White house+MSM= collusion on contraception

[billc]

During the republican debate with George stephanopolous as one of the questioners, it went of on, at the time, what seemed a really odd tangent. Georgie asked Mitt Romney a question about contraception rights. Now, this issue isn't even on the radar at this point in the campaign, and Romney is perplexed about the obsessive questioning about it from little georgie. Well, now, we know why georgie went after this issue so much. The white house went after the catholic church on providing free contraception to its employees. This issue was about sticking it to the church while at the same time putting a wedge issue up between women voters and republicans.

The real story is that George stephonopolous brought up the issue before the white house launched its attack. This story is just now breaking on conservative sites, I was listening Rush today when he mentioned the timing of the issue at the debate. Is the MSM colluding with the white house on this issue? The answer is obviously yes.

Here is the video of the question at the debate, check the date and check out how obsessive George stephanopolous is on this, at the time, nonsensical question was...

Other MSM outlets are now going after the republicans as being against a woman being able to get free contraception, vs. the issue of the president dictating what religous institutions are forced to cover in their insurance policies...

 

[Jenna]

Stepahopoulos is a Democrat spin-doctor or former, yes? I think all media are biased to one side or the other. I guess he is giving Romney what he gave Ron Paul on that "racial" publication.

Can you say please Bill in your own experience if voters in the US see beyond propaganda of the major news channels on both sides and research their own information on their preferred candidates? I mean do you think voters by-and-large are aware who the purveyors of the stories on the various candidates are, and who pays for them? Thank you.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Other MSM outlets are now going after the republicans as being against a woman being able to get free contraception, vs. the issue of the president dictating what religous institutions are forced to cover in their insurance policies...

The sad thing to me is that the issue has no become something that it isn't and never was. Many people now believe that the Catholic church forbids its employees to use contraceptives or have abortions. Nothing could be further from the truth; but that is how the MSM is slanting it - it's not about a woman's right to FREE contraception, but about a woman's right to USE contraception if they work for the Catholic church as a civilian employee.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Stepahopoulos is a Democrat spin-doctor or former, yes? I think all media are biased to one side or the other. I guess he is giving Romney what he gave Ron Paul on that "racial" publication.

Can you say please Bill in your own experience if voters in the US see beyond propaganda of the major news channels on both sides and research their own information on their preferred candidates? I mean do you think voters by-and-large are aware who the purveyors of the stories on the various candidates are, and who pays for them? Thank you.

I don't want to speak for Bill, but I believe the issue is not what George is biased; he clearly is, that's beyond question. The issue is whether or not he knew that the White House was about to drop that particular bomb before they did it. If so, then it would appear that the White House gave him advanced knowledge of it so that he could ask leading questions to embarrass GOP candidates. That's slightly dirty pool.

 

[billc]

The full court press is on on the republicans are against contraception for women. Rush mentioned that Daryl Issa, a republican holding a committee hearing on the president's attack on the church, was sandbagged by the democrats who wanted to bring in a woman to testify about what free contraception has meant to her. It has nothing to do with what the hearing was about, but the democrats staged a noisy walkout because the republicans "wouldn't let a woman testify."

 

[ballen0351]

I don't think the adverage joe has any idea as to the bias and slant of news programs. I never did until I started looking into it. I assumed the news reporters as supposed to report facts and that's it. It wasn't until i got interested in politics that i even noticed. I think most people turn on the news and believe what they are told because they have no reason to think there is an agenda.

 

[billc]

I think most people live their lives and don't much care for politics until just before the big elections. I think the average person, if he/she even watches the news, has no reason to look beyond what they hear from the anchor, they don't get that their is a bias towards one party and that bias effects what is covered and how it is covered.

In this case, the white house is relying on the press to not cover the actual issue of constitutional authority, but the fake issue of republicans and contraception. Already the main stream media outlets are covering the contraception angle, and forgetting about the real issue.

