First time visitor? Learn more.

The Incestuous Relationship Between the Mainstream Media and the Obama Regime

by huckfunn ( 42 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Censorship, Corruption, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Free Speech, government, Hillary Clinton, Media, Politics, Progressives, Regulation, Socialism at May 11th, 2013 - 10:04 am

CBS News President, David Rhodes, is the brother of Obama’s deputy national security, Ben Rhodes. Ben Rhodes was instrumental in changing the Benghazi talking points. Now, the top turds at CBS are trying to dump Sheryl Attkisson, the only CBS investigative reporter with a set of gonads. CBS says her reporting on Benghazi is bordering on “advocacy”. She was also the reporter who broke the Fast & Furious story.

The brother of a top Obama administration official is also the president of CBS News, and the network may be days away from dropping one of its top investigative reporters for covering the administration’s scandals too aggressively.

CBS News executives have reportedly expressed frustration with their own reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, who has steadily covered the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack in Libya since late last year.

“Network sources” told Politico Wednesday that CBS executives feel Attkisson’s Benghazi coverage is bordering on advocacy, and Attkisson “can’t get some of her stories on the air.”

Attkisson, who is in talks to leave the network before her contract expires, has been attempting to figure out who changed the Benghazi talking points for more than five months.

“We still don’t know who changed talking points but have had at least 4 diff explanations so far,”Attkisson tweeted on November 27, 2012.

But on Friday, ABC News reported that the Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions before they were used on the public. The White House was intimately involved in that process, ABC reported, and the talking points were scrubbed free of their original references to a terror attack.

That reporting revealed that President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes — brother of CBS News president David Rhodes — was instrumental in changing the talking points in September 2012.

Now here’s the funny part:

ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes, who has a masters in fiction from NYU, called a meeting to discuss the talking points at the White House on September 15, 2012.

And I thought that fiction was the exclusive province of Jay Carney. Read the entire article here. Hat tip – The Daily Caller

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

42 Responses to “The Incestuous Relationship Between the Mainstream Media and the Obama Regime”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | May 11, 2013 10:21 am

    I’ve been expecting See-BS to get rid of Attkisson. She is doing to much real reporting. See-BS doesn’t like it when the reporters get off script. No doubt, though, she’ll go on to a good career at Fox.


  2. AZfederalist
    2 | May 11, 2013 10:27 am

    Whatever happened to the “… we can’t allow even a hint of impropriety or our reputation would be at risk”? Oh yeah, that only happens when the object of the investigation has an (R) after their name.

    The presstitutes have become so obvious that they aren’t even trying to hide their bias anymore. Dem avisors cycle in and out of the media. I’m sure Atkinson is a thorn in the side of the CBS management — a “news” outlet that was dragged kicking and screaming into the “Gary Condidit” scandal but pushed the Texas National Guard memo as unadulterated truth long past the time it had been thoroughly debunked.

    SeeBS indeed


  3. huckfunn
    3 | May 11, 2013 10:28 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    According to the story, she’s in talks to leave CBS before her contract expires. I’ll be interested to see where she lands. The Washington Times is supposed to be starting up a TV network. She’s the kind of reporter that Fox likes, but they’re already loaded up with investigative types on the payroll and as contributors.


  4. eaglesoars
    4 | May 11, 2013 10:33 am

    I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT!

    HA!

    And Carney is married to Claire Shipman


  5. gulfloafer
    5 | May 11, 2013 10:36 am

    @ huckfunn:
    This alleged new network supposedly goes on air July 4th as well. It’ll be interesting to see how they format it.


  6. Bumr50
    6 | May 11, 2013 10:37 am

    New meme alert.

    MISHAP.

    IRS Mishap Gives Republicans Ammunition in Effort to Defund the Agency
    The admission that the IRS improperly investigated conservative political groups only means more trouble for the roll-out of the health care law.

    “oops.”

    //


  7. eaglesoars
    7 | May 11, 2013 10:40 am

    Attkisson “can’t get some of her stories on the air.”

