Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

OBAMA "SCANDALS": Why Is The Media So Gleeful About Them?

The “liberal” media has been frantically masturbating for the last week as the Obama administration suddenly finds itself beset with “scandals.” But what’s really happening here?

1. Benghazi – The right has been ginning this up since literally the day it happened. After months of effort, the “liberal” media has decided to get in on the action. ABC had an EXPLOSIVE bombshell that turned out to be a completely falsified email and blamed Obama when CNN released the real one a few days later.

2. IRS – The Tea Party is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a political movement. So why is it shocking the IRS closely scrutinizes groups seeking nonprofit status when they call themselves the “Tea Party Such and Such?” Nonprofits are not supposed to be political in nature. Is someone going to seriously argue that the Tea Party doesn’t have a political goal in mind?

3. The AP investigation – The DOJ is investigating a leak that placed national security assets in jeopardy. While I do not approve of the methods involved, it should be noted that this is 100% legal thanks to Bush who did the exact same thing with nary a peep for the currently “outraged” mainstream “liberal” media.

None of these are “real” scandals in any sense of the word. So what’s going on here? Allow me to forward two theories:

1. Obama’s administration has been scandal free for far too long and the press hates that. They thrive on controversies and the left just hasn’t been giving them anything to work with. Remember, the “liberal” media is terrified of appearing to be “in the tank” for Obama and if the only scandals and gaffes are coming from the right, well, they’ll just have to find something to pin on Obama. It’s only “fair.”

2. Despite it being 3 years away, all eyes are on 2016. Just as the GOP is nervous about a Hilary candidacy, so is the media. If she runs, she will absolutely crush anyone that runs against her. It will not even be a close race and that means TERRIBLE ratings for the news. The press hates that, too. This became clear during the 2012 race when the “liberal” media kept declaring that the race was an absolute nail biter, edge of your seat, anyone’s game, “razor tight” contest. And then it turned out to be a massacre.

Obviously keeping the horse race lively is more important than factual reporting.

With this in mind, the best chance the media has for a close race is if the Obama administration goes down in flames during its second term. The economy is improving too steadily to hope for another timely collapse and it’s a safe bet that Obama won’t be caught getting a BJ in the Oval Office. I seriously think the media is prepared to drag Obama through the mud to ensure that the next presidential election is close enough to make reporting on it exciting.

The Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves at what the free press has become.

by Anonymousreply 4805/17/2013

The media is terrified of the "liberal bias" charge, so they jump at every opportunity to appear fair. Of course, they're not fair at all. They bend over backwards for Republicans all the time.

by Anonymousreply 105/17/2013

They're more interested in ratings than that though... and they need a 'horserace' and 'scandals' to get ratings.

And since Obama has presided over the most scandal-free administration in generations, they're salivating that one of these made-up manufactured outrages will somehow stick.

by Anonymousreply 205/17/2013

When you build someone up, you like to tear them down

by Anonymousreply 305/17/2013

Well, SMALL people like to tear them down...

by Anonymousreply 405/17/2013

Willy Wonka has THIS to say:

by Anonymousreply 505/17/2013

OP, the media has been jumping on presidential "scandals" ever since the Clinton administration, most of them much *less* substantial than the current ones. Remember "Hairgate"? (Bill allegedly shut down LAX for three hours waiting for his personal stylist aboard Air Force One) Or how about the ENDLESS press coverage of Whitewater? Both "scandals" turned out to be complete bullshit, but things are only worse nowadays given that all the cable news channels have 24 hours a day of programming to fill.

by Anonymousreply 605/17/2013

[quote]With this in mind, the best chance the media has for a close race is if the Obama administration goes down in flames during its second term.

You'd be surprised what kind of shit presidents can deflect during a second term.

by Anonymousreply 705/17/2013

David Gregory pretty much revealed why they shit on Obama - Obama doesn't do enough to kiss their asses. I don't even like Obama, but it's always been obvious that the media hates him for not being like them.

People shit on Hollywood celebrities for their phoniness, but they're nothing compared to the media, particularly the DC assholes who could not give a shit about informing the public as long as they continue to get their little invites to the cocktail parties around town. A (Dupont) circle jerk of cronyism and douchebaggery.

by Anonymousreply 805/17/2013

Cable news ratings are way down since the election, save for the Boston bombing coverage, so they are trying to build-up these so-called scandals into something much bigger than they are. The public, however, has tuned out for the most part.

by Anonymousreply 905/17/2013

So the DOJ not following normal protocol and asking for cooperation from the AP before wiretapping a major press organization isn't shocking?