 

[billc]

Another example...

http://bigpeace.com/jpollak/2012/02...-question-to-protect-obama-iran-in-cnndebate/

During last night’s Republican presidential debate, a member of the audience stood up and asked the candidates a very simple question on Iran (my emphasis):

QUESTION: Hi, my name is Ken Taylor (ph) from Wickenberg, Arizona and my question to all the candidates is, how do you plan on dealing with the growing nuclear threat in Iran?


​

The simple and direct question from the audience invited the candidates to contrast their policies with Obama’s failed record on Iran–and on Israel, which Obama has exposed to existential danger on this and other issues. But before any of the candidates could answer, CNN moderator John King stepped in to turn the question around completely (my emphasis):\

KING: It’s a pressing question at the moment. Mr. Speaker, let’s go to you first on this one. I want to ask you in the context of the president’s and this country’s highest ranking military officer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey told CNN this last week, quote, “A strike at this time would be destabilizing and would not achieve Israel’s long term objectives.” If you win this election, General Dempsey would still be — would then be your chairman of the joint chiefs.
If the prime minister of Israel called you, said he wanted to go forward and questioned, Sir do you agree — Mr. President do you agree with your chairman of the joint chiefs? Would you say, yes, Mr. Prime Minister, please stand down? Or would you give Israel the green light?

So the question “how would you deal with Iran?” became “how would you deal with Israel?

That’s exactly how the Obama administration–which is doing more to stop Israel than it is to stop Iran–wants to re-frame the issue. It wants to distract from its own dismal record, and cast the president’s reckless confrontations with Israel as reasonable statesmanship.

Here is Hugh Hewitt talking about the mistake of Republicans allowing the main stream media to run their debates...and he also talks about another favorite radio host and author, Mark Levin...

http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/69fe12a1-6fa5-4ac1-8432-db43b26e9f8b

The debates as a whole have greatly disappointed because they were run by MSM for MSM, not by the GOP for GOP voters. The laughable inability of most of the MSMers to bring themselves to ask any question that began by noting the president's dismal record on anything is what stands out, and a prize should have been offered at the outset to the MSMer who uttered "Fast and Furious," "Solyndra," "csar," "recess appointments," Eric Holder, the F-22, or the promise not to go above 8% unemployment. All told it was a giant exercise in "protect the president while trying to bleed the GOP." It didn't work except to further kill the chances of CNN, NBC, CBS ever establishing a connection with the millions of viewers who have simply shrugged and walked away. The network executives who allowed their opportunity to expand their audience to be turned into yet another series of "go away" messages ought to be fired. Imagine wasting all of your Superbowl ads directing appeals at aging customers whose loyalty wasn't in doubt to begin with. That's what the nets did. Again, and again and again.

On Mark Levin...and up and comer journalist Jake Tapper (who will never be respected by his fellow main stream media types because he does seem to be fair...)

Levin is easily --easily-- smarter and better informed than any single anchor on any network. Period. He just is. His two most recent books are far more substantive than any by any other MSM figure in years. (Men in Black as well, but I haven't read his book about his beloved Pepsi and Sprite.) Mark is an experienced, able and very successful constitutional lawyer, a former senior official in the Reagan Administration, and a hugely successful talk show host with an often amusing, often acerbic sense of humor. He would have made a terrific debate moderator, and, more to the point, one the GOP primary electorate would have applauded to see in the chair giving voice to their long ignored collective point of view about the peril the country finds itself in. He is. Conor, authentic and open, and there is no hidden agenda, and with Mark there would have been no attempt to manipulate a debate to protect the president or to introduce a wedge issue, as we now know George Stephanopoulos did in the debate in which, out of the blue, he attempted to prepare the way for the president's attack on the Catholic Church via his head-scratching and much lampooned question on contraception.

Now some anchors and some reporters are very gifted. Jake Tapper is emerging as the next serious journalist in whom partisans of both sides will repose confidence, and Brett Baier is establishing the same reputation over at Fox. Candy Crowley and Wolf Blitzer are also fine hosts and generally fair anchors.

