BleepingComputer.com: A topic of grave importance!

So now we have complete, corporate news programs that run under the guise of impartiality, being broadcast and actually RUN by the Obama Administration in order to push their programs. No opposing viewpoints whatsoever. No I ask you, do you need any further proof that this is about the most dangerous time in our history?

================================================== ==

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

This is more then serious and we the people have -0- say in the matter! One exception mail all your friends as I just did to boycott ABC, we all no matter what our political stance must in our own way let the Gov no we insist on fair representation not controlled programing!

Well how ever bad it seems to you at least you can protest without fear of Police Prosecution and you can also speak out against it, obviously those in Iran can't I think one person got killed because he was part of protest groups, thousands are out on the street protesting against the Iranian President re-election which they "suspect" was rigged he got about 3/4 of the vote I think.

And as for China and North Korea they get shown only what the Government wants them to see, news is shown via State owned Channels and most likely the news is radicalised, god knows what they speak about us, I'd say this is more specific to North Korea, China I think mainly just blocks Western Media stories. There was a BBC story broadcast here showing part of the Tiananmen Square protests as part of a report a few weeks back but the equivalent broadcast on the BBC World Channel had the Tiananmen Square protest part blanked out with a black screen.

So at least you can avoid the channel and watch others, not many others are that lucky, not sure what else to say on this apart from the mentions of other countries other than ask if there have been anymore updates on this?

And this is different than the Bush Fox News Channel's 8 year run, how?

'Animal' said:

(quote)And this is different than the Bush Fox News Channel's 8 year run, how?
(end quote)


You tell me -

when was FOX News anchored from the White House during Bush's terms?



Just as Obama's comment about FOX the other day demonstrates ignorance on Obama's part:

he obviously doesn't watch FOX and only gets the selected video clips and audio clips provided by his staff.

I watch, maybe, 30 to 45 minutes of FOX a day, and I've seen Sheppard Smith, Bill O'Rielly, and Glenn Beck (they are on during the time I can check in on FOX) each defend Obama on certain issues when their guests were attacking Obama, so I know personally that Fox isn't all "anti-Obama all the time". I've also seen and heard all three of them attack Bush (when he was in office) for some of the things Bush did. They were not "pro-Bush all the time" either.

Now, I will admit I'm not tuned to FOX 24 hours a day, and I have also heard all three of the aforementioned FOX personalities say negative things about Obama, too, just as I heard them say some positive things about Bush when he was in office. However, during this same time, I rarely heard either ABC, NBC, CNN or CBS (and their affiliates) provide anything close to the same amount of positives things about Bush or negative things regarding Obama. The bias from these networks is so obvious that any other network attempting to present a more central perspective will seem, as FOX does, to appear to be pro-Bush and anti-Obama.

If you start out with a far left (or far right) perspective, anything, including the center, will appear to your right (or left, as appropriate.)

Just an observation.

I'm guilty of generalization, on the facts but the effect is no less different.

I also don't have total recall of specific Fox broadcasts to give as examples, I just know I was aware the scenario existed.

Fox had 'unprecedented' access to the Bush White house, regardless, of whether they broadcast from The White House or not. The results of how the information is conveyed is effectively the same in my opinion.

See these links for descriptions of which incidents Fox is described as having 'Exclusive or unprecedented' access. http://mediamatters.org/research/200906180024 and http://mediamatters.org/research/200906170034

The gist of the point I'm trying to make is one party screams foul, while selectively forgetting they are guilty of similar or even at times identical transgressions.

I'm not interested in furthering the conversation over what I've already said, which I stand behind.

The "my network is better than yours" argument never gets anywhere anyhow.

Other than to make one other observation:

"MediaMaters" is a left-wing organization.

You'd probably laugh at me somewhat if I sourced Rush Limbaugh for proof that MSNBC/NBC has a left-wing bias, wouldn't you?