So the IRS targeting groups of one political view while not targeting those of the opposite political view isn't shocking? And neither are the questions that they asked, many of which aren't relevant but are threatening?

So the administration doing multiple edits of the talking points on Benghazi, taking out information provided by those on the ground isn't shocking? And, more importantly, the introduction of the idea that the attack was driven by a YouTube video even that was never mentioned in any of the emails from the CIA isn't shocking?

by Anonymousreply 1005/17/2013

The only scandal is that Republicans altered the Benghazi emails that were leaked to ABC's Jonathan Karl. Major Garrett broke the story last night on CBS News.

by Anonymousreply 1105/17/2013

R10, stop sucking at the FOX News teat.

Some of that would be shocking if it were actually true.

You're a fucking idiot though. A gullible tool. An easily-manipulated fool.

Go back to free republic and masturbate over Benghazi some more.

by Anonymousreply 1205/17/2013

r8 has it. They don't have the same access to Obama as they've had with other presidents. Obama doesn't schmooze.

by Anonymousreply 1305/17/2013

Hmm, what isn't true?

Please show a credible link that shows a mention of the "video scenario" for Benghazi from a national security organization

Please show a credible link that says that liberal groups were equally targeted by the IRS

Perhaps you need to watch more than msnbc. My post was based on commentary from the Washington Post and CNN

by Anonymousreply 1405/17/2013

It beats me. The only one of these scandals I see potentially touching Obama in any serious way is the AP one, and even then, I have my doubts. Many in the "liberal" media bend over backwards to prove their "fairness" in "objectively" criticizing Obama.

I have no problem with that, as with any American president, there is a great deal to criticize. But why do they always seem to harangue about the things that make the least sense? I'd much prefer them to focus on Obama's more consequential failures (Guantanamo, indefinite detention of American citizens, rendition, the environment, etc., etc., etc.) than the bullshit they choose to attack him on in the name of giving lip service to conservative pablum.

by Anonymousreply 1505/17/2013

The irony here is that none of these so-called scandals involve Obama other than indirectly.

It's not like Nixon or W or Clinton who actively did things.

As usual the Obama administration is fumbling how they handle it, seeming culpable.

by Anonymousreply 1605/17/2013

They make money off this.

by Anonymousreply 1705/17/2013

We now have these 24 hour channels that love having something easy to fill up it's airtime, Whether the channel or host is pro-Obama or not, just talking about it so much gives it an aura of legitimacy.

by Anonymousreply 1805/17/2013

Best exchange I've heard yet:

Charles Rangel: "Are we angry at both Bush and Obama appointees at the IRS?"

Steven Miller: "There were no Obama appointees."

BOOM! goes the dynamite!

by Anonymousreply 1905/17/2013

Love this polling news from Gallup today:

"The amount of attention Americans are paying to the IRS and the Benghazi situations is well below the average for news stories Gallup has tracked over the years."

by Anonymousreply 2005/17/2013

[quote]Love this polling news from Gallup today: "The amount of attention Americans are paying to the IRS and the Benghazi situations is well below the average for news stories Gallup has tracked over the years."

R20, when I went to Gallup, I saw the following quote

[quote]Slim majorities of Americans are very or somewhat closely following the situations involving the Internal Revenue Service (54%) and the congressional hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and its aftermath (53%) -- comparatively low based on historical measures of other news stories over the last two decades.

I also saw this:

[quote]These results are based on a May 14-15 Gallup poll. Despite extensive news coverage of these stories in recent days, the level of attention being paid to each is below the average 60% of Americans who have closely followed more than 200 news stories Gallup has measured over the past several decades

Since when is 54 and 53 percent "well below" the 60% average.

And then, of course, you excluded this

[quote]Most Americans agree that both of these situations are serious enough to warrant continuing investigation, with little difference in views of the two -- 74% for the IRS matter and 69% for Benghazi.

How do I reconcile your comment with the actual story?

