"Prescription For America" - An ABC Special

[Dr. John Zoidberg]

http://drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

MORE

Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff



Developing...


:grainofsalt: but still, delivering a news special on how to fix health care from inside the WH? :yellowcard:

[remilard]

Speaking of healthcare, how long until Obama "loses faith" in the Director of the CBO?

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=293

According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.

These new figures do not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation, for several reasons. The estimates provided do not address the entire bill—only the major provisions related to health insurance coverage. Some details have not been estimated yet, and the draft legislation has not been fully reviewed. Also, because expanded eligibility for the Medicaid program may be added at a later date, those figures are not likely to represent the impact that more comprehensive proposals—which might include a significant expansion of Medicaid or other options for subsidizing coverage for those with income below 150 percent of the federal poverty level—would have both on the federal budget and on the extent of insurance coverage.

$1 trillion over ten years excluding the public option to insure a net extra 17 million people.

[Ron Weasley]

My only surprise is that ABC is choosing to make such a bold statement regarding it's bias.

Are the other traditional networks now going to insist on having their own specials airing the presidents position from the whitehouse without opposition to make the playing field among them fair and balanced? We'll learn something from this before its over.

[cubedbee]

I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. :lol: But t's OK that they have an entire news network that is a 24 hour a day glorified informercial to promote the Republican agenda.

[The President]

I like how he threw out "the Democrat agenda", almost admitting he didn't want to be taken seriously.

[remilard]

:lol: But t's OK that they have an entire news network that is a 24 hour a day glorified informercial to promote the Republican agenda.

Go ahead and point out the last time that Fox, during it's news coverage, devoted an entire show to a single topic and had zero non-republican viewpoints.

I am waiting.

[Dr. John Zoidberg]

:lol: But t's OK that they have an entire news network that is a 24 hour a day glorified informercial to promote the Republican agenda.

Do we really have to get into the differences between fox news and ABC/CBS/NBC/MSNBC/CNN etc. vis a vis size and admittance of bias?

[Standtall]

:lol: But t's OK that they have an entire news network that is a 24 hour a day glorified informercial to promote the Republican agenda.

This is ABC right? Not like ABC news network or something?

[nottom]

Hopefully ABC will let Stossel do a 20/20 special on healthcare to balance it out a bit.

[the BS method]

1)get a law degree
2)write some autobiographies ...about?
3)nationalize everything
4)???
5)profit

[E. Blackadder]

1)get a law degree
2)Have some autobiographies written ... about?
3)nationalize everything
4)Have someone else write your third autobiography.
5)Profit
IFYP ;-)

[cubedbee]

Go ahead and point out the last time that Fox, during it's news coverage, devoted an entire show to a single topic and had zero non-republican viewpoints.

I am waiting.

When I watch it in the morning while getting ready for work, all the anchors and guests are sickenly pro-Republican anti-Obama shills. Does it matter that they cover a variety of topics each episode instead of just one?

[Hugh Jass]

it'd be pretty snazzy if Starbucks would sponsor this.

[the BS method]

IFYP ;-)

:notworth:

[Keep It Real, Yo]

So who is unbiased nowadays?

[erosewater]

So who is unbiased nowadays?

2Pac

[Ron Weasley]

What would the reaction be to a press conference for rolling out a new healthcare plan, but only one network were allowed to participate? Not a matter of only allowing one house camera that all networks could use, but one network's camera, the same network's reporter, etc. Instead of the president handing out written copies of the speach he is about to give, the network devotes it's resources to making his points for him.

It seems like that is what this is. Now we just need to figure out how many easy payments of only $19.95 are needed for the product.

[remilard]

When I watch it in the morning while getting ready for work, all the anchors and guests are sickenly pro-Republican anti-Obama shills. Does it matter that they cover a variety of topics each episode instead of just one?

Really? Give me a specific day and hour when they have guests who only represent the republican viewpoint.

Feel free to do this at your convenience in the future.

[Ron Weasley]

More from Drudge . . .

"ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

. . . okay. So it looks like ABCNEWS is still claiming objectivity somehow . . .

"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

. . . by insisting that it will stack its own audience to avoid unfairness to their journalists and audience?

[notreallyme]

it'd be pretty snazzy if Starbucks would sponsor this.

RN

[Gary Wright]

When I watch it in the morning while getting ready for work, all the anchors and guests are sickenly pro-Republican anti-Obama shills. Does it matter that they cover a variety of topics each episode instead of just one?

It's almost unbelievable that you don't notice that most of the other networks slide the other direction, even if they aren't as obvious (well, MSNBC is) about it.

