Media attacks Obama's 'Soviet-style' publicity policy

[bhsup]

It should be on the individual level, not the corporate level.

And...crap. Okay, I am going to have to revise my views here. I was gonna list who I thought were great journalists and it seems they don't have journalism degrees (Cokie Roberts, David Brinkley, etc).

Egg
on
face

That said: Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist, period. Though per the OJT time he's put in, you guys would say he is, I guess.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

But you guys are actually witty! I see something and think, "Hmm, how can I stick a dick reference in there"

You must be a Northerner.

 

[Symphony D.]

The press's argument, as articulated by Dana Milbank, basically boils down to his conclusion:

You don’t have to alter photographs to make them misleading. Releasing photos selected to show the president in the most flattering way can also create a less-than-honest portrait of history. These often go out on the White House’s Flickr account and are picked up for free and repackaged by disreputable news services and published by unsuspecting media outlets. News photographers are angry because it threatens their livelihood. We all should be concerned that it smacks of propaganda.

I doubt the Obama White House is heavily doctoring photos. But there are birther types out there accusing the White House of superimposing Obama into places where he wasn’t. Why give them ammunition?

Which is rather a weak basis to make such a damning comparison on. Particularly when, across the pond, the British press is making a really good case for why the Fourth Estate isn't really deserving of trust either...

@hobbs - why would press photographers care about the totality of Soviet publicity policy? They're only complaining about photo access.

The Soviets owned the press, so the distinction in terms of photo access policy remains rather large.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I doubt the Obama White House is heavily doctoring photos. But there are birther types out there accusing the White House of superimposing Obama into places where he wasn’t. Why give them ammunition?

Obama clearly needs to release the long-form photographs.

 

[bhsup]

Obama clearly needs to release the long-form photographs.

Nice one!

 

[Camikaze]

The Soviets owned the press, so the distinction in terms of photo access policy remains rather large.

I don't think they ever owned the NYT, the employer of the guy complaining that his White House access is like the same they got from TASS.

 

[Symphony D.]

I don't think they ever owned the NYT, the employer of the guy complaining that his White House access is like the same they got from TASS.

So, the Western press operating under what was the highest scrutiny and surveillance by the Soviet Union when it was allowed in at all, let alone the Soviet media itself which was strictly state controlled and functioned exclusively as a propaganda arm, is exactly equivalent to the Obama administration not allowing reporters to independently photograph certain events and instead offering its own images of the same? Remotely equivalent? Not at all equivalent?

Ignoring that there have been plenty of times when the White House controlled and suppressed the release of information that was widely known among the Press (e.g., JFK's infidelity), up to and including photographic information regarding the President (e.g., FDR's polio and the debilitating effect it had on him), it's pretty clear that what this (gross over)reaction really boils down to is this:

News photographers are angry because it threatens their livelihood.

Not this:

We all should be concerned that it smacks of propaganda.

I'm reminded of a SMAC quote: "We have never sought to become a monopoly; our products are simply so good that no one feels the need to compete with us." Instead of complaining about government restrictions the free market should just do what it does best and offer innovative solutions. The paparazzi already exist, even. Some people will be left behind. It's evolution!