There is an ongoing discussion about freedom of the press ,press accountability,the so called "main stream media " vs new sources of information on cable networks and the internet ,and the role the press plays as the gatekeepers of the truth .

Yesterday morning I started tracking a story in various US press and blog sites regarding the fact that the President's daughter had taken a spring break trip to Oaxaca, Mexico. According to the reports ,she's with a group of friends and an escort of 25 Secret Service agents .

That alone would cause a controversy ;but that is not the intent of this op.

Gradually, throughout the day ,US news outlets began scrubbing the details of the report . The only site I found still reporting it is our friends in Canada .
Obama's daughter spends spring break in Mexico

Instead ,news sites like Politico began reporting of the news scrub ;evidently at the strong arm persuasion of the White House . But let's assume that it was just a request . How often were the vacations of the Bush twins scrubbed by a compliant press ?

Media scrubs Malia Obama Spring Break vacation AFP story - POLITICO.com

The White House Communications Director made the following statement :
From the beginning of the administration, the White House has asked news outlets not to report on or photograph the Obama children when they are not with their parents and there is no vital news interest. We have reminded outlets of this request in order to protect the privacy and security of these girls.

That is all well and good . But isn't it a news interest that the Obamas are using tax payer funded Secret Service agents so their daughter can travel on vacation to a region that has several travel advisories ?

The story took on new life late yesterday when there was an earthquake near Oaxaca.
White House says Malia Obama is safe after earthquake in Mexico, where she is on vacation - The Washington Post

What is the press' responsibility in this case ? Should they be the compliant press to the government or should this travel controversy be reported ? I understand the desire to protect the children ,and generally agree with the sentiment . But it wasn't the fact that the President's daughter went on vacation . It became a story when they permitted their 13 year old daughter to travel to a region that is not safe ;and the tax dollars needed for her to have her excellent vacation.

We already know the White House coordinates with Media Matters and that the MSM is his water boy, why wouldn't they scrub at his request?

Look I'm all for protecting the kids but this was a harmless story, no worse than stories done about Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton back in the day. And I would say that the fact that we're paying for 25 secret service agents to protect her and her friends on spring break to a dangerous region is my business.

With freedom comes responsibility, publishing the child's whereabouts in a place where kidnapping is endemic is at least a little irresponsible but then political opportunism would say that BO's lack of parental care should be noted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

But isn't it a news interest that the Obamas are using tax payer funded Secret Service agents so their daughter can travel on vacation to a region that has several travel advisories ?

---

Hello tom:

No. I don't mind paying for that. Things must be going pretty good in the economy if this chintzy stuff gets your ire...

excon

Clete, she has 25 Secret Service agents with her. The last time someone was kidnapped on their watch was in a movie.

Ex ,good you pay for it and let the government stop picking my pockets for vactions for the Royal Family (who denounces the “1%” and calls for the rest of America to tighten their belts); or Senator's hair cuts.

The cost was not the big concern... nor was the concern about the needless risks to her or to her paid Secret service protection ;although that is a greater concern ;and brings a big issue about the President's judgement... sending them outside the US where they have no jurisdiction to guard a spring break teen . Although.. the more I think about it ,the more outrageous the story becomes. It's one thing travelling to high risk areas as part of HIS job as POTUS .It's quite another to put these brave folks at risk needlessly .

No ;the big story here was how willing the compliant press was able to bend to his dictates. As Steve pointed out ,the MSM has become Pravda . That should concern all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

As Steve pointed out ,the MSM has become Pravda . That should concern all.

---

Hello again, tom:

It doesn't... I have NEVER bought into the bogyman media stuff. I've been paying attention to the main stream media for going on 50 years. With few exceptions, I don't find it to be liberal at all. Never have. Probably never will.

I DO find FOX News to be quite right wing, though.

excon

This isn't about left wing right wing. This is about the press being told by the White House what they are permitted to cover... and the press willingly bowing to their dicates

All governments censor the press and distort the facts, it is just that yours does it more than, well say, UK. I have often seen interesting articles which suddenly disappear without a trace

Hello again, tom:

If you're saying that our press is now owned by, and serves the needs of the 1%, I won't disagree with you.

excon

Well Ex you would be right there and hasn't it always been so

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Well Ex you would be right there and hasn't it always been so

---

Hello again, clete:

I believe it WAS independent at one time. But, when networks get purchased by by a multinational corporations, their priorities change. They become beholden to their bosses... Duh.

excon

The man with the money has always had the editorial reins Ex freedom of the press actually allows him to direct what is printed

According to Joshua Topolsky at WaPo, sometimes journalists apparently just gotta lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

According to Joshua Topolsky at WaPo, sometimes journalists apparently just gotta lie.

---

Interesting isn't it?

According to the article Daisey... " feels it necessary to embellish his story in order to retain the 'truth' of the message of his show. He lied to tell the truth".

I interpret this to mean that it is necessary to lie in order to promote a higher truth. If we hold free speech is almost an absolute then why can't we advocate a point of view in similar terms.

Ok, it turned out that that the facts were fabricated. However, we can always argue the integrity of the show remains. It wasn't true in this case but there is no doubt there are similar examples operating that haven't been turned up yet. Wong this time, but future events will prove us right?


An apologist defense of journalism ?

Quote:

---

However, we can always argue the integrity of the show remains.

---

That was the Dan Rather defense .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

That was the Dan Rather defense .

---

I guess that's the problem with ideology. No amount of actual events can ever prove your wrong.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

I guess that's the problem with ideology. No amount of actual events can ever prove your wrong.

Tut

---

Sometimes, absolutely.