Anita Dunn: How We Created Obama's Cult of Personality

[TheSarge]

No one has ever so blantantly said that their administration set out to control the press either.

While Clinton may have been the MSM's fair-haired boy.....and his people may have snowed the MSM on a regular basis....

NO ONE from Clinton's admin ever (that I can remember) publicly threw in the face of the MSM...that they'd been played almost from Day 1 of campaigning.

Dunn basically patted the MSN on the top of their pointy little heads and said "good boys and girls".....and stomped on their collective pride.

Might end up being just be like hitting the tail of a lion with a sledge hammer....

I think the one mistake everyone is making...is believing that the MSM was some how duped or tricked or manipulated in all of this.

I say it's actually quite the contrary.  They were/are willing accomplices in this whole mess.

The media and Liberals...and the ultra-leftists in this administration are fellow travelers all striving towards the same goal.

[TheSarge]

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/10/20/tapper-asks-gibbs-why-its-appropriate-white-house-decide-whos-news-or

[USA4ME]

I'd love to believe the press would be upset they were manipulated, but more than likely they'll just be in awe of how Dear Leader was able to force their willing hand to report the way he wanted them to report.  Cult followers like the MSM don't get upset when they've been used by those they like.

.

[Duke Nukum]

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/10/20/tapper-asks-gibbs-why-its-appropriate-white-house-decide-whos-news-or

If it is the Obama Administrations opinion that FNC isn't a news organization, it is my opinion that the Obama Administration isn't and American organization.

[Ree]

This admin reminds me of children...They can't help but brag of all the shit they pulled...

[Airwolf]

As crude and as rude as this saying is it fits 99% of the MSM.

"You can't rape the willing".

[Splashdown]

It bothers and worries me that a member of this administration would say something so blatant. Why isn't anyone there worried about any public outcry?

[NHSparky]

It bothers and worries me that a member of this administration would say something so blatant. Why isn't anyone there worried about any public outcry?

Because they know the MSM won't carry it, and the majority of people in this country are sheep who still trust the media to tell the truth.

[ironhorsedriver]

I would believe the MSM would be upset except for what happened just the other day. If you remember the duping of the media by the guy who said he represented the Chamber of Commerce and set up a press conference. He claimed the chamber was on board with Obama, blah, blah. Any how, the real Chamber showed up, showed the guy to be a fake, and invited those reporters to ask him or contact the chamber directly for the proper responses from the chamber. On tape, unbelievably, one of the reporters told the real guy to shut up, he had a deadline, so he was running with the fake story.
 These are the morons we get our news from.

[crockspot]

Yep.


I can't help but think that Anita Dunn is going to be another nail in the Obama administration coffin.

She is basically coming right out and saying "the media is dumb, we manipulated them to do what we wanted them to do....and they did it."

While MSM might admit to a few mistakes.....they don't want it thrown up into their collective faces that they have been used, manipulated, abused.....by someone else.

They want to think that they are the ones doing the using, manipulating and abusing.

They want the general public to be the dumb ones....not themselves.

Anita Dunn may have been more effective than we are giving her credit.

She, and through her....the Obama administration.... may have just really pissed off the MSM....as it has now been blatantly admitted by Dunn  that they certainly pissed on the MSN.

No "reporter" ever wants to have to admit they have been duped....let alone have it known by anybody else.

You're giving the media too much credit. During that fake Chamber of Commerce press conference, the REAL spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce interrupted and tried to shut it down, and the reporters told him to shut up because they had a deadline to meet.

[dandi]

Q:  What is the difference between a toilet and a Beltway "reporter"?

A:  The toilet won't follow you around after you've used it.


The useless media will never turn on THEIR messiah.  They made him too big to fail and they'll make sure that he doesn't, even if it means they lose everything.  If they turned on him, they'd have to admit they screwed the pooch and didn't do their "job"; just like they had to do with the Breck Girl.  None of these arrogant clowns will admit that.

To expect any different is to put traits on these whores that don't exist - honor, integrity, and dignity.  Those are things that are expected of the peons they preach at, not for them.

