Thread: Rahm's Media Muscle

Rahm's Media Muscle

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Media Bias: Is it just us or is there something wrong with the White House dictating news coverage to advance the president's medical insurance agenda? We thought this sort of thing happened only in Venezuela.

Read More: Media & Culture

In an unprecedented intervention by government in private media, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called all three TV networks and muscled them into giving President Obama prime time coverage for his medical expansion program.

For some, Emanuel didn't bother with mere newsmen. He went straight to the top, calling corporate owners such as Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger, whose company controls ABC, and General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, NBC's boss.

"Whether this amounted to undue pressure or plain old Chicago arm-twisting, Emanuel got results: the fourth hour of lucrative network time for his boss in six months," wrote Howard Kurtz, who broke the story in Monday's Washington Post.

How's that again? Is this a free press in a democracy? Since when does prefabricated news from the presidential staff serve the interests of free citizens? The problems here are obvious — or should be.

First, heavy TV coverage gave an artificial boost to the White House's medical plan. It raised its profile higher than networks may have given on their own. In a world where there's no such thing as bad publicity, and where whoever spends the most cash wins the election, it doesn't take a genius to know that big, uncritical coverage of medical insurance equals outright support.

Two, it highlights media bias. In recent years, networks ignored President Bush's wartime speeches, saying he wasn't news. Now we see the media's double standard. It casts further doubt, if that was even possible, on their pretenses of fairness.

Third, Kurtz reported that news agencies lost $30 million on the prime-time coverage. That means their coverage was essentially a gift, or campaign contribution, for ObamaCare. It ought to be disclosed as such.

Fourth, in an era when car and bank executives are threatened for not going along with government, what did Emanuel intimidate the networks with if they didn't comply? How vulnerable are they to this in future stories? Who controls our media?

Fifth, the public's in the dark. Kurtz's scoop came after the news ran, meaning citizens watching the coverage knew nothing about the political muscle that went into its production. The public has a right to truth in labeling on propaganda as much as on food.

In other countries, such as Venezuela, the media fight back with all they can to resist government interference. Here, one call and they roll over. It's a sorry state of affairs, raising troubling questions about whether the big media can really be trusted.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticle ... 7012891620

Guess whose in charge of the White House Military Office under martial law???!!!