Animal said: "The gist of the point I'm trying to make is one party screams foul, while selectively forgetting they are guilty of similar or even at times identical transgressions."


For the most part, that falls into what I've said many times - "Both sides do it" - and on this point we are in total agreement.

Actually no I wouldn't laugh because I purposely chose a source identified has having that bias. To also demonstrate that sources/information can be manipulated just as well as 'facts'. In order to illustrate and defend the position you want to take a stance on.

Point being, we are in agreement both sides do it.

My only question here is simply this......
How long are we as a nation going to put up with,Government sticking it's big brother nose into our private lives?????
Correct me if i'm wrong.....BUT my take on this Government healthcare system
That Mr, Obama is so passionate about, is that "Big Brother" is once again telling the american people that
"Uncle Sugar" is gonna take care of you.....BUT at what cost to us???????
They can make it all shiney and pretty..BUT the bottom line is simply this...Our government is sticking it's big nose into our private lives AGAIN........

@MissPlaced.. perhaps you would care to start your own topic instead of hijacking this one? And for what it's worth, I think you mean "How far are we going to let government interfere in our private lives," because there are things like laws that allow them to do that. We can't kill people in the privacy of our own homes, we can't molest children in the privacy of our own homes, we can't eat mailman in the privacy of our homes. etc. So if you think about it for a minute, the government dictates much of how we act, even in our private lives.

But again, this is really a topic that could stand alone, yes?

Socialized medicine in the U.S. = less patient satisfaction with healthcare because the level of performance will decline significantly.

Obama wants to "give" universal access to healthcare. The only way to do this is to create a system in which everyone has health insurance, regardless of their ability to pay. He is already trying to pass laws for this by setting up a federal system to guarantee healthcare to those who cannot afford it. Isn't that what Medicaid (and Medicare for the elderly as they are typically on a fixed income) is supposed to be for? So basically he wants to extend the safety net to include those whose employers do not provide healthcare insurance and to those who could afford insurance, but at the risk of going to the movies and buying cigarettes. Where will this money come from to provide such services? From the already slashed reimbursement of physicians and from increased taxes. There are no millionaire physicians anymore (unless they perform elective, out-of-pocket procedures...as with plastic surgery). But think how many lawyers have become mega-rich by representing someone who spilled coffee on himself and sued the coffee mug manufacturer for $10 million. (Think John Edwards, the ambulance chaser.)

Do any of you remember what happened a few years back in the state of Pennsylvania when malpractice insurance carriers were charging exorbitant premiums for coverage for OB-GYN providers? All of them left the state, leaving the state in a crisis because there was no access to OB-GYN docs unless you drove across the border.

If and when Obama gets what he wants, physicians in the U.S. will drop to the middle to upper-middle class level as far as socioeconomic level. Those of you who think that doctors are overpaid jerks, you have no idea of the kinds of sacrifices it takes to become a physician. For example, a Hopkins-trained cardiothoracic surgeon who graduated from high school at age 18 will not be out of training until age 39. That's 19 years, most of it hell. And without the financial incentives, the brightest and most ambitious youth are going to stop applying to medical schools. They are going to go to business school and get jobs in the private sector, so instead of performing neurosurgery with tumor regression as the bottom line, they will be managing portfolios with financial growth as the bottom line.

It's a very slippery slope, folks. If you want your mother to have her breast cancer treated by someone who made in the 60th percentile on their SATs and who is not a part of an industry based on capitalism but instead on socialism, then go ahead and support what Obama's administration is trying to do. Or just don't say anything since that will have the same effect as supporting his platform.

But don't cry foul when your child is born 9 weeks premature, and the neonatologist says, "I just can't quite remember if I'm supposed to give oxygen to the baby or just burp the little runt," while your child takes his or her last breath.

Healthcare is a privilege, not a right.

Grow backbones, folks.

Please forgive the intrusion, as it was NOT my intention to "hijack" this thread,perhap's i just mis understood the Origional Posters" Post.......
Have a fine day.....