[The Village Idiot]

I would believe the MSM would be upset except for what happened just the other day. If you remember the duping of the media by the guy who said he represented the Chamber of Commerce and set up a press conference. He claimed the chamber was on board with Obama, blah, blah. Any how, the real Chamber showed up, showed the guy to be a fake, and invited those reporters to ask him or contact the chamber directly for the proper responses from the chamber. On tape, unbelievably, one of the reporters told the real guy to shut up, he had a deadline, so he was running with the fake story.
 These are the morons we get our news from.

and they attack the internet for its lack of "gatekeepers"

[Eupher]

Q:  What is the difference between a toilet and a Beltway "reporter"?

A:  The toilet won't follow you around after you've used it.


The useless media will never turn on THEIR messiah.  They made him too big to fail and they'll make sure that he doesn't, even if it means they lose everything.  If they turned on him, they'd have to admit they screwed the pooch and didn't do their "job"; just like they had to do with the Breck Girl.  None of these arrogant clowns will admit that.

To expect any different is to put traits on these whores that don't exist - honor, integrity, and dignity.  Those are things that are expected of the peons they preach at, not for them.

I'm a firm believer in the old adage, "Nobody is irreplaceable." While I agree with you that the MSM helped create Lord Zero's image, they weren't the only entities involved in that process.

The media, like all organizations, exists for and preserves itself first. Nothing is more important to the MSM than itself. And that includes Barack Hussein Obama.

These traits that you mention - honor, integrity and dignity - are not part and parcel to self-preservation. In fact, most of those traits dissipate when it's time to save one's ass.

The MSM turned on Slick Willie. I can see the same sort of thing happening. The degree to which the MSM turns on Lord Zero is a matter of debate, however.

Bottom line is, I've certainly read some disgruntled opinions from a number of people who otherwise worship Lord Zero. That's how it starts. I think it'll snowball and cascade, sort of like shit running downhill.

[dandi]

The media, like all organizations, exists for and preserves itself first. Nothing is more important to the MSM than itself. And that includes Barack Hussein Obama.

These traits that you mention - honor, integrity and dignity - are not part and parcel to self-preservation. In fact, most of those traits dissipate when it's time to save one's ass.

I would be inclined to agree with you but the lamestream media has demonstrated time and again that they have no real interest in maintaining a business.  Any business model that operates on the basis that the consumer is too stupid to understand what is being sold will not operate forever.  When the lamestream media decides that business over idealogy is preferable, figures out the difference between reporting and opining, and how to do actual research then I may be more inclined to believe they are interested in self preservation.

Until then they will continue to push their crap at us, carry out hit jobs on any non-liberal opponent, lie, distort, propagandize, and tell us we're too dumb to "get it".  Same as it ever was until they finish cutting their own throats.

Honor, integrity, and dignity are actually very good business traits.  Smart consumers will only be lied and talked down to once.  Most businesses survive on repeat business and the only way to keep them coming back is to deal with people honestly and give them what they want.

[thundley4]

I would be inclined to agree with you but the lamestream media has demonstrated time and again that they have no real interest in maintaining a business.  Any business model that operates on the basis that the consumer is too stupid to understand what is being sold will not operate forever.  When the lamestream media decides that business over idealogy is preferable, figures out the difference between reporting and opining, and how to do actual research then I may be more inclined to believe they are interested in self preservation.

Until then they will continue to push their crap at us, carry out hit jobs on any non-liberal opponent, lie, distort, propagandize, and tell us we're too dumb to "get it".  Same as it ever was until they finish cutting their own throats.

Honor, integrity, and dignity are actually very good business traits.  Smart consumers will only be lied and talked down to once.  Most businesses survive on repeat business and the only way to keep them coming back is to deal with people honestly and give them what they want.

You may be right. The newspapers were just the first indication of a growing dislike for news having a bias.  We're seeing it more and more with the Big Three network news.

[Eupher]

I would be inclined to agree with you but the lamestream media has demonstrated time and again that they have no real interest in maintaining a business.  Any business model that operates on the basis that the consumer is too stupid to understand what is being sold will not operate forever.  When the lamestream media decides that business over idealogy is preferable, figures out the difference between reporting and opining, and how to do actual research then I may be more inclined to believe they are interested in self preservation.

