Gay Patriot Header Image

Gannonization of Obama’s White House Press Corps

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 12:09 pm - January 30, 2009.
Filed under: Blogging,Liberal Hypocrisy,Media Bias,Obamania

Welcome Instapundit Readers!  While you’re here, you may want to check out the theme song we’ve discovered for the Democrats’ stimulus, sung by one of Broadway’s great Republicans!

According to David Cay Johnson of the Columbia Journalism Review, the new president’s press team prefers questions from friendly reporters:

interviews with a dozen Washington reporters indicate that the Obama press operation tends to embrace friendly questions, while treating skeptical questions as not worth their time or, worse, as coming from an enemy.

Questions as coming from the enemy? Is that how they see criticism? Doesn’t sound like a team of post-partisan unifiers to me.

Embracing friendly questions. . . . Didn’t the left-wing blogs raise quite a ruckus over the presence of one reporter, Jeff Gannon, who asked such questions in the previous administration? Seems we have a herd of Gannons in the current president’s press corps.

Wonder if those blogs will say anything this time. . . .

(H/t Instapundit.)

Share

67 Comments

  1. bob, the article at that link does not support the claim that you made in comment #1.

    It contains a single quote from Scott McClellan which says nothing even approaching support for you claim the party that literally went to fox news with their talking points on a weekly basis..

    It contains no quotes at all from Cheney.

    The headline seems to be purely the fantasy of the author, as he provides no evidence to support it.

    It’s looking more and more like you were simply trying to spread disinformation after all.

    Comment by r5d4 — January 30, 2009 @ 6:09 pm - January 30, 2009

  2. my point is that the white house went to fox with their agenda, and fox gladly reeled off the talking points. the frequency with which they went to the network, or the actual messenger who took the agenda, is not terribly important.

    Comment by bob — January 30, 2009 @ 6:12 pm - January 30, 2009

  3. There’s no support for your contention that they ever went to Fox with any agenda, bob, except in your imagination and the imagination of the author of that Huffington Post article.

    I appreciate your admission that you don’t care if you have your facts straight, though. That signals me to not waste anymore of my time trying to get answers from someone like you who thinks a “fake but accurate!” standard is sufficient when a story tells you what you want to hear.

    I prefer to deal with actual reality rather than something that’s “reality-based.”

    Comment by r5d4 — January 30, 2009 @ 6:20 pm - January 30, 2009

  4. davidKR is my roomate, btw

    Naturally, nobody here has any independent way to verify that, so you or ‘he’ can say it all you want. But for the record, here is how ‘he’ represented himself, in the other thread:

    as a moderate who leans conservative, i gotta say, bob really has you guys owned here. i’m somewhat ashamed to be on your side.

    In other words: *he posed implicitly as a disinterested, neutral observer*. Turns out – not so much, eh? I mean, whether or not you’re telling the truth now.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 30, 2009 @ 6:23 pm - January 30, 2009

  5. Another way to say it, bob. Taking this bit:

    he thinks most of you are blah blah blah bullsh*t…

    From the point of view of us readers, bob, either:
    (1) he has a relationship with you where it is 100% in his best interest to humor you about your blog participation and stay on your good side, that neither of you disclosed until after you were confronted; or else
    (2) he IS you… so… either way…
    WHO THE HELL SHOULD CARE what he thinks? I mean, WHAT’S THE SURPRISE? LOL 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 30, 2009 @ 6:38 pm - January 30, 2009

  6. apparently you care, judging by the number of posts on the topic you’ve made.

    Comment by bob — January 30, 2009 @ 6:57 pm - January 30, 2009

  7. Wrong answer. Perhaps you need to re-read my comments, bob, if you are that far off in understanding my true concern.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 30, 2009 @ 7:15 pm - January 30, 2009

  8. Well, there was a survey of 51,000 Canandian scientists, and 58% of them were skeptical of anthropological global warming. Where do these reputed 90% of scientists come from? From where I sit (which is an opinionated place) the number of scientists who are on board with the AGW hypothesis appears to be steadily declining. Not only that, but there are groups of scientists who believe the AGW hypothesis, but think the typical political responses are poorly thought out.