@black069

Just going to quote two specific things in your previous post


Socialized medicine in the U.S. = less patient satisfaction with healthcare because the level of performance will decline significantly.

Obama wants to "give" universal access to healthcare. The only way to do this is to create a system in which everyone has health insurance, regardless of their ability to pay. He is already trying to pass laws for this by setting up a federal system to guarantee healthcare to those who cannot afford it.


I haven't heard of all Obamas' policies but if I get what your saying he wants to allow everyone to get healthcare no matter what they earn, bit similar to the NHS here that was formed in the late 40's I think.

Here it depends on your yearly salary or earnings as to what you pay into what is called National Insurance which is what pays for the NHS mainly the last budget for the NHS was around £100 billion (Yearly) I believe (About $164-$165 billion) that's for just over 60 million people and it is strained now imagine it to be about 5 times higher than that for the US based on population basically about £500 billion or $820-$825 billion at least would be needed yearly to do something on that scale, the US Budget was about $3.2 to $3.4 trillion? if it was then it would take around 25% of the budget just to provide that without anything else.
Most likely that would mean a new form of tax like National Insurance or higher taxes either way, so that's roughly what Obamas' policy might bring in to get this Universal healthcare.

You can read about National Insurance here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance
And the NHS here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service

It is an advantage having it if your willing to pay, Basically you get operations free, you are prescribed drug treatments free having been to your local GP or hospital, Dentistry is free up to the age of 18, Which I think is the only part after 18 that you pay for.

EDIT: Adding onto that because of it being Universal the overall cost to you is less because if you do need an operation then it is lowered significantly compared to what you would have to pay if it is setup how it is currently in the US.



Healthcare is a privilege, not a right.

Grow backbones, folks.


Hmmm I think those who have set the Human Rights would think otherwise - http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rig...of_human_rights

Quote - Wikipedia

Not everyone agrees on what the basic human rights are. Here is a list of some of the most recognized ones:
............
Healthcare (Medicalcare)
............


Healthcare is a right you have as a Human Being, so it isn't a privilege, Maybe it's a privilege compared to those countless millions in Africa and other places who don't have access to Healthcare or can't pay for it.

I feel that Health Care in the US needs to be redone from the way they train doctors all the way up to a new system to benefit everyone.

From my OWN experience with doctors...

I go there.. with a specific issue.. and I need it addressed. OK my Dr will chat and talk and not pay attention, he does what he does as fast as he possibly can. He won't listen.. he just TALKS! I won't even go into how he deals with me regarding offering me whatever I want for drugs. That is something I cannot ever get my head around or assimilate. Anyway... we are in serious trouble with health care.. let us see what can happen in the new administration. I hope it is good things. All we can do is not relect Obama if it seems he is not keeping promises, and speak out in the interum. But I swear .. by now we ought to know as a "population" about campaign promises. We have been burned enough so I cannot imagine why we have not learned this lesson.

I know I know I am a bit off topic.

Yes I think it is pretty crass for the news agencies to show any sort of favoritism in any case. Just the facts.. report the information. All that is available.. but I think in these times it is what it is. We just cannot rely on what they say.. Don't watch.. find information otherwise. Do not boost the ratings.. boycott the news. I myself have no interest in lies. If I watch and listen it is to keep an eye out for what is going on but you have to extend your knowledge in other ways. Do not base your opinions on just what the Press says. There are other sources out there.

Bet they would get more viewers if they would let him broadcast his plan live from the Playboy Mansion.

This is ABC's response to the Drudge Report article quoted by the topic starter.

ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, saying it contained 'false premises':

"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.

"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."

Sounds good to me. Wouldn't serve any purpose to have the question and answer period turn into
a screamfest as often seen on the numerous antiObama Fox evening entertainment segments.

Best to keep an open mind and listen to what Obama has in mind. What I understand so far is nothing has been
carved in stone. Options are being discussed.