It's hard for the GOP to get used to normal press relations after eight years of Pravda.

As manufactured controversies go, this is just nuts.

I respectfully disagree. It's not nuts at all. It's a carefully calculated strategy to inflame their mouthbreathing base and to put pressure on ABC to be "tough" on Obama.

and what the F**k has Faux news been for the Republican Party and George Bush .The took their news feed and talking points from the RNC for 8 years The irony meter just ran off the scale.

Fine, let them (ABC) be "tough" on Obama. He will be able to respond in like.

I can appreciate the "working the refs" dynamic, but this is [one of this is](sic) hardly grounds for another Republican tantrum.

sorry, you are wrong: nothing short of Fox's "fair and balanced" coverage prevents Republican tantrums.

Hey Karl... Not that it's gonna happen, but the Fairness Doctrine would take care of this nicely. See? No pissing and moaning. You could go back to being a turd blossom.

There was a golden era, long ago in my youth, when - while we all were fierce partisans during the campaign -- we accepted the President (as opposed to the candidate) as being the Head of State, not merely head of one of the parties.

The only way one can possibly complain about a TV network having the President of the United States on to discuss an issue of National Importance is if one sees it as creating a partisan imbalance. (Maybe the RNC should reconsider the Fairness Doctrine?) But Obama is not going on ABC as a Democrat, he is going on as The President.

The problem the Republicans now scream about is thoroughly one of their own making, what with Mr. Atwater and Mr. Rove and the invention of the "permanent campaign" with the openly stated goal of a "permanent majority." To the fiercely partisan, there are no Presidents of the United States, just Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents.

makes me a little sad, really.

If you piss and moan frequently enough, it will be believed.

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed. -- A. Hitler

Rove is a poo-poo head.

Come on, haven't you figured out the Karl Rove SOP by now. You take whatever you've done that you'd rather forget or hide away and you blame it on the other guy. That way, when you are criticized for politicizing policy, or spilling state secrets for political gain, or corrupting the media, or turning the Justice Department into an arm of your own political party, or whatever you can escape blame by making it universal. One pillar of the Karl Rove strategy is to turn the other guys strengths into a weakness. The other pillar is to turn your own weaknesses into strengths by spreading the blame.

I can appreciate the "working the refs" dynamic, but this is one of this is hardly grounds for another Republican tantrum.

The only "grounds" they have for any of their tantrums are whether it works. (Not whether the target completely caves, but whether they adjust their behavior to respond to the bogus "criticism.") It remains to be seen whether that happens in this case. If ABC is simply "tough" journalistically, that's fine. If they're "tough" in the sense of framing every followup in terms of the critics' perspective, then the wingnuts will have succeeded, no matter how transparenly silly their tactics.

kc is right. This is a carefully thought-out strategy to put pressure on ABC to be "tough", and it will undoubtedly work. Totally hypocritical, of course, but effective.

Unfortunately, among mainstream media television outlets, virtually all except Fox aspire to at least the appearance of fairness and balance; that's why this strategy will work. Only Fox is indifferent to balance.

Steve, surely you know Karl is not "confused" - he knows just what he's doing, for propaganda purposes. Please, act like you know, more often.

I'm very confused. Is Rove calling for the Fairness Doctrine?

Remember how Lee Atwater spent the last days of his life apologizing to the people he had said all those horrible things? I wonder what Rove would do if he found out he had only a few months left?

I've thought about it. No doubt in my mind that he'd crank it up even more.

ABC'S NEWS STAFF LIBERAL BIAS IS EVIDENT IN IT'S REPORTING WHICH SHOWS A PREDOMINANCE OF FAVORABLE NEWS CASTS ON PRESIDENT OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE REFORM. MOREOVER, ABC NEWS REPORTERS HAVE CONTRIBUTED MORE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ELECTION BY A TEN TO ONE MARGIN CLEARLY SHOWING THE LOP SIDED LIBERAL BIAS OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEIR REPORTERS. NOW ABC IS DEDICATING A WHOLE SERIES OF SHOWS THAT ARE NOTHING MORE THAN INFOMERCIALS THAT PROMOTE PRESIDENT OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE REFORM. THIS TYPE OF LIBERAL BIAS PUTS THE NATION AT RISK IN TERMS OF GETTING AN UNBIAS PICTURE OF BOTH SIDES OF THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.

ABC AND OTHER MAIN STREAM MEDIA HAS A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO THEIR AUDIENCE TO REPRESENT THEIR BEST INTERESTS BY REPORTING FACTUAL NEWS CASTS OF BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE. THE FCC NEEDS TO INVESTIGATE THE OBVIOUS BIAS OF ABC AND TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO STOP ABC FROM AIRING IT'S BIAS INFOMERCIAL WHOSE SOLE PURPOSE IS TO PROMOTE PRESIDENT OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE REFORM PROPOSAL.