    Indeed. Which makes me wonder who is dumping whom.

    But I don’t think she’d go to Fox. First, it makes her a pariah in the circles she accustomed to swimming in and as noted above, they’re loaded up

    ABC might take her – I think she’s already done a turn at CNN


  8. Bumr50
    8 | May 11, 2013 10:43 am

    @ eaglesoars:

    I’m actually hoping she doesn’t go to Fox News.


  9. gulfloafer
    9 | May 11, 2013 10:47 am

    @ eaglesoars:
    Maybe LGF will hire her. She’ll be paid in Cheetos, calanders, and cookbooks.


  10. huckfunn
    10 | May 11, 2013 10:47 am

    gulfloafer wrote:

    @ huckfunn:
    This alleged new network supposedly goes on air July 4th as well. It’ll be interesting to see how they format it.

    Fantastic! I hope Time-Warner will pick them up. BTW, where did you find that info?


  11. lobo91
    11 | May 11, 2013 10:48 am

    @ eaglesoars:

    The other day, Bernard Goldberg mentioned the possibility that ABC and CBS may both dump their broadcast news operations entirely and just start cable news channels.

    Cable news makes money. Broadcast news is a money pit.


  12. huckfunn
    12 | May 11, 2013 10:53 am

    lobo91 wrote:

    Cable news makes money. Broadcast news is a money pit.

    Fox News is certainly a money maker, but MSNBC was such a loser that Microsoft dumped them. I’m not sure of CNN’s finances, but their viewership has been dropping like a stone for years.


  13. lobo91
    13 | May 11, 2013 10:53 am

    The Washington Times extending reach with cable network

    Herring Broadcasting, owner of the Wealth TV network, and The Washington Times announced Thursday that they have joined in a strategic partnership to create a new national cable news network called One America News, set to debut nationwide this summer.

    “One America News Network will provide Americans a new, credible source for national and international news and investigative reporting as well as talk shows designed to foster an independent, cutting-edge debate about the policies, issues and solutions facing the country,” said Robert Herring Sr., CEO of Herring Broadcasting, founded in 2004 and based in San Diego.

    The intent is to provide credible news and thoughtful analysis for “viewers with self-described independent, conservative and libertarian values,” Mr. Herring said. “Fox News has done a great job serving the center-right and independent audiences. But those who consider themselves liberal have a half dozen or more choices on TV each day from which to get their news,” he said.

    It is time for some more options, he added.

    The new network, which is wholly owned by the Herring Broadcasting, will rely on The Washington Times as its primary source of news and analysis from the nation’s capital. Broadcasts will originate from a state-of-the-art TV studio adjacent to the newsroom that has anchored The Times since it was founded 31 years ago.


  14. mawskrat
    14 | May 11, 2013 10:54 am

    OT…..the space plumbers can’t find the ammonia leak.
    LOL…it never leaks when the plumber is there.

    http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html


  15. lobo91
    15 | May 11, 2013 10:55 am

    @ huckfunn:

    MSNBC was a tax write-off from the start.

    It doesn’t really count as a news channel, anyway.


  16. gulfloafer
    16 | May 11, 2013 10:57 am

    @ huckfunn:
    It’s called One America. A cable tv channel from San Diego is teaming up with the Washington Times.


  17. huckfunn
    17 | May 11, 2013 10:59 am

    lobo91 wrote:

    It doesn’t really count as a news channel, anyway.

    That’s a fact! A socialist advocacy channel. News be damned.


  18. gulfloafer
    18 | May 11, 2013 10:59 am

    Yeah, what lobo said, Herring Broadcast.


  19. huckfunn
    19 | May 11, 2013 11:00 am

    @ lobo91:
    @ gulfloafer:
    I guess they saw that Fox had a monopoly on center-right news and saw an opportunity in that space. I’m glad to see it.


  20. eaglesoars
    20 | May 11, 2013 11:00 am

    I don’t want to change the subject here but I remember reading about the business model used by cabel providers that allowed Current TV to be sold for hundreds of millions even tho no one ever watched it.

