Posted by CrabbyCon on June 16, 2009 · Leave a Comment
The Adoring Barack Coverage is the new name for ABC – it certainly isn’t American Broadcasting, since they leave out at least half of America when they bow at the feet of their new cult icon, Obama.
Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson will be live at the event, which will begin dramatically in the East Room of the White House and move over to the Blue Room. ABC will take questions from a “live” audience, although these questions will all be pre-selected and under the complete discretion of the network. Unfortunately, this network has long since become an arm of the Democratic Party – and any independent thinker is able to see that ABC continues to have a slobbering love affair (as Bernie Goldberg puts it) with the new president.
This adulation of the president is like nothing I have ever seen before, and it is quickly becoming much like a cult following. I don’t think that using the term kool-aid in reference to Jim Jones is all that far fetched.
ABC will take questions in regards to the health-care program that Obama is trying to push through Congress which, much to his chagrin, is being criticized by members of his own party who are questioning the timing and dire need for the reforms he is currently proposing.
I have never in my young years seen a media outlet act on behalf of a president; paralleling more of what you would see out of communist Russia and Pravda, than a Republic like the United States.
This is an obvious attempt to try and help the President get his agenda through and I’m sure the questions asked will try to persuade and use propaganda on the American public. I can guarantee that there will be several “heart wrenching” stories about individuals without health-care taken out of context.
The RNC has come out complaining about this blatant act of bias towards one party over the other and in particular one individual; Barack Obama:
Dear Mr. Westin:
As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.
Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party’s opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.
In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.
Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff
I would think that the American public would want to hear both sides of the issue and they have every right to have questions asked of both parties that are difficult (not softball-like). Granted the station is boring, but C-Span does this already if you watch what takes place inside the House and Senate. Why do we need another network attempting to change peoples’ minds? Since Obama is meeting a lot of opposition on both sides of the aisle, is this a gesture from ABC to try and swoop in to save him? This type of media bias makes me sick to my stomach.
Here is how ABC responded to the RNC’s letter.
“ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers — of all political persuasions — even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.
“ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience.”
The whole notion that ABC is deciding what is being asked is scary enough. We all saw how Charlie Gibson disrespectfully interviewed Sarah Palin and how he and Diane Sawyer drooled all over Barack Obama.
I hope somebody checks to see if this is an FCC violation. I’m sure there is more to come.
What is that song the Spice Girls sang? “When two become one“
Share on Facebook
Filed under Double Standards, Fairness Doctrine, Health care, Legislation, Media, Obama · Tagged with ABC, Adoring Barack Coverage, Charlie Gibson, Diane Sawyer, Double Standards, FCC, Health care, Media, Media Bias, Obama
Posted by CrabbyCon on May 4, 2009 · 1 Comment
Ok – I just felt like being sarcastic and reporting on some “non” news… Looks like the Supreme Court and the rest of the government is really busy working on things that really make a difference!
The Supreme Court is ordering a federal appeals court to re-examine its ruling in favor of CBS Corp. over Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction.
The court Monday directed the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia to consider reinstating the $550,000 fine that the Federal Communications Commission imposed on CBS over Ms. Jackson’s breast-baring performance at the 2004 Super Bowl.
Last year, the appeals court threw out the fine against CBS, saying the FCC strayed from its long-held approach of applying identical standards to words and images when reviewing complaints of indecency.
The appellate court said the incident lasted nine-sixteenths of one second and should have been regarded as “fleeting.”
But last week, the Supreme Court narrowly upheld the FCC’s policy threatening fines on so-called fleeting expletives on live television.
(FCC v. CBS Corp.)
However, this next ruling that recently took place at the Supreme Court is not so positive and is important. The court’s ruling in identity theft for illegal or undocumented workers gives them more protection. They are not held accountable for identity theft if there is no proof that they knew they were using somebody’s social security number… I’m not sure how there wouldn’t be proof – if you are an illegal immigrant you should know that you do not have a social security number and therefore, you are aware that you are stealing someone else’s identity.
Also on Monday, the Supreme Court limited federal prosecutors’ use of an identity-theft law against undocumented workers with phony identification numbers, including many who had been picked up in immigration raids.
A unanimous court said the law that Congress adopted in 2004 to crack down on identity thieves requires that prosecutors be able to prove that defendants knew they were using ID numbers that belonged to real people.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court, said intent is often easy to prove in what he called classic identity theft: “Where a defendant has used another person’s information to get access to that person’s bank account, the government can prove knowledge with little difficulty,” Justice Breyer said.
But, as in the case decided Monday, prosecutors have been using the law against workers who needed false documents to obtain employment. The government argued that prosecutors do not have to offer any proof that a defendant knew the identification belonged to someone else and wasn’t simply made up. The high court rejected that argument.
