judges should be chosen not because they are "qualified" (i.e. can apply precedent and follow process -- that's a system that has ill served champions of justice and truth), but because they have the courage to choose rightly what will serve justice. But that's beside the point for this discussion.

I mention this example here simply because it's analogous -- this was "standard ethical practice" in government, up until someone was willing to violate the process and insert politics into a supposedly non-political system. Obama has now taken this same step in his relationship to the news media. "Pay to Play" so to speak.

Hype - Starring Barack Obama

Citizens United strikes again - one of my favorite conservative watchdog groups has produced another expose on an enemy of freedom. This time, Barack Obama.

The movie "Hype" is an exhaustive and effective piece of anti-Obama documentary research which is ahead of its time (in that not much research has been done until now!).

I'm pleased and flattered to be able to say that I was able to be present for the "World Premiere" of Hype this Sunday afternoon (the producer admitted he'd never even seen it on the big screen before then)! I must wholeheartedly thank our friend Jill Stanek (pro-life nurse and blogger -- see her incredible story!) for gaining access for me and my wife to see this! Also, thank you to the people who hosted the Premiere, which included Citizens United, and elements of the Colorado Republican Party (officially or not).

Now, first let me say I'm not exactly John McCain's fanboy. In fact, I'm supporting Alan Keyes, rather than stoop so low as to vote for a man who 1) admits on live TV that he believes human life begins at conception, but 2) is still defiantly supporting taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research which will kill already-conceived human beings! Why should conservatives vote for him? Out of fear? Please.

I hesitate to criticize the candidate likely supported by Citizens United, except that I'm not so certain they support him... Check out "Surprisingly Liberal", by Citizens United!

For these reasons and others, I agree with WorldNetDaily.com editor Joseph Farah, who believes McCain may be a greater danger to the conservative movement than Barack Obama. Obama could be the Clinton or the Carter of the day, who is unable to accomplish the worst of his agenda, all the while energizing the conservative base to put up a Reaganesque figure to oppose him in four years.

But that's beside the point -- back to the review...

The movie made light of Obama's "rock star" qualities -- his embarrassing celebrity popularity, upon which he's ridden much of his way along the path to the Democrat nomination for president. One laugh line in the show was a clip of Stephen Colbert telling Larry King about the power of Obama's passing the "Hope Bong" around.

But Hype was more than mere hype, itself. It mixed studious and damning research with a parade of white and Black conservative leaders explaining who Obama is, and analyzing where he's "coming from," both as a Black man and a socialist-leaning hyper-liberal. Featured guests included Jill Stanek, who told about her experience with Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (he was the only Democrat in the whole Illinois State Senate to oppose it, and even Hillary Clinton, Ed Kennedy and Barbara Boxer voted for it in the US Senate!). Other figures we know and respect include Ken Blackwell, Shelby Steele, Dick Morris and Jerome Corsi among many others.

The movie hit many points. Obama is an elitist, who lives in a million-dollar mansion. He sounds like he's for the little guy, and for reform, but his record is just the opposite. He's in the pocket of liberal special interests. He's a lazy dilettante who would rather make political points than get the job done. In other words, he's a typical politician. Ho hum -- good information, but nothing new.

But then it gets into the more exciting points which might surprise many Democrats and Republicans alike!

Foreign policy, of course, is key in this day and age. Biden can't hide this man's deficiencies on this. The movie pointed out Obama's gaffes, such as Katie Couric making him look like a fool for refusing to support the "Surge" in Iraq even after it proved its worth (if Obama can make Couric look like a pro-war heckler...). Obama's statements that he would meet with all America's most hateful enemies were foolish, which seems even more clear after they deconstruct his excuse that Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did the same thing (the movie examines how each of the cited presidential summits were of entirely a different character than what Obama proposes, and reminds us that Kennedy admitted Khrushchev "manhandled" him because he wasn't prepared for their meeting!).

And we all know about Obama's connections with some of the wide-eyed radicals of the anti-American, anti-white, anti-Christian religious sectors: Jeremiah Wright, Rev. Fleger, Louis Farrakhan, etc. Not new news, but startling, nonetheless, for a "mainstream" presidential candidate! The movie details these connections, and Obama's hypocrisy.

But perhaps more shocking were some of the associations Obama has had over the years. He's hired a known corruption figure to do his fundraising, whose dirty career even landed him in jail. Bill Ayers is apparently a close associate of Obama's who once upon a time worked with the anarchist Weather Underground (the "Weathermen") terrorist group. There are other connections which a wise politician would have carefully avoided, but Obama's ties to them are clear, and he even seems to have a hard time admitting they're not ordinary.

But we've dealt with corrupt politicians before. What sets Obama apart from, say, Bill Clinton (yes, even Bill Clinton!) is the extremity of his politics and the passion with which he pursues! The movie explains one of his early jobs was as a radical grassroots organizer, and how he used radical, socialistic and even anarchist handbooks on which to model his early political efforts. He's unapologetically followed some of the most ridiculously anti-freedom trains of thought in American politics, and many of his Democrat colleagues rightly think him crazy, and left-of-left.

The worst of the examples given is the one we started with. Obama's unwillingness to compromise on his support for abortion even so far as to allow a living human baby to live! Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act represents a horrifying belief that the abortionist should be allowed to chase an innocent human baby around on the operating table with a knife!!!

Obama tries to cover for his sins, and even to use faux-Christian gestures to fool evangelicals and mainstreamers into supporting him. But he is no "mean" (average) politician. He is a dangerous anti-American socialist who would try to impose the most sweeping anti-Freedom measures we've ever seen proposed. A frightening man, to be sure. And that's even without delving into conspiracy theories.

This movie, Hype, is worth seeing, and worth showing your friends! It's long, but that's because there's lots to say. We do not want this man as our next president. It would be a disaster. But still....

Is that reason enough to "vote for the lesser of two evils" -- for the least worse of two possible disasters? My feeling -- No. For lots of reasons.

Cast a principled vote which will empower the conservative movement by sending a message to future parties and future leaders. Otherwise we are just asking to be ignored.

Watch the movie, though! Be not fearful, but be informed!