Article: "Overall, Obama is spending about 12 percent more for his communications operation than Bush-$4.97 million compared with $4.44 million."

If I was teaching journalist, articles which contain numbers without context would be seriously marked down.

Oh come on Eric, it's not like the White House is preventing the press from reporting on a story, they're just not inviting them over to talk about it.

hmmm.

During a presidential campaign, there's no such thing as over-sharing. Barack Obama promised to run the most transparent White House in history

I don’t condemn the administration for attempting to control the message unless they try it through something like the fairness doctrine or using government agencies outside of the White House to punish those who they can’t control.

Who owns NBC, again?

nless, of course, it is your goal to make a direct connection between the president and the apparatchiks in Beijing...gee, indeed...

Just remarking on the similarities...

And this administration wanting to control the message, just like every other administration that preceded it is so shocking in what way? Unless, of course, it is your goal to make a direct connection between the president and the apparatchiks in Beijing...gee, indeed...

And this administration wanting to control the message, just like every other administration that preceded it is so shocking in what way? Unless, of course, it is your goal to make a direct connection between the president and the apparatchiks in Beijing...gee, indeed...

I fail to see how not giving the Administration's side of the story to the press, somehow means that the press will only report the Administration's side of the story.

So, while the White House spending nearly $5 million in taxpayer dollars for propaganda seems outrageous on its face, it’s essentially par for the course. Presumably, the increase is a combination of cost-of-living adjustments and a reallocation of staff from other areas to communications. After all, Congress controls presidential spending on staff.

More troubling: Glover notes that the new communications team has managed to bypass the already Obama-friendly press on numerous occasions, including staged “town hall” meetings with preselected guests and even disinviting the press entirely from mundane events like photo-ops with championship sports teams, preferring to produce their own videos for release on the Web.

Hmmmm.

How to Quash a Protest - Step Two: Conrtol the message.

Gee.

Whose fault is that? The MSM have been caught telling lies and promoting agendas often and often without shame. They have even been caught using phony documents and pictures. They slant their coverage without any questioning of the ethics in doing so and give such lame excuses such as “it is what the public wants”.

It should and could. It seems clear to me that politicians have responded many times to events documented in the press. There ares till occasional investigative pieces. I think to be a little fair to the press, we should acknowledge that hit pieces sell better than real reporting. It is also probably a lot harder to sell news now that half of the population will disbelieve anything you say no matter how well documented.

Steve

Just curious, how much did Woodward and Bernstein learn from official briefings? Journalism as an investigative discipline is almost dead.

Agreed, if the press can't act as a check on the government without having access to photo ops with championship sports teams, then the press can't act as a check on the government period.

How much of the information the press used to hammer Bush was given to them at press conferences? He didn't exactly break the news about torture, wiretaps and rendition to them.

Joyner, you cock-eyed optimist.

In hindsight, "quite possible" is a stretch. Perhaps "not totally inconceivable" or "within the realm of possibility" would have been more accurate.

Then decide how well the word "propaganda" really fits, above.