MSM is furious because Obama is not telling them anything. Chuck Todd: Obama is Frustrating Media

[SuperTrouper]

"You're stonewalling" "Where is the transparency" :mad:

These MSM whores are the most despicable of the despicable genus. They are turning on Obama because he is not releasing until next week the results of his inquiry on the Blagogate.
Even Shuster is criticizing him with Media whore Chuck Todd who says that Obama is doing this on purpose and also says that Obama's cabinet is controversial because he has different opinions in his Cabinet about Ethanol.

[democrattotheend]

1. He's doing what the prosecutor asked him to do

Politically he'd be much better off releasing the report now. No matter what's in it it's going to come out and the longer it drags on the worse it is for him. So the only reason he would delay is because Fitzgerald asked him to, as confirmed by Fitzgerald's office. Why can't the media accept that?

[Lex]

15. Bob Franken just said the prosecutor has "no control" over Obama

and Obama could talk about it if he wanted. But Obama doesn't know if he's jeopardizing the investigation if he talks now instead of when Fitzgerald gives him the go-ahead.

[csziggy]

25. If Obama released the report we know damned well the M$M would complain that he was obstructing

Fitzgerald's investigation. That is one reason they are all over this story - they can spin it any way they want no matter what Obama does.

Too bad the media was never this diligent about Reagan, Bush or Bush II...

[No Elephants]

41. Obama never said the prosecutor controls him. He said the prosectuor ASKED him. Big

difference. Point is, do you jeopardize the prosecution of a creep in order to pander to the press?

[monmouth]

2. Like the FReepers, if the media is mad, I'm glad....n/t

[ErinBerin84]

3. yeah

and the other day, Mark Whitaker gave a little "even if reporters admire Obama, they need to toughen up on him" lecture , implying that the "liberalz media" has been giving him a pass from the past year or something. They are like a bunch of clucking hens. I'd rather them talk about the cabinet picks which I know they'll piss about, but at least it would be relevent.

And while they have to wait a (horrors!) few days to get the info they want, might I remind them that Bush and Dick are still in office, if they want to talk about something that is actually relevent .

[Connie_Corleone]

4. Can't they wait a few fucking days?

They act like the results won't be released until 2010!

[SuperTrouper]

5. LOL!! Bob Franken says that Obama is "finessing" the story "where is the change"

and next week is the Christmas dump and Obama will be unreachable for the Holidays. The MSM is very angry that they are getting nowhere with Obama

[firedupdem]

8. and schuster says "great point". What the fuck? n/t

[SuperTrouper]

9. I know!1 I was throwing my shoes at the TV

:mad:

[Lex]

10. Implying that Obama and Fitzgerald are lying

about needing to wait until next week to release the information. That's a pretty outrageous implication to make by someone who doesn't know what is being wrapped up over the next few days in this investigation.

[Kahuna]

19. These are the same "journalists" who totally ignored Ken Lay and Abramoff..

and their connections to bushco.

[Pirate Smile]

11. Like Obama picked next week instead of Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald ASKED them to wait until

next week - Christmas week - not Obama. :eyes:

This is one of those times when the press keeps making themselves look like friggin idiots.

[No Elephants]

44. The change is that Obama is doing the right thing, even if that makes the press attack him.

[firedupdem]

6. The 11th

fucking press conference he's given and he's not transparent? What the fuck do they want to know? What answers do they really want regarding Blago?

Jeez...trying to take him out of the game for one reason or another and he's not even in office. This shit is stupid and sickening. Bush walked on fucking water for them.

Fuck Schuster...sick of his little slimy ass as well.

[Lex]

7. Jeez, I can't remember the media being so interested in doing their job

when Bush was raping, pillaging, and plundering the planet.

[NatBurner]

22. right?

they didn't "ask the tough questions" while georgie was pissing on the constitution, neither

[No Elephants]

42. He still is and they are still not doing their job. nt

[Thrill]

12. These people are pathetic. Bob Franken is an ass

[FSogol]

13. Were they frustrated when they dutifully reported Bush's lies for 8 years?

I was.

[eShirl]

14. isn't that what they're used to?

