ABC: Ministry of Propaganda?

[KB5252]

Indirect.

But there.

Where were you when contractors and soldiers were being beheaded because Kerry called our soldiers terrorists and baby killers?

You have little semblance of objectivity here.

 

[utvolpj]

ABC doing this adds the illusion of objectivity and credibility. It is an unfettered option for one-side to present it's case to the public.

To say it would affect the legislation is pollyannish.

now imagine the threads if Fox did something comparable

 

[volinbham]

Indirect.

But there.

So they have enough effect to warrant fear and moderation but this will have virtually no effect on legislation on healthcare?

What in the world are you smoking?

Wait, I bet because this story is on Drudge it is already motivating somebody to do a "hit" on Charles Gibson. Oh dear Lord the carnage this story will cause.

 

[lawgator1]

Where were you when contractors and soldiers were being beheaded because Kerry called our soldiers terrorists and baby killers?

You have little semblance of objectivity here.

Huh?

So they have enough effect to warrant fear and moderation but this will have virtually no effect on legislation on healthcare?

What in the world are you smoking?

Wait, I bet because this story is on Drudge it is already motivating somebody to do a "hit" on Charles Gibson. Oh dear Lord the carnage this story will cause.

The situations are totally different. An ABC townhall on this will have no effect on the actual decisionmakers, which is to say the very tippy tippy top of the power brokers and monied interests involved in the health care and insurance industries. I mean, its just silly to think it will.

On the flip side, the steady mantra of RL, Savage, Hannity, and others, over the course of several years, every day, day in and day out, I do think has legitimized some irrational fear. I'm not saying that these loons were already irrational, or at least well on their way, but in some circles the constant barrage of these Muslim/socialistfascistdictatormessiah/birthcertificate claims gives the irrationality the imprimatur of making sense.

 

[volinbham]

Huh?





The situations are totally different. An ABC townhall on this will have no effect on the actual decisionmakers, which is to say the very tippy tippy top of the power brokers and monied interests involved in the health care and insurance industries. I mean, its just silly to think it will.


On the flip side, the steady mantra of RL, Savage, Hannity, and others, over the course of several years, every day, day in and day out, I do think has legitimized some irrational fear. I'm not saying that these loons were already irrational, or at least well on their way, but in some circles the constant barrage of these Muslim/socialistfascistdictatormessiah/birthcertificate claims gives the irrationality the imprimatur of making sense.

Have you been following this legislation at all? A deal is being hammered out right now and a few votes either way will make considerable differences in the form of the bill (there will be a bill).

Any number of House members and probably a smaller group of Senate members will be looking at public polling and the views of their constituents to make the final call on which way they go. This "news" endorsement of one version of the story could considerably impact public perception and thus push some votes one way or the other.


The link between public views on an issue and the resulting vote of a Congressional member on said issue is much more direct a connection.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Who is arguing the potential effects? The point is one network clearly being in the pocket of the White House. This network is crossing the line on political access to the media. You are trying to deflect the issue by arguing the potential outcome but ignoring the legal and ethical issues at hand. You're drifting into future hypotheticals and ignoring the issue itself.

If ABC was truly ethical and honest, they would have a townhall debate giving all sides of the issue and letting the viewing audience decide. Instead they choose to be a propaganda tool of Obama as he forces his plan down people's throats after the people are turning on him on this issue.

Obama coordinating this is completely counter to everything he said he stood for during the campaign. He wants dialogue and honest debate on issues but his record shows something completely different.

The legal issues brought up by the RNC are legitimate issues. Precedent shows they are in the wrong on this issue but are choosing to go forward with this anyway. Add to the fact the same people pushing for equal time and fairness in media are the ones defending this show hypocrisy as well.

I guess if you like the far-fecthed "indirect" comparisons we can go with the direct comparisons to Obama/ABC with the thugs of the world who have media in their pocket to deliver one side of their issues - Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad, and even Hitler. The irony is that this tactic is not one seen in democratic governments. This tactic displayed here is something very common in totalitarian regimes. Looks like the notion you defend has much in common with Third World dictators. Indirectly, you share much in common with these guys.

 

[KB5252]

Huh?





The situations are totally different. An ABC townhall on this will have no effect on the actual decisionmakers, which is to say the very tippy tippy top of the power brokers and monied interests involved in the health care and insurance industries. I mean, its just silly to think it will.

On the flip side, the steady mantra of RL, Savage, Hannity, and others, over the course of several years, every day, day in and day out, I do think has legitimized some irrational fear. I'm not saying that these loons were already irrational, or at least well on their way, but in some circles the constant barrage of these Muslim/socialistfascistdictatormessiah/birthcertificate claims gives the irrationality the imprimatur of making sense.

Well, since we had so many politicians, left leaning celebrities etc, equating or flat out calling our soldiers overseas terrorists and baby killers I was wondering how much blame you would attribute to them for the beheadings of journalists, soldiers and contractors in Iraq and elsewhere. After all it was this rhetoric that drove them to do such things right?

 

[lawgator1]

Have you been following this legislation at all? A deal is being hammered out right now and a few votes either way will make considerable differences in the form of the bill (there will be a bill).

Any number of House members and probably a smaller group of Senate members will be looking at public polling and the views of their constituents to make the final call on which way they go. This "news" endorsement of one version of the story could considerably impact public perception and thus push some votes one way or the other.


The link between public views on an issue and the resulting vote of a Congressional member on said issue is much more direct a connection.