Whoa! Newby online.

Jackass != Newby

Timothy, that's "lopsided." Where did you cut and paste that propantiganda from, anyway? Tacky all caps to boot. Couldn't you say anything at all on your own?

Tigershark, There is a difference between Opinion shows that openly declare their bias and News Agencies like ABC who report the News while claiming to be neutral. If ABC has turned into an opinion show than be upfront about it and let the public know what their bias is instead of trying to fool the public into thinking they are unbias.

BTW, does Timothy realize that Faux "News" is almost entirely one continuously running infomercial for the Republican Party and other conservative interests? Timothy, shouldn't the FCC investigate Fox and especially the fraud exercised by their use of the slogan "Fair and balanced"? How about Fox's "fiduciary responsibilities," little boy?

Because there is "no less a figure than Karl Rove..."

Both ABC and Fox exist to propagandize the American people in furtherance of the ruthless, relentless, rapacious class warfare of the ultra-rich corporate oligarchy against everyone else. The only real difference is that they have different target audiences, and tailor their propaganda accordingly.

If you watch & listen to the corporate-owned media, you will see and hear corporate propaganda.

To expect anything else is foolish.

NeilB, Typical lefty who name calls instead of addressing the issues. By the way, I did not cut and paste anything, those are my own words and they were put in caps to get your attention. So instead of sounding like a typical lefty who name calls (due to the fact he or she is not intelligent enough to respond to the issues), please address the below points:

1) What number of ABC news casts have been favorable to President Obama's health care reform plans?
Answer: A study released Thursday by the Business & Media Institute (BMI) found that since Inauguration Day, ABC has aired news stories with positive reviews of Mr. Obama's health care policy 55 times, compared with 18 times when the network highlighted negative reviews.

2)How many dollars have ABC news reporters contributed to President Obama's election as compared to McCain?
Answer: According to an analysis of campaign donations by the Center for Responsive Politics, conducted at The Times' request, ABC employees in several divisions donated $124,421 to the Obama campaign, compared with $1,550 to the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain.

3) Is ABC allowing any opposing views a voice on their Health Care Reform show?

Answer: No

ABC might as well be employees of President Obama and are failing in their fiduciary responsibility to the public by being so in the tank for President Obama and his proposals like health care.

I'm sorry, you were thinking that there is anything that Republicans would consider to be "not grounds for another tantrum?" Silly rabbit...

Rove & Co. just never expected this sort of journalism to be turned against them - remember, Unkle Karl bragged about ushering in a permanent Republican majority that would reduce the opposition to reluctant cheerleaders. However, when the situation is what it is, you hedge it the best way you can. Implying that the White House is stifling dissent is about the most effective lemonade they can make out of this, and it probably helps that the uncritical true believers are all on the same side. Still, I can't see them achieving a great deal except working up the base to an even greater pitch of fury.

N e i l B, I watch Fox News and the news shows have an equal representation of both sides of the issues. If you look at who are Fox News On the air contributors you will see that Fox News has at least 50% liberals like juan williams,Kirsten Powers and Alan Colmes to name a few. Unlike ABC which is dominated by the left as demonstrated by the large amount of contributions ABC reporters have given to President Obama's campaign. So if you are really interested in getting both sides of the issue, Fox is the place to go. Plus Fox is up front about where their biases lie unlike ABC and the rest of the MSM

Tim Tim Tim.
1. You haven't addressed whether they were objective or not - if the the proposal elements reported on are objectively good - why should the coverage reflect that?

2. Employees in several divisions does not equal reporters - if you could give us a breakdown of how many of them were reporters and/or writers, we could assess the validity of your complaints. Simply assuming they're all reporters is foolish.

3. So what? They didn't allow any opposing views on George and Dick's Mesopotamian adventure. BFD.

Timothy, you ignorant slut.

You devalue what there is of your arguments when you say stupid stuff.

Like "ABC...are failing in their fiduciary responsibility to the public." Leaving aside the grammatical errors ("ABC are"), ABC has a "fiduciary responsibility" (hint: look it up) to their stockholders, not to their audience.

Like equating "ABC news reporters" to "ABC employees in several divisions" and expecting us not to notice that these are almost certainly not the same people. Or your implication that "news reporters" decide what goes on the air (another hint: they don't).

But it could be that a network other than Fox would air "news stories with positive reviews of Mr. Obama's health care policy" (whatever "positive" means as defined by the right-wing and intellectually bankrupt BMI) because it is a very popular proposal. The Diageo/Hotline poll from June 7, 2009 shows that 62% of Americans support "Congress and the President enacting a major overhaul of the U.S. health care system" (28% oppose, all employes of BMI). 62% of Americans in a CNN poll from 5/17/2009 think that "the federal government should guarantee health care for all Americans."