[Lex]

16. they've been fine with it under Bush

nt

[demo dutch]

17. They must be hiding something... (I'm just saying)

[Kahuna]

18. Eff them. I think Obama is enjoying their incessant bleating and moaning..

Good for him. :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Ichingcarpenter]

20. They then complained it would be released during Christmas

and wouldn't get the public's attention as it would at another time.

They will have to go to Hawaii to cover the story...... Boo Hoo

[SuperTrouper]

21. They are smearing Emmanuel: "He had 21 conversations with Blago Staff"

First the prostitute MSM smeared JJJ now they are going for Emmanuel. :mad:

[ErinBerin84]

23. and they are kind of mischaracterizing the "report"

the report was just a two sentence "we hear rumblings that this could possibly be the case....juicy!", and Shuster put it as "there are reports" and "This Sun Times reporter believes", which is not entirely true. There were also "rumblings" that Rahm was an informant last week, and that turned out not to be true.

[No Elephants]

43. No, they are not smearing Rahm. They are smearing Obama. Everyone knows that, if Rahm

was talking to Blago about the Illinois Senate seat, Rahm was doing Obama's bidding, not chatting on his own.

[SuperTrouper]

50. Good point but they don't have the guts to smear Obama in plain daylight

[Cha]

24. Mediawhores will be mediawhores and

there doesn't seem to be anything we can do about it except complain until they render themselves totally irrelevant. Where the fuck were they on bush?

Phone Numbers:
CNN-
(404) 827 – 1500
Comment line: (404) 827 - 0234
(From grasswire
CNN NEWS CHIEF Eason Jordan. 404.827.5111. fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
CNN NEWS DIRECTOR Kim Bondy. 404 827 1500. fax. [phone]
CNN NEWSROOM 404.827.1500 . 404.827.1500. [e-mail]
Call Anderson Cooper at 1-866-NY-AC360

Everyone at CNN is listed individually on this page: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv /

MSNBC
- Phone: [phone] EMAIL: [e-mail]


CBS
-Phone: [phone]

ABC-
ABC NEW YORK NEWSROOM: [phone] [e-mail] Newsroom Fax Machine 212.456.5150

Peter Salinger (THE MAN IN CHARGE OF ELECTION COVERAGE) Director, Special Events & Sports 212.456.5105 [e-mail]

Cristi Landes, Manager, Programming 212.456.5107 [e-mail]

Wayne Fisk Director, Programming 212.456.5327 [e-mail]

Jeff Fitzgerald Executive Director, Operations 212.456.5554 [e-mail]

Heidi Oringer Executive Director, Entertainment 212.456.5541 [e-mail]

Jon Newman News Coverage 212.456.5100 [e-mail]

Joyce Alcantara Assignment Manager 212.456.5106 [e-mail]

Jim Kane Deputy D.C. Bureau Chief 212.222. 6604 [e-mail]

Andrew Kalb Executive Director, Programming 05.567.2269 [e-mail]

Robert Garcia Executive Director, News & Sports 212.456.5103 [e-mail]



C-SPAN
Contacting C-SPAN's Washington Journal:
Republicans: [phone]
Democrats: [phone]
Independents: [phone]
Outside U.S.: [phone]
Email Questions or Comments: [e-mail] This e-mail address is being protected from spam
bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it


ASSOCIATED PRESS OFFICES:
212-621-1500
http://www.ap.org/pages/contact/contact.html


NEW YORK TIMES NEWS DEPARTMENT
To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail [e-mail] or leave a message at 1-888-NYT-NEWS. To contact a reporter, click on the byline of one of his or her articles to access the reader e-mail form. You can also find any reporter's archive here (alphabetized by last name; reporters' names are italicized): Times Topics: People – http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/peo...