My understanding of the proposals out there now are to increase availability of affordable insurance coverage to certain segments of the population, not to replace the insurance system with a single payor approach, which is what ultimately we'd be looking at with expanding Medicare and Medicaid to broader groups.

I am unaware of anyone who doesn't in principle support broader access to health insurance. The debate is how and when to mandate it on employers or states, and then how to pay for it.

 

[lawgator1]

Who is arguing the potential effects? The point is one network clearly being in the pocket of the White House. This network is crossing the line on political access to the media. You are trying to deflect the issue by arguing the potential outcome but ignoring the legal and ethical issues at hand. You're drifting into future hypotheticals and ignoring the issue itself.

If ABC was truly ethical and honest, they would have a townhall debate giving all sides of the issue and letting the viewing audience decide. Instead they choose to be a propaganda tool of Obama as he forces his plan down people's throats after the people are turning on him on this issue.

Obama coordinating this is completely counter to everything he said he stood for during the campaign. He wants dialogue and honest debate on issues but his record shows something completely different.

The legal issues brought up by the RNC are legitimate issues. Precedent shows they are in the wrong on this issue but are choosing to go forward with this anyway. Add to the fact the same people pushing for equal time and fairness in media are the ones defending this show hypocrisy as well.

I guess if you like the far-fecthed "indirect" comparisons we can go with the direct comparisons to Obama/ABC with the thugs of the world who have media in their pocket to deliver one side of their issues - Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad, and even Hitler. The irony is that this tactic is not one seen in democratic governments. This tactic displayed here is something very common in totalitarian regimes. Looks like the notion you defend has much in common with Third World dictators. Indirectly, you share much in common with these guys.

Well, at least you didn't go over the top with it.

 

[lawgator1]

Well, since we had so many politicians, left leaning celebrities etc, equating or flat out calling our soldiers overseas terrorists and baby killers I was wondering how much blame you would attribute to them for the beheadings of journalists, soldiers and contractors in Iraq and elsewhere. After all it was this rhetoric that drove them to do such things right?

Huh?

 

[volinbham]

I am unaware of anyone who doesn't in principle support broader access to health insurance. The debate is how and when to mandate it on employers or states, and then how to pay for it.

Another key component is a public insurance provider.

Another key component is the issue of rationing to cut costs, Obama has once again created numbers that no one can verify about how much savings can be created by cutting out "unecessary procedures". Clearly how the legislation is written will go a long way towards determining what get's paid for and what doesn't.

On the list of areas for "savings" are:

MRIs, Catscans, etc.
C-sections
and Antibiotics to name a few.

If you don't think a news endorsed informercial from Obama will sway some opinions on these issues you are way off on claiming right wing talk is motivating violence.

The language of this bill is critical to the future of healthcare. ABC is selling Obama's version here under the guise of news programming. As CS points out that raises all kinds of ethical questions and it is likely to have some impact on public perception of the plan and the alternatives (or perceived lack thereof).

 

[lawgator1]

Another key component is a public insurance provider.

Another key component is the issue of rationing to cut costs, Obama has once again created numbers that no one can verify about how much savings can be created by cutting out "unecessary procedures". Clearly how the legislation is written will go a long way towards determining what get's paid for and what doesn't.

On the list of areas for "savings" are:

MRIs, Catscans, etc.
C-sections
and Antibiotics to name a few.

If you don't think a news endorsed informercial from Obama will sway some opinions on these issues you are way off on claiming right wing talk is motivating violence.

The language of this bill is critical to the future of healthcare. ABC is selling Obama's version here under the guise of news programming. As CS points out that raises all kinds of ethical questions and it is likely to have some impact on public perception of the plan and the alternatives (or perceived lack thereof).

Can you provide any more information on the "savings" part you mentioned above? I'd like to read some more about that.

 

[volinbham]

Here's some detail - you'll notice that the "savings" are tough to score so supporters of the bill are advocating changing the accounting rules and basically "trusting" Team Obama.

Now, do you think ABC should allow those who suggest the savings aren't real or are sketchy at best should be heard in the segment or we should all just trust Team Obama.

Do you think his claim that his plan won't add $1 to the deficit should be challenged?

There is legit debate on the issue and to railroad the bill through with the help of ABC is ridiculous.

TheHill.com - Dems brace for CBO score

Now that the CBO report is out and it torpedoed the claims (higher costs, still 37 million uninsured) do you still believe that ABC's plan will have no impact?

The Associated Press: CBO: Senate bill $1 trillion over 10 years

Obama's $100 billion in savings? - First Read - msnbc.com

 

[KB5252]

Huh?

Originally Posted by volinbham View Post
Hey you're the one that creates direct connections between conservative talk and murders.


LG- Indirect.

But there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KB5252 View Post
Well, since we had so many politicians, left leaning celebrities etc, equating or flat out calling our soldiers overseas terrorists and baby killers I was wondering how much blame you would attribute to them for the beheadings of journalists, soldiers and contractors in Iraq and elsewhere. After all it was this rhetoric that drove them to do such things right?

 

[MG1968]

I bet Jeffery Immelt is pissed that ABC is getting this and not NBC Universal. Of course, NBC Universal and GE will have the task of providing over 3000 separate "news" stories about how wonderful Obamacare will be.

then again, ABC and Disney are part of the same company and since BO's prescription for the US medical system is pure fantasy, the Disney connection is appropriate.

 

[kptvol]

Well, at least you didn't go over the top with it.

Good grief.