 

[billc]

On the current fake contraception controversy...if we had real journalists the fake controversy would deal with the real issue of religous freedom...

http://bigjournalism.com/wthuston/2012/03/04/slutgate-obamas-manufactured-media-tactic/#more-277980

She is also not an innocent young kid. She’s 30 years-old despite being reported as but an innocent 23-year-old student.
There’s something else she is not, and that is just an aggrieved student accidentally caught up in this media maelstrom. In fact, she is an activist against conservatives. Last year, for instance, Fluke took her campaignagainst “conservative” universities on the road and led seminars to that end held at Berkeley. (Thanks JWF)
In other words, we’ve been sold a bill of goods. This woman is a hardcore, middle-aged, political left-winger, not any innocent law student.
Another thing is that Democrats tried to foist this faux “expert” on a congressional committee hearing before. In the middle of February, the House Oversight Committee held a hearing to hear expert testimony on President Obama’s decision to force religious organizations to fund contraception use for employees.
The hearing had actual experts that spoke on both sides of the issue but the meeting was about the Constitutional issue of religious freedom, not so-called “reproductive rights.” Mz. Fluke’s inclusion as a speaker was therefore denied because she is neither an expert on the Constitution, interested in religious freedom, nor is she an actual expert on the medical uses of contraception. She was merely a left-wing activist with no pertinent expertise.
This is why Representative Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) held her own special hearing to give Fluke her platform for activism. Amusingly, while Democrats complained that it was a crime Fluke was not allowed to testify at the earlier hearing, in Pelosi’s dog and pony show, Fluke was the only one allowed to speak. Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat.
Democrats are also attempting to fund raise off this issue. Democrat National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz recently sent out a fundraising email lamenting: “Why we’re debating a woman’s access to birth control is beyond me.” Schultz lying continued in the letter when she said, “we need to stand up for the women and men whose access to care would be denied if the GOP has their way.”
Of course, those are outright lies. No one is trying to keep women form access to birth control. What Republicans are saying is that there is no reason to expect taxpayers to give free contraception to horny — and rich — Georgetown law students! Or any other student, for that matter, rich or poor. There is no right to taxpayer-funded contraception. Further government has no right to tell private, religious entities that they have to pay for it either despite that it may violate their religious consciences. The Constitution rather prevents such assumed government powers, actually.
Now, we know that this controversy was fueled by Rush Limbaugh’s off handed comments that Fluke (or the coeds she was pleading to get free contraception) are “sluts.” But, injudicious as his comment was, Limbaugh did not start this fire. The Democrats did and chief among them is President Obama whose decision to rip the Constitution to shreds and supplant it with his left-wing powergrab is what started this whole ball rolling.

 

[elder999]

During the republican debate with George stephanopolous as one of the questioners, it went of on, at the time, what seemed a really odd tangent. Georgie asked Mitt Romney a question about contraception rights. Now, this issue isn't even on the radar at this point in the campaign, a..

Wrong.

Rick Santorum has made it an issue from the start. Perhaps Stephanapolous was pressing Romney for a contrast with Santorum-which is, after all, part of his job as "debate moderator."

Today Show, Dec. 28, 2011:

New Hampshire, Jan 6, 2012-one day before the debate in question:

Talk about manipulation.....

The real story
White House attack
lies
about the MSM
heil billibreitbart!

 

[WC_lun]

I'm not sure this really was an ambush as its being reported here. If it was, then that is definitely underhanded. However, given that these canidiates have thier own network that has been devoted to getting one of them elected since the day Obama got elected, I'm not really that worried about how unfair it is for those poor, maligned, Republican presidential canidates. Gimme a break.

 

[billc]

The white house planting questions?