I am quite interested in your response!

by Anonymousreply 2105/17/2013

R21, you are aware that the comment was FROM THE STORY, right?

by Anonymousreply 2205/17/2013

That's not my comment, R21, it's Gallup's. I quoted Gallup from the very same story you read. Gallup characterized the level of attention being paid to the IRS and Benghazi stories as "well below average." Not me.

by Anonymousreply 2305/17/2013

Dear USamericans, you have shitty media.

by Anonymousreply 2405/17/2013

[quote]The people at AP have covered Obama's ass since 2008 and now know they've been played for fools.

The AP covered Obama's ass so much that they leaked confidential information that the WH begged them to not release.

Keep spinning, wingnut bitch.

by Anonymousreply 2605/17/2013

[quote]The only one of these scandals I see potentially touching Obama in any serious way is the AP one

The AP one?

by Anonymousreply 2705/17/2013

Obama isn't in any way implicated or connected to the AP "scandal". Sorry.

by Anonymousreply 2805/17/2013

R27, the British placed a double agent inside Al Qaeda - an incredibly difficult thing to do and something we've (the US) has never accomplished. The agent foiled a bombing plot that would have placed a bomb on a flight from Britain to the US.

The Associated Press got information from an unnamed source regarding the airplane bomb plot. They published it, correctly claiming that US intelligence had the actual bomb. This (along with a stupid briefing by an administration official in response to the story) revealed to Al Qaeda that the double-agent was in their midst.

The administration was understandably pissed, as were the Brits. The Republicans in Congress went insane, demanding that the President do more to find the national security leaker.

The Department of Justice got the phone records of several phone lines used by the AP for the two month period believed to be the time of the leak.

The AP is pissed off because they were not told in advance that their phone records (just numbers - no names, not the content of the calls) had been taken by DOJ. They were officially notified (as the law requires) after the fact. There is a process in which the government informs a news organization that it wants certain information in advance, and the scope is negotiated. Advance notice and negotiation is not a requirement if the DOJ believes it will damage the investigation, as they believed it would in this case.

To me this is a non-scandal but not everyone agrees.

by Anonymousreply 2905/17/2013

After what the economic crisis this country has just been through, the LAST thing people want right now is another Whitewater/Ken Starr circus.

by Anonymousreply 3005/17/2013

r20 Watergate was the same way for a while. Popular President, the American public looked away despite the hearings, till they couldn't. Then it all came tumbling down.

by Anonymousreply 3105/17/2013

They want to see him go down and some of them have been WAITING for something like this to happen.

by Anonymousreply 3205/17/2013

[quote]To me this is a non-scandal but not everyone agrees.

I agree.

by Anonymousreply 3305/17/2013

Ezra Klein said a few days ago that these scandals are falling apart. The repubs again are just proving what mean little vindictive angry inches they are, continuing their intent on bringing Obama down. They have decided, in typical fashion, not to govern so might as well hold some hearings. The media are just bored with the fact that their is nothing happening agenda-wise. The people just don't care, I am convinced we are all just sick of it and the fact that our government has just checked out.

by Anonymousreply 3405/17/2013

They are Republicans and they like to spread bullshit. I ignore them.

by Anonymousreply 3505/17/2013

The media people know the scandals, real or not, will attract viewers and readers. They know that people will discuss what they're covering. They also know that people will go to internet forums to ask "Why Is The Media So Gleeful About Them?" thus gaining more attention.

by Anonymousreply 3605/17/2013

Despite Ezra Klein's spin it's just getting worse.

by Anonymousreply 3705/17/2013

R37 you sound desperate. Fact is no one cares and secretly applaud the IRS for going after the loathsome Tea Party. Bette Midler speaks for a lot of people on this when she said on Twitter: "The IRS overtaxing The Tea Party? I never thought I'd say this to the IRS - THANK YOU! THANK YOU FOR DENYING 501C-4 to any group who hates!"

The fact is the American public like Obama and dislike the ugly frothing at the mouth tea party idiots.

On NPR today they had representatives from The NYTimes and The Washington Post who said nothing has reached any top people. They said that Obama started off in a tough week and turned it around by the end of the week. They said he released the emails (showing the Rethugs lied about what it said). Obama made statements that sounded exactly like the Republicans about the IRS so they can't say anything about that. And he came to an agreement about how to handle the press.