    I wonder if you considered the Russian, Indian and Chinese scientists. I’ve been told they generally think the AGW hypothesis off base.

    From what I know of science, the AGW hypothesis is skating on thin ice. Scientists just are not that good at having a sufficently accurate view of the past to support their claims about past climate conditions. They don’t have a time machine, and historical sciences, although useful, are a thin reed on which to hang what is really an engineering problem. Scientists are also not that good at modeling complex, chaotic systems, such as climate.

    I’m sorry, but smart people are not as smart as they think.

    To be confident that the AGW hypothesis is true, the proponents need to explain the amplifying mechanisms that would produce such warming. Simply adding CO2 in the simple greenhouse model will not produce the results they claim.

    Yours,
    Wince

    Comment by Wince and Nod — January 30, 2009 @ 7:16 pm - January 30, 2009

  9. I’ll even help you. This was a key sentence:

    *he posed implicitly as a disinterested, neutral observer*. Turns out – not so much, eh? I mean, whether or not you’re telling the truth now.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 30, 2009 @ 7:48 pm - January 30, 2009

  10. I fear for the president’s health as Chris Matthews alone could form a significant intestinal blockage and now CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC are also in the sigmoid and moving at a steady pace toward the transverse.

    Comment by BlogDog — January 30, 2009 @ 7:52 pm - January 30, 2009

  11. also, there aren’t always two sides to an issue (at least not two valid sides). sometimes i think the media (on both sides) tries too hard to appear “non-partisan” by giving equal time to two sides to an issue, when one is objective truth (or at least has overwhelming evidence in support of it–see evolution, global warming, etc.).

    Bob reveals his true colors. On SOME issues, there is only one truth. Which issues would those be? Merely the ones that bob agrees with, of course.

    No hypocrisy there. You see, bob, the truth is, global warming is a monstrous scam thrust upon us by politically-active scientists with an agenda – they want they governments of the world to get control of us rubes.

    Real scientists know better, but they are constantly cast aside for those who agree with the RELIGION of climate change. When you’re freezing your ass off in the coming ice age, take a minute to put another log on the fire, thaw out your brain, and ask yourself, bob, where the hell did global warming to to anyway?

    Comment by Antimedia — January 30, 2009 @ 8:42 pm - January 30, 2009

  12. #23 We disagree with many of his policies but he won so when the policies are consistent with his campaign promises you just have to grin and bare it.

    Ross, I like your thinking. Post pics, please.

    Comment by Ignatius — January 30, 2009 @ 9:24 pm - January 30, 2009

  13. …this coming from the a person from the party that literally went to fox news with their talking points on a weekly basis. [and this is not a rumor; cheney has admitted it. try a google search.]

    If you wanted to get your message out, would you go to the other media outlets that nobody watches, or to Fox News, which everybody including most liberals watch????

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 31, 2009 @ 4:02 am - January 31, 2009

  14. […] Insty and GPW) Category: Near-Naked Propaganda &#9830 […]

    Pingback by They’re all Jeff Gannon now | Cold Fury — January 31, 2009 @ 9:14 am - January 31, 2009

  15. I wonder if this blogs hosting company will apply to have Joe (Sam) the not really a plumber, tax cheat, Wurzelbacher to cover the White House? His unique hee-haa insight would be only a few cuts below Bill O’Loofah or Oxycodone Addictied (but not jailed), America-Hating Limbaugh.

    Comment by Timothy — January 31, 2009 @ 5:20 pm - January 31, 2009

  16. Hey Timothy, what’s wrong with tax cheats — since your Obamamessiah not only supports and endorses cheating on your taxes, but elevates tax cheats to high government office?

    Hypocrisy. The Obama Party mantra.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 31, 2009 @ 6:52 pm - January 31, 2009

  17. […] Heck, most of my Libertarian friends and I still think that President Obama is doing a decent job. That number is declining but it is still not horrible. We disagree with many of his policies but he won so when the policies are …$anchor_text[$anchor_choice] […]

    Pingback by …Makes Me Furious » Blog Archive » Gaypatriot » Gannonization of Obama’S White House Press Corps — February 1, 2009 @ 4:50 pm - February 1, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.