The Editors
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
The Newsroom
[e-mail]



FOX NEWS
1-888-369-4762 general number

1-877-9-NO-SPIN (877-966-7746) O'reilly

EMAILS FOR FOX [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail] , [e-mail]

*************************************


PERTINENT EMAIL ADDRESSES:
Jim Lehrer [e-mail]
Andrea Mitchell [e-mail]
Andrew Sullivan [e-mail]
Bob Herbert [e-mail]
Chris Matthews [e-mail]
Chuck Todd [e-mail]
Clarence Page [e-mail]
Cynthia Tucker [e-mail]
David Remnick (the New Yorker) [e-mail]
Donna Brazile [e-mail]
E.J. Dionne [e-mail]
Ed Schultz [e-mail]
Eugene Robinson [e-mail]

Howard Fineman [e-mail]
Jim Lehrer [e-mail]

Joe Klein http://www.time.com/time/letters/email_letter.html
Josh Marshall [e-mail]
Keith Olberman [e-mail]
Mark Ambinder [e-mail]
Mark Halperin (no direct, but address him and use [e-mail] )
Mike Malloy [e-mail]
Morning Joe - Feedback page-very bottom right column http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789 /
Race to the White House - Feeback page- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23598392 /
Rachel Maddow [e-mail]
Randi Rhodes [e-mail]
Stephanie Miller [e-mail]
Steve Clemons [e-mail]
The New York Times Editors [e-mail]
The Washington Post www.washingtonpost.com
Thom Hartmann [e-mail]
Tom BrokeJaw http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6872152 /







JOURNALISM WATCHDOG AGENCIES TO CONTACT
FACTCHECK [e-mail] - Drop them some facts; They need them
POLIFACT [e-mail] - Drop them some Facts; they need them
American Journalism Review [e-mail] -
Columbia journalism Review [e-mail] - Drop them a Tip. They are looking for them
Committee of Concerned Journalists [e-mail]
FAIR [e-mail] - Drop them a tip - They are looking for them
Institute for Public Accuracy [e-mail]
media matters [e-mail] - Drop them a Tip. They are looking for them


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR TOOLS
http://www.democrats.org/page/speakout/letterstoeditors
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/media /

[Kahuna]

37. Thanks for the lists. I've already made use of a few of them.

;)

[Cha]

40. I'm just passing on Frenchie's work

on this that I think is a very good idea! What are we here for if we can't use these numbers and call them on their bullshit?

:hi: Kahuna~

[Captain Hilts]

26. They gave him an easy ride through the election and expect something in return....

Yes, I too WISH they'd said shit like that to Bush.

[ErinBerin84]

27. easy ride. right.

[NatBurner]

30. lol

[Captain Hilts]

31. Where was the press criticism for the turn on FISA?

He said during the campaign that he'd not only oppose it, he'd lead the filibuster against it. Turn on campaign finance, the DC gun ban.

Where was the follow up when he said of Rev. Wright, "everybody has a crazy uncle." You don't choose your crazy uncle, you choose your crazy minister.

Time declared him the next prez in Oct '07.

[ErinBerin84]

33. I disagree.

The press couldn't have given two shits about FISA until Obama "flip flopped" on it, and then they used it to push their narrative of "Obama is a flip flopper" and "the left is turning on Obama" narrative. I was disappointed in FISA and do think that he deserved to be called out on it, but the press did make a stink about it (albeit in a shallow way that ignored discussing the issue at hand). And the Rev Wright thing? Yeah, media gave him a real pass on that.


We will have to agree to disagree on the history of this one.

[Captain Hilts]

36. Yes, we will, but I am glad he won. I think he was a great candidate..

and will be be a good president too.

[No Elephants]

47. What media do you read/watch/listen to? First, Obama made NO TURN on campaign finance. He never

promised to accept public funding. That was a LIE that Pubs told and ALL media repeated. Obama said only that, if he were the candidate, he would discuss public funding with the Republican nominee. Before McCain even got the nomination though, the DNC had filed a complaint against him with the FEC for violations of campaign finance laws and for gaming them. Obama explained his FISA vote on his website at the time. All media did cover the vote, not all media covered the explanation. As for Wright, you must be joking. ALL media covered all aspects of that, including the uncle line, ad nauseum.