Source: Polling Report

BTW, if the media were so liberal, you wouldn't think that they'd always be talking DOWN single-payer health care as they do.

Timothy, OK I accept you didn't cut and paste and since I can't find it elsewhere on Google. Also, ABC employees may well give more $$ to Obama etc. and the networks stories may be more often positive. But you need an objective benchmark to show those positive stories were less realistic. Some people really make more mistakes etc. and are going to look worse even from an objective description. Furthermore, you don't address two issues:
1. The management of media aren't the same as their rank and file, and the former tend to support big corporate interests (that transcends superficial liberal/conservative stereotypes, as SecularAnimist rightly notes.)
2. Fox News is proven to be incredibly biased, much worse than ABC etc. We even know by internal memos and admissions. So by your logic, if ABC should get examined and interfered with by the FCC, then Faux deserves it even more. Also, you didn't reconcile your idea of interfering with broadcasters, to the idea of most conservatives that free speech means the government doesn't try to force balance etc. on the media.

BTW, two other things. A person's intelligence is separate from the personality traits that stimulate them to be name-callers, users of foul language, impulsive accusers, etc. A genuinely intelligent person would know that, but I grant the fallacy is a widespread, sloppy rebuttal. Second, use of caps marks someone as a crank, it doesn't get attention in any respectable way as you should know, unless you are a naif.

kenga, Your reply does not make any sense.

The definition of "objective" is "undistorted by emotion or PERSONAL BIAS; based on observable phenomena" fyi ABC reporters do have a lot of "PERSONAL BIAS" Their campaign contributions to President Obama amply demonstrates this fact.

As to who are reporters vs news writers vs other staff who are predominately on the left at ABC. Common sense tells you that if the entire ABC news room staff are dominated at all levels with leftists the bias is even worse don't you think? Duh.

"Plus Fox is up front about where their biases lie.." Hah! Then they are indeed liars when they say, "Fair and balanced!" Also, some of your "liberals" on Fox (like Juan Williams) have been exposed, like here recently, as frauds. Also, having a certain number of commentators doesn't change the control of the message from the news readers and presenters of the main perspective. That is the "network's viewpoint" that matters. And larry, you too consider only front line reporters and forget the giant corporations that own ABC etc, they sure as hell aren't liberal. ABC is owned by The Walt Disney Company; he was and his company is a conservative bent.

Looks like Timothy and larry have remarkably similar views--including using the same phrases to make their points.

BTW, when one mentions "an analysis of campaign donations by the Center for Responsive Politics, conducted at The Times' request," shouldn't one point out that it is the Moonie Washington Times? And perhaps it would behoove one to mention and/or link to the source from which one steals one's cut-and-pasted arguments? Although unlike our twin posters, the WashTimes at least had the decency not to claim that these were "ABC News reporters."

By the way, I heard that Mr. Obama got more votes than Mr. McCain as well. Clear proof of AMerica's well-known liberal bias.

Neil B

I provided a link to the WashTimes article Timothy stole from.

If Karl Rove = an idiot
If Timothy = a Karl Rove clone
then, Timothy = ?

Neil B

"ABC employees may well give more $$ to Obama etc. and the networks stories may be more often positive. But you need an objective benchmark to show those positive stories were less realistic. "

Actually, he needs to show proof that whoever these unnamed "ABC employees" are that their political contributions led directly to the content of ABC coverage. I would expect at least a memo stating an employee's orders to air favorable coverage that also contained a statement that the employee was ordering this from his political convictions and no other reasons.

You see, you have to rule out the other possibilities:
1. That the employees who contributed to Obama had no influence on on-the-air content.
2. That any Obama contributor who did have the required influence did not use it to air favorable coverage.
3. That any Obama contributor who did use the requisite influence to air favorable coverage did so for some reason other than their political leanings.

Timothy can't positively rule out those possibilities with facts? Timothy got no argument. See?

NeilB,

See my reply to Kenga, Also, as to "corporate interests" all you have to do is look at who owns NBC for an example of how "corporate interests" are in the tank for President Obama. GE owns NBC and if President Obama's health care and cap and trade gets passed GE is in line to get a lot of government contracts. Google that.

As to ABC Mark Halperin in the 2004 election he admonished his staff to not hold "both sides "equally" accountable" when reporting the 2004 election in a Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004. In other words don't hold Kerry "equally accountable" You can find the full memo here http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/09/20041009_195805_mh.htm. In another interview on the O'Reilly factor, you can find it on here http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/25/halperin-media-liberal/he admitted ABC had a "liberal" bias.