    I just forget what it was

    ???

    Something about how many homes the cable provider reached regardless of how many eyes-on the channel actually got. IIRC, it’s a distribution thing.


  21. lobo91
    21 | May 11, 2013 11:07 am

    @ eaglesoars:

    Cable and satellite providers pay the channels to carry their content, where broadcast networks rely strictly on ad revenue.


  22. huckfunn
    22 | May 11, 2013 11:07 am

    This fits: Smoke forces evacuation of White House press room. Carney’s the Czar of Smoke Blowing.


  23. eaglesoars
    23 | May 11, 2013 11:10 am

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:
    Cable and satellite providers pay the channels to carry their content, where broadcast networks rely strictly on ad revenue.

    Yeah that was definitely part of it. A provider can advertise “We can give you X number of channels and sports events, subscribe with us!’

    We have DirecTV and you can take it from my cold dead hands.


  24. Da_Beerfreak
    24 | May 11, 2013 11:13 am

    eaglesoars wrote:

    I don’t want to change the subject here but I remember reading about the business model used by cabel providers that allowed Current TV to be sold for hundreds of millions even tho no one ever watched it.

    I just forget what it was

    ???

    Something about how many homes the cable provider reached regardless of how many eyes-on the channel actually got. IIRC, it’s a distribution thing.

    That would also explain why the many cable and satellite companies are fighting so hard to prevent the unbundling of their channel packages. Allowing the consumer of cable to subscribe to only the channels they wanted would kill that business model overnight.


  25. eaglesoars
    25 | May 11, 2013 11:20 am

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    That would also explain why the many cable and satellite companies are fighting so hard to prevent the unbundling of their channel packages

    Personally, I think it’s a very bad idea. Having worked in telecom billing for a decade, trying to bill on an ala-carte basis with what is called ‘churn’ (turnover in selection) would be so expensive for the cable companies that I don’t think the consumer would benefit financially. Setting up the technical infrastructure to allow a customer to call in and say ‘cancel this, add this’ and have it take effect immediately would be a nightmare. Bundling gives everyone economies of scale.


  26. 26 | May 11, 2013 11:28 am

    @ eaglesoars:

    Yeah – God forbid people should only pay for what they want…


  27. Da_Beerfreak
    27 | May 11, 2013 11:29 am

    eaglesoars wrote:

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    That would also explain why the many cable and satellite companies are fighting so hard to prevent the unbundling of their channel packages

    Personally, I think it’s a very bad idea. Having worked in telecom billing for a decade, trying to bill on an ala-carte basis with what is called ‘churn’ (turnover in selection) would be so expensive for the cable companies that I don’t think the consumer would benefit financially. Setting up the technical infrastructure to allow a customer to call in and say ‘cancel this, add this’ and have it take effect immediately would be a nightmare. Bundling gives everyone economies of scale.

    Those are good points.


  28. eaglesoars
    28 | May 11, 2013 11:30 am

    Mike C. wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:
    Yeah — God forbid people should only pay for what they want…

    Yeah – God forbid it should be so expensive people can’t afford to pay for it


  29. Da_Beerfreak
    29 | May 11, 2013 11:34 am

    Mike C. wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:

    Yeah — God forbid people should only pay for what they want…

    Choice does not have to save the consumer money and most likely wouldn’t. But there are Folks who would be willing to pay more for the freedom to choose just the channels they want.


  30. eaglesoars
    30 | May 11, 2013 11:35 am

    gotta get my butt in gear – later


  31. 31 | May 11, 2013 11:40 am

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    Mike C. wrote:
    @ eaglesoars:
    Yeah — God forbid people should only pay for what they want…
    Choice does not have to save the consumer money and most likely wouldn’t. But there are Folks who would be willing to pay more for the freedom to choose just the channels they want.

    Exactly. Nothing would prevent the companies from still offering bundled packages. And no, it would not be much more expensive.