[City Lights]

28. Poor babies!

:rofl:

Suck on it, icehole corporate stooges! :nopity:

[peace frog]

29. WAAAAAAAH

So big, bad Obama is frustrating the poor little media. Tsk tsk, what a frigging shame. NOT.
They think they can pressure No Drama Obama until he cracks, when in fact it's the other way around. :evilgrin:

[Kahuna]

38. Exactly. I seriously believe that Obama is enjoying their antics. nt

[ErinBerin84]

32. also

Sarah Palin basically said "I'm not going to answer the questions" at the VP debate, but because she "survived" (meaning, she didn't really short circuit while being evasive and spouting bullshit), she was hailed as charming and the next coming of Reagan.

[butterfly77]

34. Good!

Go to hell media. These motherfuckers didn't give a damn about transparency for the past eight yrs. Now,look at the country and these assholes want to blame Obama. These bastards want transparency then why in the hell aren't they asking bush.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

35. Good - that tells me Obama is doing a terrific job.

[zulchzulu]

39. Three things, Chuck...

1. Patrick Fitzgerald said that OBAMA IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE BLAGO CASE!

2. Obama is respecting Patrick Fitzgerald's request not to comment on the case until next week!

3. DO YOU KNOW HOW TO FUCKING READ, CHUCK?

[Cha]

45. The corporatemedia has beyond "frustrated" the USA

for years and years. Payback's a bitch whether intentional or not.

[SuperTrouper]

49. They were Bush's cheerleaders during the Iraq Fiasco

it was not until Abu Graib that the shit started hitting the fan and even then they were tepid in their investigative prowess

[ErinBerin84]

46. I disagree with the part of this

that there isn't news except Bush dog videos (hello? barage of exit interviews from Dick/Bush to go over, not that the media cares now ), but other than that, this author seems pretty right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mcquaid/the-media-party-like-its_b_151781.html

The Media Parties Like It's 1997



Looking over the political coverage of the past week, a casual observer might think s/he was back in the 1990s. There's a big scandal involving the Democratic governor of Illinois trying to sell the president-elect's senate seat. Will it hurt the party? The incoming administration? Caroline Kennedy wants to be the next junior senator from New York. Are the Democrats embracing dynastic politics? The president-elect gives a press conference announcing the new secretary of education -- in which he dodges questions and bores reporters present -- just like his obfuscating predecessors.

I sympathize. The fact is, there isn't much political news right now, though there's a great hunger for it. Obama is not yet president. He's making appointments, but those people aren't actually doing anything yet. Bush is making dog videos. And Congress has adjourned after deadlocking on the auto bailout.

But what we see here is more than just an attempt to fill space. The media is falling back into old habits perfected during the vaporous Clinton scandals of the 1990s. The not-so-subliminal message in this coverage: You thought things would be different with Obama. But they're not. Politics as usual. Scandals. Spin. Coverups. And, if we're lucky, a feeding frenzy!

Drill down a little, though, and most of this huffing is off-base. Take Dana Milbank's piece on Obama's press conference. Is it reasonable to expect a press conference announcing the new education secretary to be anything but deadly dull? Is it reasonable to expect Obama to step into the state-level political tempest over how to choose his replacement in the Senate? Or to opine on an investigation in which he is at best very tangentially involved? When Clinton or Bush "dodged questions" about investigations, they (or their subordinates) were the ones being investigated. I'm not saying that scenario will never come to pass with Obama -- odds are, it will at some point -- just that the accusation is silly right now.

Enormous changes are brewing in the country and in government itself. Big Government is back -- and it may be the only thing that can save us. This has tremendous implications for American politics. The political media, however, doesn't seem to get this. It's bad at covering the actual workings of government, the nexus of politics and policy. In a pinch, it always returns to a set of commonly-held tropes and cliches forged during the Clinton scandals of the 1990s. Proven cable chat-generators, these focus heavily on the habitual hypocrisy of politicians, the always-disjointed relationship between their words and actions -- but not on the substance of the actions themselves.

This is both predictable and comforting -- all the more reason we're seeing it now, when no one knows what the hell is going to happen. But not promising.

[Sorceress]

48. MSM is just embarrassing themselves with this criticism. Obama is an attorney.

He is going to follow Fitz's wishes to avoid any possibility of jeopardizing the case. The only people who can't wait are the MSM. The rest of us don't give a crap.