Until then they will continue to push their crap at us, carry out hit jobs on any non-liberal opponent, lie, distort, propagandize, and tell us we're too dumb to "get it".  Same as it ever was until they finish cutting their own throats.
snip...

You may be right in the sense that most of the MSM is part of a larger conglomerate - i.e., the alphabet soup of "primetime news broadcasts", Slime Warner, Newsweak (owned by the WaPo). They can run their "businesses" in virtually any fashion they like as long as the losses can be diluted through the larger balance sheets.

The same conglomerate leadership also is responsible to the shareholders. If the shareholders are perfectly fine with turds like MSNBC dropping into the toilet, then business performance doesn't really matter. They'll absorb the loss and continue to look like idiots.

Now that you mention it, liberal ideologies completely transcend sound business acumen.

Silly me.     

[Hawkgirl]

You're giving the media too much credit. During that fake Chamber of Commerce press conference, the REAL spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce interrupted and tried to shut it down, and the reporters told him to shut up because they had a deadline to meet.

Not only that, but CNN invited the FAKE reporter the next day to promote his Global Warming bs.

I've watched CNN in the past, occasionally.  I never do anymore because THEY are not a credible news-source.

[TheSarge]

Pres. Obama has described Fox News as "operating basically as a talk-radio format" rather than as a "news outlet."

When NBC's Savannah Guthrie raised [in a segment of her extended interview of the president aired on Today this morning] the issue of White House attacks on Fox News, PBO first tried to play the statesman, resorting to the old dodge about "the American people" being more interested in jobs and the situation in Afghanistan.

But when politely pressed, PBO didn't hesitate to fustigate Fox.

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Another issue in the news is the news: we asked the president what he thinks about some of his advisers saying Fox News--known for conservative opinion--isn't really a news organization.

GUTHRIE: So you think it's appropriate for the White House to say what is and what is not a news organization?

BARACK OBAMA: I think the American people are a lot more interested in what we're doing to create jobs or handling the situation in Afghanistan.

GUTHRIE: Fair enough, but your advisers raised this issue.

OBAMA: Well, no, I think that what our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take the media as it comes. And if media is operating basically as a talk-radio format, then that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet, then that's another.  But it's not something I'm losing a lot of sleep over.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/10/22/obama-fox-not-news-outlet

[debk]

Pres. Obama has described Fox News as "operating basically as a talk-radio format" rather than as a "news outlet."

When NBC's Savannah Guthrie raised [in a segment of her extended interview of the president aired on Today this morning] the issue of White House attacks on Fox News, PBO first tried to play the statesman, resorting to the old dodge about "the American people" being more interested in jobs and the situation in Afghanistan.

But when politely pressed, PBO didn't hesitate to fustigate Fox.

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Another issue in the news is the news: we asked the president what he thinks about some of his advisers saying Fox News--known for conservative opinion--isn't really a news organization.

GUTHRIE: So you think it's appropriate for the White House to say what is and what is not a news organization?

BARACK OBAMA: I think the American people are a lot more interested in what we're doing to create jobs or handling the situation in Afghanistan.

GUTHRIE: Fair enough, but your advisers raised this issue.

OBAMA: Well, no, I think that what our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take the media as it comes. And if media is operating basically as a talk-radio format, then that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet, then that's another.  But it's not something I'm losing a lot of sleep over.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/10/22/obama-fox-not-news-outlet

I saw this on Hannity's and Greta's repeats last night....

I thought he seemed incredibly arrogant....

[TheSarge]

I saw this on Hannity's and Greta's repeats last night....

I thought he seemed incredibly arrogant....

Seemed?  Everyday that goes by remoevs any remaining doubt about that IMHO

[debk]

Seemed?  Everyday that goes by remoevs any remaining doubt about that IMHO

Uh...I was trying to be polite?  :innocent:

[TheSarge]

Uh...I was trying to be polite?  :innocent:

True.  I guess I need to try and be more that way myself.

[debk]

True.  I guess I need to try and be more that way myself.

I figure if some guy's getting arrested for making a comment at a coffee cart....

[TheSarge]

I figure if some guy's getting arrested for making a comment at a coffee cart....

LOL! Yeah it might very well be me