There was no evidence that Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa, an undocumented worker from Mexico, knew that he was using Social Security and alien registration numbers that belonged to others when he was arrested in 2006. Mr. Flores-Figueroa, while acknowledging he used false documents, appealed his conviction on the identity-theft charge.
(Flores-Figueroa v. U.S.)
Share on Facebook
Posted by CrabbyCon on May 2, 2009 · Leave a Comment
The FCC will hold a panel discussion entitled media diversity that will consist of 31 media and liberal grievance groups. The not so surprising thing to all of us will be the lack of representative of conservative outlets and radio programs. Not one conservative group will be represented in this commission; (media diversity?)
The gathering will take play next week, Thursday, May 7, 2009.
Chairing the meeting is Henry Rivera, a former FCC Commissioner who was (and presumably still is) a strong proponent of the Censorship Doctrine, also mis-known as the “Fairness” Doctrine.
Many, many liberals in Washington have over the last several years called for a reinstatement of the Doctrine. But push-back from people who have read and actually understand the First Amendment led the Left to realize that the political price to bring it back was too high, so they MovedOn.org.
Of course, their desire to silence the lone voices of their opposition had not lessened in the slightest. They’re still just as dictatorial, just pragmatically so.

Take a look at the Commission:
Henry Rivera (Chair); Emma Bowen Foundation for Minority Interests in Media
Barbara Kreisman (Designated Federal Officer); Federal Communications Commission
Jamila Bess Johnson (Deputy Federal Officer); Federal Communications Commission
Carolyn Fleming Williams (Deputy Federal Officer); Federal Communications Commission
Raúl Alarcon, Jr.; Spanish Broadcasting System
Jenny Alonzo; Mio.TV
James M. Assey, Jr.; National Cable and Telecommunications Association
Geoffrey C. Blackwell; Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc.
Matthew Blank; Showtime Networks
Maria E. Brennan; American Women in Radio and Television
Kathy Brown; Verizon
Toni Cook Bush; Virgin Mobile
Alan B. Davidson; Google, Inc.
Ralph de la Vega; AT&T Mobility and Consumer Markets
Steve Hillard; Council Tree Communications
David Honig; Minority Media and Telecommunications Council
Rodney Hood; National Credit Union Administration
Ronald Johnson; Ronson Network Services
Debra Lee; BET Holdings, Inc.
Jane Mago; National Association of Broadcasters
Robert Mendez; ABC Television Network
Marc H. Morial; National Urban League
Karen K. Narasaki; Asian American Justice Center
Melissa Newman; Qwest
Jake Oliver; Afro-American Newspapers
Susan K. Patrick; Patrick Communications
Lisa Pickrum; The RLJ Companies
Rey Ramsey; One Economy Corporation
Michael V. Roberts; Roberts Broadcasting Companies LLC
Andrew Schwartzman; Media Access Project
Anita Stephens; Graham Opportunity Capital Partners
Diane Sutter; Shooting Star Broadcasting
Charles Warfield; Inner City Broadcasting
James Winston; National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters
For those that might want to call and express outrage:
http://www.fcc.gov/
Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322)
TTY: 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322)
Fax: 1-866-418-0232
E-mail: fccinfo@fcc.gov
And it’s not just our imagination – it’s also our lying eyes. The Center for American Progress is a left-wing hack outfit headed by former Clinton Administration and Obama Transition Team adviser John Podesta. And they released on January 22, 2007 a report entitled “Local Media Diversity Matters – Measure Media Diversity According to Democratic Values, Not Market Values.”
I have warned previously that liberals will pass legislation that sounds Utopian and wonderful because of its clever language, but it means something else entirely.
I am all for diversity and equality, so let’s make it real easy and put the same amount of air time on for each opinion on all radio stations and media outlets… This FCC rule would force one side off the air – how constitutional/sarc!
The broadcast license is of course a station’s lifeblood; take it away, or make it impossible to meet the regulatory obligations to keep it, and they are literally out of business. The Left, no longer comfortable with trying the top-down, all-out assault that is the “Fairness” Doctrine, intends instead to silence conservative and Christian talk via this broadcast license manipulation.
If they can succeed in making it impossible for talk radio to operate as a business, talk radio will cease to operate. Leftist problem solved.

Share on Facebook
Filed under Constitution, Double Standards, Legislation, Media, Obama, Obama Administration · Tagged with Constitution, Double Standards, fairness doctrine, FCC, freedom of speech, Freedom of the Press, Liberal Agenda, Media Bias, Media Diversity, Obama, Obama Administration, Podesta, Unconstitutional