Both the Republicans and Democrats are naturally trying to control media spin in the 2008 US presidential election.
Cease and desist letters are flying back and forth between candidates and lobby groups (such as the National Rifle Association), as well as between media outlets and the Obama and McCain campaign machines.
Legal action is apparently being regularly threatened over a broad area.
After a failed attempt to allegedly buy internet censorship, Obama has relied on a number of websites in his attempt to control this spin.
His Fight the Smears site asks for help in spreading the 'truth' about political rumours and falsehoods.
However, his supporters appear to be going a little overboard and are apparently attempting to censor what goes up on the Internet.
As a Wikipedia discussion points out in relation to the Obama-Ayers matter (raised again by Palin on the weekend):
It's clear this is a hot potato, but something has to be done about Obama/Ayers wording. Look over the last few days and you'll see sections and sentences about Obama appear and disappear. Some of the wordings are clear vandalism, or, at best, provocations, but even short, sober mentions of a controversy has been removed.
The topic is not without interest or published material to work with. Today the NYT published a front page article on the Obama/Ayers relationship—the overall thrust of which cannot cheer Obama's detractors, but which spends some column inches investigating the relationship. And Sarah Palin made it a campaign issue. Yet the Bill Ayers page has no mention of the principle reason most people will be visiting it in the weeks to come.
Cease and desist letters are flying back and forth between candidates and lobby groups (such as the National Rifle Association), as well as between media outlets and the Obama and McCain campaign machines.
Legal action is apparently being regularly threatened over a broad area.
After a failed attempt to allegedly buy internet censorship, Obama has relied on a number of websites in his attempt to control this spin.
His Fight the Smears site asks for help in spreading the 'truth' about political rumours and falsehoods.
However, his supporters appear to be going a little overboard and are apparently attempting to censor what goes up on the Internet.
As a Wikipedia discussion points out in relation to the Obama-Ayers matter (raised again by Palin on the weekend):
It's clear this is a hot potato, but something has to be done about Obama/Ayers wording. Look over the last few days and you'll see sections and sentences about Obama appear and disappear. Some of the wordings are clear vandalism, or, at best, provocations, but even short, sober mentions of a controversy has been removed.
The topic is not without interest or published material to work with. Today the NYT published a front page article on the Obama/Ayers relationship—the overall thrust of which cannot cheer Obama's detractors, but which spends some column inches investigating the relationship. And Sarah Palin made it a campaign issue. Yet the Bill Ayers page has no mention of the principle reason most people will be visiting it in the weeks to come.
Image from TinyPic
Which raises an obvious question - if Obama wins the White House will the harpies he has unleashed still try to censor what is said about him out in hyperspace and is that what he really intends/condones?
3 comments:
What about Sarah Palin's Wiki which was altered the day she was introduced as McCain's running mate?
What about the State of Alaska Government site which removed some of Palin's video and many budget documents the day after she was introduced as McCain's running mate?
What about Levi Johnston's myspace page that was removed after it was revealed that he was Palin's daughter's boyfriend?
I can go on and on, Palin's email,... But essentially, the web was scrubbed of Palin tracks and fingerprints.
But to answer your question: After Obama wins the White House, us "Internet Harpies" will go out and celebrate first. Then return to our lives and help restore our crippled Nation.
Perhaps a better question to ask is what will you people who oppose Obama do after he wins this election?
Dear Anonymous,
This post, like others on North Coast Voices, is a comment on the US presidential election from a non-American perspective.
It does not indicate a preference for either candidate.
Indeed, I am truly sorry for the American people who in 2008 find themselves having to choose between two cynical, manipulative, expedient, aggressive and essentially unethical candidates.
As an American, I am truly disappointed in the choices we have for President...I think Obama will get elected (due to a slick, very well run campaign), but as a political analyst recently pointed out, he will never be able to live up to the expectation of the Obama supporters since he has risen to a status beyond what a President can or should do...that is "save" America as a savior that will restore everyone to health and happiness. Nobody can fulfill that type of expectation, and the Obama supporters are setting themselves up for vast disappointment when he cannot deliver due to politics and conditions out of a presidents control. His best bet is to make Congress act (assuming a single parties control of all branches of government) in such a way that business gets done. My fear is that the single party rule theory will create a larger government(something the Founding Fathers would abhor) and simply tax us into oblivion to the point that there is no "middle class" (that both candidates are so found of courting), but just a class that works for the government (with 50% of income going to taxes) and exists dependent of that government as it gets larger and larger. I think the Libertarians (and other third-party parties)might be on to something since the Democrats and Republicans just seem to be losing the ability to govern by nominating these guys...
Post a Comment