Now go cry you widdle eyes out because truly no one likes you

by Anonymousreply 3805/17/2013

[r37], how exactly? Nobody gives a damn about the "scandals" because they are nothing but a heap of horseshit that only a vindictive anti-Obama (likely anti-black) bitch would get excited about...

by Anonymousreply 3905/17/2013

The media is happy because it gives them something to do. "Slow news days" are not why journalists entered the profession.

by Anonymousreply 4005/17/2013

The IRS scandal has just started to be unravelled. There is surely more to be found out.

by Anonymousreply 4105/17/2013

What’s Behind the Benghazi Hearings? MAY 14, 2013, 4:55 pm

By Barbra Streisand.

Remember Whitewater and the “travel office” non-scandals of the 1990s? The Republicans and certain media outlets wasted the nation’s time and millions of dollars in pursuit of alleged wrongdoing by First Lady Hillary Clinton. It was all sound and fury signifying nothing. Two decades later, the same script is being revisited about the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which the President and Secretary Clinton clearly labeled a “terrorist act”.

If the Republicans want to revisit tragic acts of terrorism, shouldn’t we go back to 9/11/2001? The nation later found out there was massive incompetence on the part of the Bush Administration leading up to 9/11. President Bush received repeated warnings from Richard Clarke, the National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism, regarding an impending terrorist threat. Furthermore, while vacationing on his Texas ranch on August 6th, the President received a CIA briefing stating that Osama Bin Laden was determined to strike in the United States. President Bush dismissed the briefer saying he had “covered his ass” and went fishing.

In the aftermath of this horrific attack that killed almost 3,000 people, the Democrats didn’t spend months trying to politicize the tragedy by asking, “What did the President know and when did he know it”. Sometimes in the face of national tragedy, politics should take a backseat. The hypocrisy of turning Benghazi into a deliberate cover-up of a scandal is preposterous at a time when the nation faces so many serious problems. The budget sequester, sponsored by Republicans, is already cutting back security at U.S. embassies around the world. Why don’t the Republicans deal with the very real effects of the sequester at home and abroad?

But the Republicans are intent on politicizing the tragic deaths of four Americans last September 11th in Benghazi. Despite Secretary Hillary Clinton’s answering questions at Senate hearings into the matter, the Republicans in the House are trying to drum up a scandal with little new factual evidence. Could it be because they’re afraid Secretary Clinton might run for President in 2016? The report that came out of the The Accountability and Review Board, headed by seasoned diplomat Thomas Pickering, along with former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, absolved Secretary Clinton of wrongdoing, yet the Republican refuse to let this issue go.

The public should demand that the Republicans get on with the nation’s business and not spend their time and money undermining the current administration and former Secretary Clinton.

It is beyond hypocritical that Karl Rove, who was referred to as “Bush’s Brain,” should be running ads through his Super PAC, American Crossroads, attacking Hillary Clinton now and accusing her – with no proof – of a “cover up.” This established lie is nothing but a smear and character assassination.

As Army lawyer Joseph Welch said to Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy on June 9, 1954, “Have you no sense of decency?” You could still ask the same question today.

by Anonymousreply 4205/17/2013

The real scandal will come when we find out which Republican in Congress leaked classified information to ABC about Benghazi, then rewrote it to make it sound more "scandalous".

by Anonymousreply 4305/17/2013

The ACLU has weighed in.

[quote]The ACLU has expressed concern with these disclosure requirements precisely because they open the door to selective enforcement. Such concerns are often dismissed as speculative and overly pessimistic, but the IRS apology shows that concerns over selective enforcement are prescient. Those in power will always be tempted to use political speech restrictions against opposing candidates or causes. The IRS announcement demonstrates that we should carefully consider any new policy that allows the government to restrict or chill political speech, including broader donor disclosure requirements. Congress and the administration should also act immediately to create ironclad checks on the IRS to prevent this from ever happening again. It shouldn't need to be said: Even the tea party deserves First Amendment protection.

by Anonymousreply 4405/17/2013

Go get 'em Babs!

I still love that crazy bitch.

by Anonymousreply 4505/17/2013

I love r42

by Anonymousreply 4605/17/2013

I thought this said OBAMA "SANDALS"

by Anonymousreply 4705/17/2013

[quote]Charles Rangel: "Are we angry at both Bush and Obama appointees at the IRS?"

[quote]Steven Miller: "There were no Obama appointees."

Thank you, R19.

by Anonymousreply 4805/17/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!