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/04/06/was-the-white-house-press-question-about-augusta-a-plant/

During Thursday’s press briefing, a reporter asked Carney whether the president believes Augusta should admit women as members. The reporter who asked the question is Matt Spetalnick, of Reuters. His question about Augusta came very early in the briefing, and out of the blue, with no set up. Spetalnick was the second reporter allowed to ask questions of Carney on Thursday, the first being the Associate Press’ White House correspondent. Keeping in mind that the president had been dealing with virtually non-stop questions about his attack on the Supreme Court since Monday, the AP reporter asked these questions to lead off the press questioning, after Carney had opened the briefing with remarks about a jobs bill in Congress:

Q Thanks, Jay. Do you think that will be the last bipartisan jobs bill of the year?
​

The question allowed Carney space to criticize Republicans. The AP reporter followed up:

Q So what would you say would be realistic? What would be next?
​

Both of these soft questions allowed Carney to move the White House’s preferred message on jobs, a day ahead of what has turned out to be a lackluster report on the economy. Carney answered, then turned to Spetalnick, who asked:

Q A couple questions. First of all, on Iran. Iraq is offering to host the talks next week between Iran and the P5-plus-1. They’re acting on an Iranian request to change the venue from Istanbul, following friction with Turkey. Of course, Secretary of State has said Turkey is the venue. Can you weigh in on where the U.S. –
​

It’s a foreign policy question, but again, nothing about the hottest story of the week, which was the president’s remarks about the Supreme Court.

 

[Big Don]

It would be hard to become nostalgic about Richard Nixon, who was forced to resign in disgrace. But at least you could tell when he was lying. Obama’s lies are just as big but not as visible, and the media that exposed Nixon is covering for Obama.
Sowell is great...

 

[billc]

Of course, why should Saturday Night Live actually do a skit making fun of obama and his latest screw up...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/05/06/snl-spikes-skit-mocking-obama-osama

[h=2]Any news parody show worth its salt would make hay out of President Barack Obama spiking the football over the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.[/h]And "Saturday Night Live" dutifully wrote a skit on the presidential's boastful actions intended to open the program. Only the show ended up spiking the skit, according to The Daily Caller which got a leak of the planned script for the sketch.
The bit had Fred Armisen's Obama extolling the glories of Killing Osama bin Laden day and telling American citizens the best way to celebrate both the day and his "gusty call" to order the strike.
What did the NBC show replace the Obama sketch with, you ask? Another bit trashing "Fox and Friends" for being dumb, biased and racist.
The move certainly raises plenty of questions. Why was the sketch scrapped? Did NBC or the show itself feel any pressure to swap the sketch out for something that wouldn't offend President Barack Obama? Did some cast members raise objections or refuse to do the skit?
Many former "SNL" performers have discussed the creative process behind the show. And it's routine for sketches to be trimmed or eliminated for a host of reasons before show time. But this particular sketch was extremely time sensitive and political in nature, two elements that matter to a satirical program like "SNL."
"SNL's" Sarah Palin parodies help define the Alaskan governor to the nation. And the show clearly doesn't want to use its humor to damage the current White House occupant in an election year. That becomes more clear every Saturday night.

 

[Tez3]

On the current fake contraception controversy...if we had real journalists the fake controversy would deal with the real issue of religous freedom...

http://bigjournalism.com/wthuston/2012/03/04/slutgate-obamas-manufactured-media-tactic/#more-277980

What fake contraceptives? What are they, condoms with holes in, pretend ones, sugar pills?

 

[billc]

This is more collusion between a main stream media outlet and the obama campaign, just not on contraception...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...st-Coordinates-With-Obama-Camps-Latest-Attack

But I guess we're supposed to believe that this is nothing more than left-wing stars aligning -- that the Post spent days and even weeks putting together a 2300-plus word article critical of Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts; an article that just happened to land on the Post's front page the very same day David Axelrod planned to roll out a big, splashy, attention-getting attack strategy critical of -- you guessed it --Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts
It's important to remember that this is the second time in only three weeks these very same left-wing stars have aligned for the corrupt Washington Post and the Obama reelection campaign. It was just 20 days ago that, purely by coincidence, that within hours of Obama's decision to stop lying about his position on same-sex marriage the Postdropped a major front page feature story detailing a half-century old incident involving Romney's supposed high school bullying of a supposed gay classmate. It was an extraordinary act of mind-reading on the Post's part, where they somehow found a wayback machine capable of reading a teen-aged Romney's mind and homophobic intent.

