Breaking from Drudge:
ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET
On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
Highlights on the agenda:
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.
The network plans a primetime special — ‘Prescription for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.
MORE
Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:
Dear Mr. Westin:
As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.
Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party’s opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.
In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.
Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff
Are we going to see any difference? These guys have been licking Obama’s boots ever since he first ran for the Senate in ’04. This just goes along with their statist ideology and with the takeover of banks and in the Auto industry, it only stands to reason that they would attempt to take over and control a propaganda arm. It’s all about power and control.
This has just come to the forefront of what was already lurking in the shadows.
One would almost think that after 230 years of freedom of the press, and with such a quick abandonment of this right, that there might be rulers, authorities, the powers of this dark world, and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms behind it all. One would almost think…
This is what happens when the news media is in the death throes.
As someone who believes that the health care industry is in serious need of reform but not quite sure what the right way is to go about it (there has to be a happy middle ground between the European version of universal health care and the fatally flawed, greed-driven system we have now), this news troubles me. I think a television news special exploring different methodologies for changing the health care system from people of different view points would make for a fantastic news special. But for a news crew to host its program from the white house, detail the white house plan and NOT put out opposing viewpoints is just bad, dangerous journalism. (Even Michael Moore looked at several sides of the issue in ‘Sicko’).
I think Mr. Golder’s a bit too quick to point out demonic influence…national health care may be a bad idea, but it’s not a sinful one. What we’re seeing is this: ABC News knows that the media is in trouble. There is a President seeking to be transparent–but one who also does not seem to understand the press’s requirement to be a watchdog and an unbiased reporter. I see nothing sinful about it, except for the abandoning of journalistic ethics on the part of ABC (and let’s face it: TV News has no ethics; it’s either infotainment, ABC-biased to the left or Fox selling out to the Right…this is why we can’t let papers die).
That said, I want to see this sourced a little bit better than The Drudge Report and the Republican National Committee–which are just as unbiased as ABC News appears to be in this case. Is there anything official from ABC that states they won’t be airing an opposing viewpoint?
Chris your right, I tend to equate anti-Americanism with sin too quickly. It’s just that the major media has, for years, been seeking “the perfect liberal” to be placed in the White House. And now that it has happened, they will have to do everything in their power to show that they have been right all along. This, by the nature of their desire, will lead (or already has led) to giving him unquestioned authority. And anytime a ruler is in this position, sin is the eventual outcome. It even happened to a man who was after God’s own heart.
Therefore, as in all things in life, I must stand with my namesake and say “We do not struggle against flesh and blood”. Even if it is premature at this juncture.
More on point, do you believe that medical care is a right in this country? Or even a right given by God, a la Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration?
I believe that medical care is a right every human should have; I could care less if it’s an American right–I simply think that it’s a responsibility that we have to take care of those who are in situations where they cannot take care of themselves.
I believe God sovereignly allowed us to “discover” cures and medical treatments. I believe that we then have the responsibility to make sure that our fellow image-bearers have the opportunity to get help that they need if they get sick. We shouldn’t be able to say “well, you can get better because you have enough money to pay for treatment” because that, in my mind, is showing favoritism and is social Darwinism. (That said, I’m not a fan of universal healthcare. You can see its flaws in Europe–long wait times, not always getting attention. I just think there has to be something better than the expensive, high-profit, nasty string of denials game that we have goin on here. I’ll leave it to brighter minds than myself to figure out what the solution is…which is why ABC should be airing two–or three, or four–sides of this story).
I think the Church, which is to be an example to the world, provides a hint as to how this works. If someone in the Body needs home repairs or assistance and can’t afford them (and legitimately has tried–I’m not supporting helping those who are lazy), then the Church has a responsibility to gather around that brother or sister and meet their needs (remember that CS Lewis said the church would appear to be more socialistic than capitalistic). In the same way, I think it’s morally wrong for our culture to see a person who gets cancer and can’t afford coverage–even though they have a job–and we either don’t let them get better or we make them go into debt to save their life. There’s nothing morally right about that and I feel finding a solution to health care is a very Pro-Life solution (I also think that taking the burden off of businesses would help them be more competitive). Again, simply saying “everyone can get well, no questions asked” sounds nice, but is unrealistic. All I can say is that there has to be a better way but I’m not quick to say that Obama has found it. Which brings us back to ABC’s misstep.
And if any of ABC’s competitors have any brains, they will pounce on this and start putting together their own news specials with experts from other sides.
And I’m probably the person on this board who has supported Obama the most. But he’s making a huge mistake in allowing this (although I think every politician, Right or Left, would do it if they could get away with it). His responsibility, if he wants to get this messaage out on TV, is this–either put it on PBS, which our tax dollars pay for, or buy the airtime and have his own media experts put this together, not journalists who are paid to be objective.
But then again, I can see why ABC is doing this (even if it’s totally wrong). The average American television viewer won’t tune in to hear something “objective,” “in-depth” or “multi-faceted.” Let’s face it: too many Americans want to be spoon fed and told what to think and they’re much more interested in “exclusive,” “unprecedented access”.
I wasn’t disagreeing with your comments, by the way, Mr. Golder; I think we agree on this more than we disagree. I think sin is rooted deep in every political issue–it’s why I think the Church must be apolitical and transcend politics. I think we just have to be a bit careful in giving the devil too much credit; we’re doing just fine screwing up the world without his help.
Hi Chris,
Please call me Paul. I did not take your comments as disagreeing with me, I was just trying to make my point clear. And I also believe that we agree more than disagree.
I do have two questions for you though, if you don’t mind giving your opinion.
First is on health care. If excellent doctors can not base their fees on the most profit possible, what incentive do they have to be good at what they do? Or even be in the profession at all?
The second is theological. If something is not of God, can it also not be of Satan? Or another way, is it possible for any purposeful thought/action to be neither good or evil?
In Christ,
Paul
This is horrible, but I don’t know what I should except from the corrupt media.
Paul,
Sorry it took so long to reply.
On the first issue of health care, I agree that doctors should be able to make a profit (it’s why I’m not totally onboard with Obama’s health care plan). My problem is with the health insurance companies themselves…that’s where the change needs to be, especially when they reward their agents for denying claims. A doctor should be able to charge whatever he wants, but I would also say this is an area where the church needs to be vigilant in changing hearts and minds so that a doctor’s goal is first and foremost to help people, second to support his family (well, maybe that’s first) and that there’s not this desire to be rich (there’s a difference between doctors making a profit and doctors making an obscene amount of money).
As for if something’s not God, can it not be of Satan? I do think there is evil in us that Satan is not responsible for. We sin just fine without his help is the only point I was making. But we’ll let the theologians sort it out…we’re probably just differing on a matter of semantics. And I’m always up for some antics