Yes, I think it could be looked at as propaganda.

1) If you've ever been in any venue where Obama is present, you know that you have to be about 9 feet tall to see over the ocean of cell phones and cameras held up by just about every person there. No way they're 'controlling' all those pictures. Given that,

2) When I first heard about this, my first thought was 'security issue'. Don't know why, it's just the first thing that popped into my head.

Heck, there could be a third possibility: Given the outright rudeness with which the media has often treated this president, maybe there's just a little pushing back going on. Couldn't blame them in the least.

Whatever.

This is just rethug carping.

TYT Network is known for its flagship show featuring Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian.

Last edited Sat Nov 30, 2013, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)

After all, we are paying for them and always have. Sounds like more privatization to me, and they will use anything to get that money.

Making something look like a scandal when there is none, is a common practice to claim that private interests can do it better or that there is a crisis when there is not one.

This article is a particularly blatant attempt to use the senstibilities of the public regarding civil rights or Constitutional rights when nothing is being violated. One must always think to the profit motive when one reads these stories.

Yes, they will lie, they will smear, they will contort logic to get those contracts. I've seen this pattern repeated in each privatization scam.

And the private sector media does not always do a better job, think how they are constructed and who owns them. They often edit video to cut out the full story of Obama interviews, photos and words. They have been caught doing this so often it's poisoned the thinking processes of Americans.

Obama has bad a good deal of obstruction, and even a news blackout when he has put forth ideas. We are being forced to go to networks what are biased and to private sector media to get any of his speeches or words, and they often try to extract payment for getting transcripts or using the images they get a hold on, denying us the right to see or hear or read the words the President for their profit.

If there is any propaganda going on with it, it's from media, not the White House. They are complicit in every anti-progressive/ liberal game played on us. Think deeper, look to the advantage, not what they say, think twice, thrice. Not on the words, the meaning. Or be screwed again.

We get it.

President Obama can't do anything right.

I've been wondering what the next bashing would be.

Maybe next they can bitch about his feet moving when he walks.

I don't get it. This is stupid, right? I well remember being a teenager who didn't pay a lot of attention to politics but was shocked at how different the photos in TIME magazine were between Carter and Reagan. The photos of Carter were small and unflattering and he was some sort of big joke and suddenly there were full page color photos of Reagan parading around like a movie star king -- talk about propaganda. This makes me so mad.

They do some sneaky things sometimes.

Welcome to DU, by the way.

but I call it smart because history will now have photos that actually represent what the Obama's honestly look like over what a media who hates them can make them look like.

RWers carping at Obama for engaging in the same practices that were standard operating procedure for Reagan and Lil' Boots?

...rented Musco trucks (on the taxpayer's "dime&quot with massive arc lights on them to light up Jackson Square for his big post-Katrina speech in New Orleans. There was no power to that part of the city at that time. So Bush faked pretty-lighting for his lil photo op. Ditto for floating Muscos on barges to light the Statue of Liberty post-911.

At least President Obama's White House photographers are merely offering a different angle on truth. Bush out and out faked some of his pool photo ops. Don't get me started on the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

Yet, every politician or ruler since the advent of photographic imaging has done this. For example, look on YouTube at any of the 20th century heavyweights and what we have to view are controlled images and videos, most often taken by official sources. A study of the evidence paints a particular picture regardless of who the subject may be. Some may be flattering at the time only to be psychologically opposite as time progresses. I don't think it's a big deal. All evidence may be viewed at present, or in a revisionist fashion, as objective or subjective. The choice is the viewers.

I'm not sure why the media thinks we should care about issues important only to members of the media. They should save it for their private conversations. How the White House distributes photos is not and should not be of any concern to the public.

The media should stop trying to turn the public into its advocates for some perceived freedom to snap unflattering photos of the President.