If there is one fox and one NBC, and then a bunch of others that lean to the left, how does that make it justified to have el presidente telling partial stories to the public (where the sugar is included, but not the vinegar), and then refusing to allow a discussion from opposing viewpoints?

What does fox news have to do with ABC?

[cubedbee]

It's almost unbelievable that you don't notice that most of the other networks slide the other direction, even if they aren't as obvious (well, MSNBC is) about it.

If there is one fox and one NBC, and then a bunch of others that lean to the left, how does that make it justified to have el presidente telling partial stories to the public (where the sugar is included, but not the vinegar), and then refusing to allow a discussion from opposing viewpoints?

What does fox news have to do with ABC?

It's almost unbelieveable that you would claim I don't notice that most networks lean left, since I've said nothing to imply that.

I think all networks are "jusfified" to air whatever political programming they feel will get the best ratings. ABC is free to air an Obama-only program, and any network that chooses is free to air an anti-Obama-only program, or a exactly equal Obama/anti-Obama program. I bring up Fox News, because they are the network most likely to air an anti-Obama only program, since they're the network with the largest percentage of anti-Obama viewers.

[Ron Weasley]

There may be an equivalency in the degree of Fox and ABC general news bias. There is not an equivalency between a general bias in Fox and impropriety (not the same as legality) of this "ABC Special" infomercial. To imply an equivalency in the later case does an injustice to the impropriety of the ABC Special.

[cubedbee]

Please, what aspects of the ABC Special make it improper?

[Ron Weasley]

Please, what aspects of the ABC Special make it improper?

Shoo fly! Shoo!

[Baron Von Raschke]

Anyone catch ABC's global warming special, Earth 2100? Even my relatively uncynical coworker identified it as blatant propaganda...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124396572915377819.html

By SARAH KNOPLOH
The world is about to end, or at least that's according to ABC's "Good Morning America." The June 2 segment promoted a new special called "Earth 2100." The program follows Lucy, a girl born in 2009, and her dramatic story about how if we don't take drastic measures immediately climate change will cause droughts, floods, mass migration, and starvation.

This may sound straight from a science-fiction movie, but "Good Morning America" went to great lengths to assure viewers this wasn't science fiction and that by airing this series they were changing journalism. Bob Woodruff, host of the special, called making up what will happen in the future "a different kind of journalism." The segment quoted him saying, "not a prediction of what will happen, but what might happen."

The clips shown from the "Earth 2100" premiere painted a devastating picture that resembled the science-fiction movie "The Day After Tomorrow." The cartoon of Lucy and her family showed an invasion of dragon flies, people migrating away from climate-ravaged areas for a better life, and, of course, New York City flooding. Clips from previous natural disasters were shown as well.

After the preview, "Good Morning America's" Diane Sawyer responded and tried to pretend the whole program had some news value. "Amazing someone born into 2009. We're not talking about sci-fi here and to come up with a human voice for it, a family voice, for it." ABC left out the necessary crystal ball from the segment, so the audience was left to guess how they could predict 2100 so accurately.

Woodruff did attempt to establish some credibility for the project. "The idea that within this century a civilization can lie in ruins is unbelievable. But according to some of the world's leading minds it's a real possibility." He never did mention exactly who these so-called "world's leading minds" were or how ABC chose its experts.

Van Jones, White House adviser for Green Jobs, was one of only two sources in the segment – apparently a "leading mind." ABC mostly used "fictional character" Lucy for it's supposedly fact-based piece. Lucy's family escaped to New York from Florida. Jones backed up the cartoon fictional series' future predictions. "You're going to see greenhouses, multi-story greenhouses and each floor will be growing, you know, carrots and potatoes, etcetera and that'll just be considered normal." Jones' rosy picture of the greener future forgot to mention who exactly was going to mandate people growing potatoes from their greenhouses and how New York suddenly transformed to an eco-paradise complete with blimps in the sky in just a few decades.

Woodruff's green predictions turn black by 2070 when sea levels rise and flood New York – "the streets were filling with water." Stanley Feder, a former CIA analyst, described it as: "When New York begins to flood, it will be total chaos."

What "Good Morning America" failed to show was the other side of the picture of their far-cast "Earth 2100." By creating a series used to scare people about the future of the planet, it failed to show that this might not happen. The segment even closed with Woodruff discussing how if we do nothing this is how the Earth will end up like; we must act quickly.

Yet, "Good Morning America" was clearly pleased with not only the series, but themselves. Woodruff stated, "This is also, I have to say, this a different kind of journalism. In the past we've always looked at those that have already happened in the past, and those happening in the present, but what about the future?"

