If we allow the Media to Fool us again; then we really are Fools!

[FrenchieCat]

The media doesn't have President Barack Obama's best interest at heart.
The media doesn't have Senator Hillary Clinton's best interest at heart
The media doesn't have Governor Bill Richardson's best interest at heart
The media doesn't have Senator John Kerry's best interest at heart.

But most importantly of all, The media doesn't have the American people's best interest at heart.

In otherwords, believe and react based on media speculations if you will,
but that doesn't do anything but establish that you are a Fool,
willing to believe anything and nothing more.

Just sayin'. :shrug:

[bdamomma]

1. thanks FrenchieCat!!

for your advice, I do not trust the media at all, they have never had our best interests at heart.

just turn them off or e-mail the media to stop their BS we are NOT buying into their insaneness.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Again.....those who trust the media will be the ones burned.

They also sold us the Iraq War.
They also sold us that Bush was a "hero" of 9/11, and that 9/11 was Clinton's fault.
They also didn't stop talking about Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers when they knew the truth.
They also didn't stop talking about Democratic Convention Havoc.
They also were "impressed" by Sarah Palin.
They also didn't dig up the dirt on John McCain.
They also allowed John Kerry to be Swiftboated.
They also attempted to sell us on a Bradley Effect that never existed in the first place.

In otherwords,
Why believe these assholes now? :shrug:

[Barack_America]

2. They lost me with McCain.

I could buy that Obama is considering Hillary for SOS. I would disagree with him if she's a serious contender, but I could buy that he's thinking about it.

But now Mitchell's newest scoop is "McCain for Obama's cabinet"? Bitch, please. Obama clearly knows that McCain is an expert on nothing. Now I know that Mitchell is just making shit up.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Bitch, please! That would be something that the Press Secretary could say....

in my fantasies! :rofl:

[Arkansas Granny]

3. Thank you. I can hardly believe some of the things I'm reading today based on media

rumor and speculations. I thought we had gotten our fill of being jerked around by the media, but apparently I was wrong.

[PretzelWarrior]

4. hey, I like your "Change" graphic. I applied for a job with him

the email I got yesterday to the second longer app was cool. It took me about 20 minutes to fill out the many pages online. It is just fun to see a real administration getting off the ground.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Good luck with getting a job with them. That would be exciting! n/t

[FrenchieCat]

5. Types of news leaks

Leaks are often made by employees of an organization who happened to have access to interesting information but who are not officially authorized to disclose it to the press. They may believe that doing so is in the public interest due to the need for speedy publication, because it otherwise would not have been made public, or simply as self-promotion, to elevate the leaker as a person of importance. Leaks can be intentional or unintentional. A leaker may be doing the journalist a personal favor (possibly in exchange for future cooperation), or simply wishes to disseminate secret information in order to affect the news. The latter type of leak is often made anonymously.

Sometimes partial information is released to the media off the record in advance of a press release to "prepare" the press or the public for the official announcement. This may also be intended to allow journalists more time to prepare more extensive coverage, which can then be published immediately after the official release. This technique is designed to maximize the impact of the announcement. It might be considered an element of political 'spin', or news management.

Some people who leak information to the media are seeking to manipulate coverage. Cloaking information in secrecy may make it seem more valuable to journalists, and anonymity reduces the ability of others to cross-check or discredit the information.

Some leaks are made in the open - for example, politicians who (whether inadvertently or otherwise) disclose classified or confidential information while speaking to the press.


Reasons for leaks
Politicians and policy-makers may wish to judge the reaction of the public to their plans before committing (a trial balloon). Leaked information may be plausibly denied without blame for proposed unpopular measures affecting their perpetrators.

People with access to confidential information may find it to their advantage to make it public, without themselves appearing to be responsible for publishing the information. For example, information which will embarrass political opponents, or cause damage to national security, may be leaked.

People privy to secret information about matters which they consider to be morally wrong or against the public interest — often referred to as "whistleblowers" — may leak the information.

Consequences
One famous example of a leak with disastrous consequences is the May Incident of World War II.

In that case, U.S. submarines had been conducting a successful undersea war against Japanese shipping during World War II, frequently escaping Japanese anti-submarine depth charge attacks. The deficiencies of Japanese depth-charge tactics were revealed in a press conference held by U.S. Congressman Andrew J. May, a ranking member of the House Military Affairs Committee who had visited the Pacific theater and received many confidential intelligence and operational briefings. At a June, 1943 press conference, May revealed that American submarines had a high survivability rate because Japanese depth charges were fused to explode at too shallow a depth. Various press associations sent this leaked news story over their wires, compounding the disaster, and many newspapers (including one in Honolulu, Hawaii), thoughtlessly published it.

Soon, Japanese forces were resetting their depth charges to explode at a more effective average depth of 250 feet. Vice Admiral Charles A. Lockwood, commander of the U.S. submarine fleet in the Pacific, later estimated that May's revelation cost the United States Navy as many as ten submarines and 800 crewmen lost in action.<1>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_leak

[Skwmom]

6. I think the biggest fools are those who blindly follow and try to stifle

any dissent or concerns. Blindly supporting someone doesn't really serve that person well or this nation.

Plus, aren't some things leaked as trial balloons. So are we supposed to just sit back and let the final choice be made BEFORE we really let people know what they think. Wouldn't that negate the purpose of a trial balloon? I'll be interested in reading your thoughts on this matter b/c I really do enjoy reading your posts.