 

[Master Dan]

Stepahopoulos is a Democrat spin-doctor or former, yes? I think all media are biased to one side or the other. I guess he is giving Romney what he gave Ron Paul on that "racial" publication.

Can you say please Bill in your own experience if voters in the US see beyond propaganda of the major news channels on both sides and research their own information on their preferred candidates? I mean do you think voters by-and-large are aware who the purveyors of the stories on the various candidates are, and who pays for them? Thank you.

Dan Rather was on HBO last week and brought up a rather scarry point that currently only 4 companies control all the media in the US and these are corporations and corporations related to news are biased towards profit and thier personal needs not unbiased and only factual reporting. I would seem now more than ever people will need to use the internet and other sources to reserch for themselves however even search engines are bought off by large interest that can force searches on topic such as BP and oil spills

 

[billc]

Apparently, the Main stream media is continuing to collude with the president. The white house leaked the info. on the ignoring of immigration law to two liberal news outlets so they could put out sympathetic stories before the press conference...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...se-leaked-immigration-announcement-nyt-and-ti

Days before President Obama proclaimed a new Justice Department edict concerning the deportation of young illegal immigrants, both the New York Times and Time magazine ran huge stories on Hispanics in America.

JON SCOTT, HOST: And then under the heading of coincidence or manipulation, we have this. Time magazine ran its cover story called “We Are Americans, Only We Are Just Not Legal.” The New York Times on Sunday ran a story on frustrated Hispanic, the frustrated Hispanic electorate, and then on Friday came the surprise announcement that the Department of Justice is going to ease up on deporting the illegal immigrant children or young people or offspring in this country. There any coincidence?

I was listening to radio host Hugh Hewitt after the one story came out and he said that we could expect stories like them to come out before the election because he anticipated obama acting unilaterally on immigration before the election. Hewitt didn't realize that it was just going to be a matter of days before obama actually did it.

 

[billc]

More collusion between the White House and the main stream press...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/06/23/Wapo-Obama-Coordinate-outsourcing-attack

There is something worse, though, and that's when the media coordinates with the Obama campaign, which is something the fallen Washington Post has been caught doing once again.
In almost all cases, stories like this one published at the Post, take days if not weeks to write. Interviews, research, and whatever editorial and fact-checking process the Poststill believes in, all takes time. There's also the editorial process involved in choosing when to run the story.
The same is true for the launching of a political attack. Certainly, campaigns, especially at the presidential level, have become quite good at producing commercials and responses with startling efficiency. But the rolling out of a new narrative attack takes planning, meetings, coordination, and strategy sessions. And like the editorial process at a newspaper, you have to decide the best time to launch.

With that in mind, I give you the following facts:
Wednesday, June 20: The Obama campaign launches a (false) attack against Mitt Romney for outsourcing jobs overseas at the expense of American workers. This attack includes a slick new ad.
Thursday, June 21: The Washington Post launches a (false) attack against Mitt Romney for outsourcing jobs overseas at the expense of American workers.
If you think this is a coincidence, please strap on a helmet for daily wear before you hurt yourself.
This is how narratives are built and this is how our corrupt media works with the Obama campaign to aid and abet his reelection.
This is also the third time we have caught the Post doing this.

 

[billc]

Yes, and here is some info. on the level of collusion between the White House, David Axlerod and the Washington Post.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/02/BuzzFeed-Politics-Exposes-Washington-Post

The trouble [for the Romney campaign] began precisely at midnight on June 21st, when the Washington Post reported that Bain Capital-owned companies moved jobs overseas, a report followed in what appeared to be seconds by a prepared statement from Obama adviser David Axelrod.
So the Washington Post's wildly dishonest article (that they would later walk back) posts at midnight and in a display of dazzling speed, David Axelrod -- in the middle of the night -- has a prepared statement capitalizing on this story all ready to go.
It's pretty obvious Axelrod knew what was coming and it was the Romney campaign that found itself blindsided.
That's coordination. Moreover, it was coordinating to tell a lie.