This is a different kind of journalism, and a complete rewrite from ABC's original plans for "Earth 2100." Working with left-wing activists in June 2008, the network warned viewers that civilization was poised to go the way of the Roman Empire and the Mayan civilization. The Web site promo for "Earth 2100" discussed "100 years from now when New York is abandoned." Now that part of the Web site is down and it simply promotes the new version of the special.

As "Good Morning America" co-anchor Chris Cuomo put it on June 12, 2008: "We're asking you to create a story that has yet to unfold – what our world will look like in 100 years if we don't save our troubled planet." The network invited viewers to turn into prophets and "report back" about what life is like in the year 2100.

The call went out for user-generated content depicting what life would be like in the future. According to the story, ABC was seeking video submissions. "We are asking you to use your imagination to create short videos about what it would be like to live through the next century if we stay on our current path. Using predictions from top experts, we will brief participants on global conditions in the years 2015, 2050, 2070 and 2100 – and we want you to describe the dangers that are unfolding before your eyes. "

[cubedbee]

Shoo fly! Shoo!

OK. I'll take that as a no, you cannot explain. Nothing I've read in this thread offers any support for your claim of impropriety. All I've seen is people whining about the fact that networks aren't objective. That's common sense. And the solution of wanting to force a network to carry dissenting viewpoints---now that is improper, as it violates freedom of press.

[Standtall]

OK. I'll take that as a no, you cannot explain. Nothing I've read in this thread offers any support for your claim of impropriety. All I've seen is people whining about the fact that networks aren't objective. That's common sense. And the solution of wanting to force a network to carry dissenting viewpoints---now that is improper, as it violates freedom of press.

I'm not 100% certain, but having a network station (one granted a license by the Government) air a 1/2 hour of special on an important policy issue with only one side, the sitting President's, side of the story told is probably not what the 1st ammendment was made to protect.

I'm not opposed to this airing. I just lose respect for ABC when they do stuff like this.

[Boink]

Anyone catch ABC's global warming special, Earth 2100? Even my relatively uncynical coworker identified it as blatant propaganda...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124396572915377819.html


This is very different from what Glenn Beck does, which gets a few people up in arms ... I just can't tell anywhere when something is a REAL disaster-in-the-making versus when it's just being cooked up so that we can sign off on trillions of dollars to save ourselves from ourselves.

Fortunately, we have some people to tell us when something is settled, agreed upon, and we can stop questioning. Those green jobs can't come soon enough.

[Gary Wright]

It is improper to position yourself as promoting news but purposely biasing it so as not to lose your ability to get in the white house and funnel a one-sided message forward...

... presumably because it is thought that will maximize advertising revenues.

[cubedbee]

I'm not 100% certain, but having a network station (one granted a license by the Government) air a 1/2 hour of special on an important policy issue with only one side, the sitting President's, side of the story told is probably not what the 1st ammendment was made to protect.

I'm not opposed to this airing. I just lose respect for ABC when they do stuff like this.

So, are you arguing the first amendment only protects dissenting speech and not assenting speech? As long as the other networks have the right to air their own one-sided specials from the opposite viewpoint (which they do), I don't see what the problem is.

[djtrifecta]

is probably not what the 1st ammendment was made to protect.

This sort of public speech is exactly what the 1st amendment was intended to protect. Political speech generally gets the greatest protection under it.

[Griffin 1]

It's almost unbelieveable that you would claim I don't notice that most networks lean left, since I've said nothing to imply that.Yeah, Gary, you're not allowed to do to cubedbee what he just did to Ken McKay.

[Ron Weasley]

So, are you arguing the first amendment only protects dissenting speech and not assenting speech? As long as the other networks have the right to air their own one-sided specials from the opposite viewpoint (which they do), I don't see what the problem is.

Okay, I'll bite on this one.

Who brought in the first amendment? Who claimed that this was illegal in any way?

Claiming impropriety in this case is like stating that this dog (http://www.holybug.com/Ugly-Dog.gif-funny-images.htm)is ugly. There is no proof to be argued, no legal position, no aristotelian premise that can't be denied by closing your eyes.

To state the obvious, you're spoiling for arguement, not understanding.

[BA2+]

So, are you arguing the first amendment only protects dissenting speech and not assenting speech? As long as the other networks have the right to air their own one-sided specials from the opposite viewpoint (which they do), I don't see what the problem is.

I don't want to put words in his mouth but it seems he's not arguing against free speech but against passing off a biased infomercial as news. News journalists by definition are supposed to be unbiased. There is a big difference between admitting which way you tilt and reporting as such and holding yourself out to be unbiased when it is painfully obvious you are not. If the importance of the distinction between the two escapes you, you're on your own as nothing I can say will remove the cloud of ignorance surrounding you.