    I follow a line of cars that I consider buying. The single most irritating thing to me is that (with the exception of one model) if you want leather upholstery, you can only get it with an automatic transmission. Why?


  32. Bumr50
    32 | May 11, 2013 11:42 am

    OT – Meme destroyed.

    An event touting itself as an evening of immigration reform discussion with a “diversity of opinion” turns out to be slanted heavily towards “comprehensive immigration reform.” The BuzzFeed Brews Special Edition: Immigration Summit, sponsored by the Charles Koch Institute, will take place Tuesday, May 14th from 6 PM – 8 PM Eastern Time. The Charles Koch Institute is an educational offshoot of the Charles Koch Foundation.

    ht – Breitbart

    I hereby renounce my blog commenting sponsorship with the Kochs, so if any of you are reading this, you can keep all of the checks you were planning to send me for being an internet commenting menace.


  33. Bumr50
    33 | May 11, 2013 11:45 am

    huckfunn wrote:

    This fits: Smoke forces evacuation of White House press room. Carney’s the Czar of Smoke Blowing.

    httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUWD-FflZPI


  34. EBL
    34 | May 11, 2013 11:47 am

    http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2013/05/you-are-not-being-paranoid-they-are-out.html You are not being paranoid…

    Eeeewww, the media and Obama might as well be pushing for legalizing their marriage.


  35. EBL
    35 | May 11, 2013 11:47 am

    http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2013/05/you-are-not-being-paranoid-they-are-out.html You are not being paranoid…

    Eeeewww, the media and Obama might as well be pushing for legalizing their marriage.


  36. Da_Beerfreak
    36 | May 11, 2013 11:56 am

    Mike C. wrote:

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    Mike C. wrote:
    @ eaglesoars:
    Yeah — God forbid people should only pay for what they want…
    Choice does not have to save the consumer money and most likely wouldn’t. But there are Folks who would be willing to pay more for the freedom to choose just the channels they want.

    Exactly. Nothing would prevent the companies from still offering bundled packages. And no, it would not be much more expensive.

    I follow a line of cars that I consider buying. The single most irritating thing to me is that (with the exception of one model) if you want leather upholstery, you can only get it with an automatic transmission. Why?

    Pay-per-view works just fine, why stop there??


  37. Da_Beerfreak
    37 | May 11, 2013 12:02 pm

    AZfederalist wrote:

    Whatever happened to the “… we can’t allow even a hint of impropriety or our reputation would be at risk”? Oh yeah, that only happens when the object of the investigation has an (R) after their name.

    The presstitutes have become so obvious that they aren’t even trying to hide their bias anymore. Dem avisors cycle in and out of the media. I’m sure Atkinson is a thorn in the side of the CBS management — a “news” outlet that was dragged kicking and screaming into the “Gary Condidit” scandal but pushed the Texas National Guard memo as unadulterated truth long past the time it had been thoroughly debunked.

    SeeBS indeed

    Propaganda works.
    There are still Mushrooms that totally believe that the Texas National Guard memo is the unadulterated truth… :roll:


  38. Da_Beerfreak
    38 | May 11, 2013 12:05 pm

    Talking to myself on a dead thread.

    Later…


  39. Mars
    39 | May 11, 2013 12:16 pm

    huckfunn wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    According to the story, she’s in talks to leave CBS before her contract expires. I’ll be interested to see where she lands. The Washington Times is supposed to be starting up a TV network. She’s the kind of reporter that Fox likes, but they’re already loaded up with investigative types on the payroll and as contributors.

    Supposedly The Blaze has reached out to her. They are looking to expand their investigative division.


  40. heysoos
  41. Bumr50
    41 | May 11, 2013 12:37 pm

    @ heysoos:

    A good start?


  42. 42 | May 11, 2013 12:49 pm

    gulfloafer wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:
    Maybe LGF will hire her. She’ll be paid in Cheetos, calanders, and cookbooks.

    You forgot Mountain Dew! 


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David