Kos is on it, shredding Fox News with it's own rank hypocrisy:

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001852/

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001858/

This Timothy et al., is pretty funny. ABC=Disney. ABC was so far right they had to change their camera filters to pull out the flesh tones from their brown shirts. Liberals on Fox? HoooooT. That is funny. Even Alan Colmes couldn't stomach that act any more.
But it is all a part of their strategy to target and co-opt all media. The only way to stop it is to push the Hell back at the SOBs.

Sparko, Why so much anger and hate? Your life can't be that bad? Or maybe it is and that is why you are so in favor of the government controlling everything ie, what we eat, what we drive, what health care we get if any etc etc. Than everyone can be just as miserable as you are. As your hero President Obama said "You can't drive your SUVs, eat all you want and keep your thermostat at 72 degrees all the time. I won't allow it."

why you are so in favor of the government controlling everything ie, what we eat, what we drive, what health care we get if any etc etc.

Actually, with single payer health insurance the government wouldn't "control" what health care we get. We would get the same health care from the same doctors and hospitals we do now -- it would just be paid for through our taxes, cover everyone, and ultimately cost less than half of what we pay now by eliminating the middle man.

White I can't and won't speak for sparko, in general the anger on the left is a result of the frustration of morons like yourself who not only vote against their own economic interests -- and ours -- out of fear or ignorance or prejudice, but who then frame it in the most absurd contexts and act as if you are to be taken seriously. On the progressive left, in which diversity of opinion tends toward anarchy, no one wants the government to "control everything we do."

We do, however, want the government to regulate those areas, which, if left unregulated, cause unnecessary harm to people and the environment over the long term.

You know what really pisses me off (besides morons like Timothy)?

The selfishness of these mother fuckers. See, I have damned near the same healthcare they have. I go to the doctor and I never see a bill. Ever. My office visits are 100% covered, no copay, and I don't have to mail in a premium since I didn't buy dental or RX because for us, being healthy and taking only a couple of meds each and the monthly nut is only about 80 bucks, the yearly out-of-pocket is less than the premium on those optional riders.

And god damnit, I want every last one of you to have the security I have in my government-provided health care. I have had that single payer evil they shriek about every single day of my life.

* I get good preventive care.

* I get adequate palliative care from a physician that does not fear the FDA will ruin his life and drag him through eight rings of hell for prescribing powerful pain meds long term and I don't have cancer.

* I have continuity of records.

* When my doctor decides he wants an MRI of my knee, he sends me down the hall with an order, and when he orders an MRI and sonogram along with my mammogram because of the risk factors I carry, he doesn't have to spend three hours arguing about the necessity of the testing with a doofus who dropped out of college because those tests cost too much.

* If he wants labs beyond the routine CBC/Chem panel/UA - he orders them, I go down to the second floor and have my blood drawn. No two-week battle to get approval.

It makes me livid when they whine about a 'government bureaucrat' standing between you and your doctor, because those of us with government funded health care have the best access to necessary tests and treatments of anyone out there. And they damned well know it because they have the same plan I do. Lying fucking weasels.

Oh, come on. You KNOW that's different.

These guys piss me off. What is the big deal? The President of the United States wants to answer questions about a very, very important issue that concerns everybody in this country, and some buttholes don't think he should. We've been forced to listen to every swinging dick on the right, but we shouldn't be allowed to hear from or President. Who the hell do they think they are? Idiots!!

Thank you Blue Girl

for all of us that don't have insurance or insurance that doesn't work, people like you are our angels!

You made me cry. I cry everyday because health care is something all of us should have.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Please, everyone, sign Senator Bernie Sanders Petition to Congress

http://sanders.senate.gov/petitions/index.cfm?uid=7fd59f2e-88e1-477a-8eaf-762a5b050809

It only takes a minute.

And write or call your congress persons to back
Hr 676. Single Payer is the only answer!!!!

"And I think the presence of a former ABC reporter as the communicator-in-chief inside the White House on this issue also raises questions about how it ended up in the hands of ABC."

I forget, who did Tony Snow work for before he became chief WH spokesperson?

I am glad to see Timothy being taking to task by knowledgable persons.

One obvious fact, that his ilk never mention, that is 47 million fellow citizens are without health care, they are totally without compassion.

What is their solution, like the Repub congressmen offer up something without numbers?

A didscussion of the Obama health care plan would be welcome. But doing the news from the blue room, does Charlie get a night in the Lincoln bedroom like Babs, is to getting to cozy. Also, ABC will not sell any air time for commercials that might question the plan and stir actual debate. It's things like this that give the media a bad rap. Could you picture Edward R Murrow pulling this kind of crap?
The Shark
http://hubpages.com/profile/The+Shark

For goodness sakes, ABC is airing a discussion on health care policy, asking the president questions about the issue. ABC isn't acting like a "cooperating partner," it's acting like a network covering a policy debate.
Amusingly unaware of self-contradiction.