[FrenchieCat]

8. I'm just saying that if one simply believes the press without questioning intent,

than one is a fool.

In reference to the stifling of anything, who on earth are you talking about?
And who is blindly "following" anyone?

I ask these questions because you are clearly attempting to say something more than I.

I believe that we have all had enough experience with the media to understand that whatever they say,
is not to be taken as fact, per se.

That was my only point.

Your point appears to be something else again.

[Skwmom]

12. But isn't it hard to know what is a trial balloon and what is media "manipulation" or gossip, or

whatever you want to call it?

I think trial balloons serve a purpose. Imagine if a controversial pick is made without a trial balloon? Then once this pick is made certain groups will be up in arms and this will be reported on 24/7 by the media. For example, if Obama was considering Clinton for SOD, a trial balloon would be a great idea b/c the outrage by many in the military if he made that appointment would be huge.

My other point: Some people on this board seem to think that we should just agree 100% with any of Obama's actions (like many of the right-wing did with Bush). I think that type of 100% support is not good for Obama or this country. He says he doesn't want to be surrounded by yes men so why would he want to be surrounded by yes supporters? Healthy debate has always served this country well. The Bush administration always tried to silence any dissenting voice as Un-American. Are we to silence anyone who disagrees with Obama as Undemocratic or a Right-Winger? I was just asking for your input on this matter.

No offense was intended.

I do agree that one should always question the intent of the press.

[FrenchieCat]

13. I agree with some of what you say.....

However, I believe in giving any individual a chance, i.e., benefit of the doubt.

After 8 years of suffering under the hands of the Bush Administration, it is only fair that we allow Barack Obama a bit of breathing room prior to making judgement as to what's what......simply because he is our guy. In otherwords, I will have something to say about actions, when actions actually happen.

[Skwmom]

15. But if we wait until he takes those actions what purpose will our

voicing our disagreement really serve? Isn't it better to disagree during the decision making process, then try to get behind him once the decision is made (even if it wasn't the decision you wanted)?

I do agree that he deserves some breathing room. I just hope he uses he relies on his OWN judgment and doesn't get derailed by the Washington Insiders.

[FrenchieCat]

17. How can we have disagreements about action not yet taken?

One might have opinions and want to make suggestions...but
Disagreeing with what has not yet happened seems premature, IMO.

I will say that I do understand the sentiment and the temptation though....considering that we have had an administration for the last 8 years that even prior to a move being made,
could be assured to be the worse move possible.

So sure, I understand why one might entertain disagreeing with what has not yet happened.
I just think we need to fight that feeling....because that is only fair to the person that
we voted for.

[Skwmom]

14. Self-delete. Double post.

[AspenRose]

9. Wow

:wow:

[FrenchieCat]

11. Waiting for your response on this......

As I know you have a lot to say......

[Born_A_Truman]

25. Tell Obama What You Think

The story of the campaign and this historic moment has been your story. Share your story and your ideas, and be part of bringing positive lasting change to this country.

http://www.change.gov/page/s/yourvision

That's the link to tell him your opinion. I doubt he has time to read DU for opinions. He has provided a link to do it, so if you feel strongly about something, let him know.

[MISSDem]

16. Maybe this underlines the good that may come from President Obama

having the "web based" administration that I read about in the paper yesterday. It would allow them to bypass the media a lot of the time.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Bi-passing the media is certainly the way to go.

Because believing the media leave one uniformed, misinformed, and disinformed.

[firedupdem]

20. Agree 100%...also, I may not be as knowledgeable as others

but I don't see the reason for worrying about his appointments at this time. I wouldn't have voted for someone that I didn't think was wise enough to appoint the people he determines would do the best job in his administration.

[FrenchieCat]

21. I just think many of us have PTSAB syndrome......

Post Traumatic Stress after Bush Syndrome.

[always_saturday]

22. The media has never fooled me.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Kewl!

There are many of us who will swear that the media has never fooled them......while many fail to notice the divisive communications right here at DU due to those who want Kerry vs. those who want Hillary vs. those who want Richardson.

Seem like a primary all over again....and it is based on what the Media is reporting, not what the Obama campaign is reporting.

[amborin]

23. totally agree

it's good idea to read foreign publications also on a daily basis

[TheKentuckian]

26. I don't see the hyperventilating over potential choices

Some may be more or less optimal but not a person mentioned from anything approaching a credible source is more than qualified for the positions they are being mentioned for. For an example, I understand that any of Clinton, Kerry, or Richardson would bake a formidable SoS. The focus on politics for non-political positions is somewhat bewildering as well. I don't love Emanuel's politics but I know he is potentially a top caliber Chief of Staff. I really don't care for many of the views of Larry Summers but I realize he's a bright guy that knows about money, is well respected by people in the sector, and would have little if any impact on social and foreign policy (though I hope we get someone else for sure, I understand he is well qualified).

I trust Obama and Biden to set the direction as well as all of the people mentioned to be capable. Those are huge wins to my mind. As long as you don't have infighting and a bunch of renegades then good and productive things will happen. I've heard neither hacks nor a single dimwit floated. We'll have solid and plausibly spectacular leadership over our Executive Branch departments.

I strongly believe of course that McCain has no place because he's not very capable but he can be leaned on the add his influence to some issues in the Senate, which plays into his Maverick label and gives us a vote from time to time.