[Gary Wright]

I don't want to put words in his mouth but it seems he's not arguing against free speech but against passing off a biased infomercial as news. News journalists by definition are supposed to be unbiased or at least disclose the bias if there is one

Ding ding! Winner!

And the whole idea of somehow mentioning that you stacked the audience with your own questioners (to defend your position) when someone says there should be alternate points of view just borders on the line below mental retardation.

"oh...those audience members weren't selected by the president to project bias in his favor...but by us..on our behalf....to project bias in his favor"

[Ron Weasley]

And the whole idea of somehow mentioning that you stacked the audience with your own questioners (to defend your position) when someone says there should be alternate points of view just borders on the line below mental retardation.

ABC's apparant expectation that this arguement will be accepted by its audience gives us insight into how ABC views it's audience.

[Dr. John Zoidberg]

Mr. Obama, your campaign is like a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?

[cubedbee]

I don't want to put words in his mouth but it seems he's not arguing against free speech but against passing off a biased infomercial as news. News journalists by definition are supposed to be unbiased. There is a big difference between admitting which way you tilt and reporting as such and holding yourself out to be unbiased when it is painfully obvious you are not. If the importance of the distinction between the two escapes you, you're on your own as nothing I can say will remove the cloud of ignorance surrounding you.

So going back to my Fox News comparison, ABC pretending to be unbiased while airing this special is exactly as bad as Fox News advertising themselves as "fair and balanced" while being painfully obviously a pro-Republican network. Which is why I brought it up. In an ideal world news journalists would be unbiased, but in my lifetime I've never seen such journalists.

[remilard]

Speaking of healthcare, how long until Obama "loses faith" in the Director of the CBO?

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=293



$1 trillion over ten years excluding the public option to insure a net extra 17 million people.

Looks like the Whitehouse is disowning the bill in the Senate.

Gibbs: "This is not the administration's bill"

[Ron Weasley]

Apparantly cubedbee is to be counted among ABC's target audience.

[cubedbee]

Apparantly cubedbee is to be counted among ABC's target audience.

Apparently, they've failed then, because I'll definitely be watching a different network that night. (What time's this thing on? @8 I probably won't be home. @9 probably be watching Fox's So You Think you Can Dance. @10, probably local Fox news. )

[the BS method]

@9 probably be watching Fox's So You Think you Can Dance.

what a horrible thing to admit

[cubedbee]

what a horrible thing to admit

:shrug: I like watching hot women dance.

[Hugh Jass]

Mr. Obama, your campaign is like a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?

RN

[whisper]

I'm not 100% certain, but having a network station (one granted a license by the Government) air a 1/2 hour of special on an important policy issue with only one side, the sitting President's, side of the story told is probably not what the 1st ammendment was made to protect.

Isn't this just another version of the recent SCOTUS ruling on the display of the 10 commandment in CO. The 1st amendment protects the Freedom of Speech of the government as well as its citizens.

[Griffin 1]

Isn't this just another version of the recent SCOTUS ruling on the display of the 10 commandment in CO. The 1st amendment protects the Freedom of Speech of the government as well as its citizens.That's one twisted way to view it.

[Griffin 1]

So going back to my Fox News comparison, ABC pretending to be unbiased while airing this special is exactly as bad as Fox News advertising themselves as "fair and balanced" while being painfully obviously a pro-Republican network.Only if "exactly" means "much worse" since Fox leans as far right as other media used to lean left.

[Irish Blues]

$1 trillion over ten years excluding the public option to insure a net extra 17 million people.
That's $5,882 per year per additional insured person ... and that assumes the cost is "only" $1 trillion. Chances are, it'll end up being at least twice that or more.

Better idea: give everyone $25,000 and let them decide whether they want to spend it on health insurance or big screen TV's or one hell of a lap dance down at the local strip club. Yes, it'll probably still be a waste of money - but then we can call it "stimulus" and promote the hell out of the virtues of investing in our economy.

The cost for throwing that money into the toilet? We'll figure that out later. Right now, it's more important to make feel good decisions and go for short-term gain [and pray to God we don't have to deal with the resulting long-term pain] than it is to actually make prudent decisions.

I'm not 100% certain, but having a network station (one granted a license by the Government) air a 1/2 hour of special on an important policy issue with only one side, the sitting President's, side of the story told is probably not what the 1st ammendment was made to protect.
If ABC doesn't get to air the President's viewpoint without the opportunity for dissent or critical questioning, the terrorists will have won.

[whisper]

That's one twisted way to view it.

Why? The ruling essentially said that the 1st amendment protects government speech as well. AFAIK, the government has not coerced ABC into airing the special and there doesn't seem to be any attempt to hide the fact that this special isn't presenting the President's position.