Investors.com: Obama's White House 'Reminiscent of Totalitarian Regimes'
An editorial at Investors.com Monday noted that, having succeeded twice at electing a candidate with a radical socialist background, Barack Obama’s political advisors have now moved from a goal of merely controlling the “narrative,” to one of control of the actual “news.” The “seizure of AP phone records and surveillance of Fox employees,” says the editorial, demonstrates the White House’s “real aim.”
The editorial observes that Obama’s political advisors have reveled in their ability to work the media. They took an otherwise inferior candidate, who is not representative of most Americans in philosophy or ideology, and got him elected by selling his personality rather than an unpopular “I will fundamentally change America” platform. A complicit media, especially the Washington Post, helped to spin the yarn that “Obama was all about ‘storytelling’ and was selling a ‘narrative.’”
Obama’s political team even “mastered the hard propaganda, creating a Pepsi-Cola-like happy horizons logo to substitute for a platform and market their candidate.” For the so-called “low-information voters,” this approach was indeed successful.
However, as Investors.com points out, the manipulation of the press by Obama’s advisors “went a lot deeper than just the political arts.”
From the editorial:
The latest news that the Justice Department investigated Fox News reporter James Rosen and two other newsmen in the normal course of their investigative reporting on a national security matter — coming on the heels of their seizure of Associated Press phone records — suggests an administration obsessed with controlling the news itself with a heavy hand reminiscent of totalitarian regimes.
The AP displayed outrage--after all, aren’t they just reporters doing their jobs? Isn’t investigation and reporting what they’re supposed to do? These are questions, though, that come from an “American” perspective, one that takes for granted that we are all using, as our frame of reference, the principles of the First Amendment of the Constitution and the protection of a free press, a characteristic that is supposed to differentiate the United States from nations under dictatorial power--at least prior to Barack Obama’s presidency.
The editorial jabs that the White House’s “effort to pin the title of ‘co-conspirator’ to [Rosen] in an FBI indictment” is “odd” since the term could easily describe “the kind of reporting that Obama’s allies in the New York Times and the Washington Post conduct all the time.”
Interestingly, Obama’s political team hoped that by smearing Fox News early on (“not a news network at this point”), they could stifle its influence. As Fox News ratings continued to soar, however, it became apparent, from an un-American, totalitarian perspective, that the news organization would have to be treated as “dissident,” and, therefore, would have to be punished.
As Investors.com notes, Obama and his allies are “casting an over wide net” that “now reaches into the operations of media organizations, threatening America’s prized freedom of the press.”
The question is: how far will Americans who value the Constitution allow this to go?