CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Media deal that may cost Taiwan a free press awaits approval

The United States, with an eye on the rise of China, is supposedly shifting its foreign policy focus back to the Pacific. As it does so, the U.S. should encourage freedom of the press throughout Asia as a part of this Obama strategy pivot.

So why does Obama's State Department remain completely silent as Taiwan, one of our strongest allies in the region, gets pushed toward a media merger deal that would give communist China freshly-purchased power over the independent nation's press? 

Want-Want China Times, headed by media tycoon and close friend of the Chinese Communist Party Tsai Eng-Meng, has been seeking approval from Taiwanese regulators for a merger deal that would effectively give it control of half of Taiwan's print media industry. Eng-Meng is already distrusted by the Taiwanese for his close ties to Beijing, and his tendency to use his media empire in Taiwan to advance his own mainland business interests.

Many in Taiwan fear that Eng-Meng, should his proposed media deal succeed, will use his new influence to push Taiwanese public opinion toward unification with the mainland. Students and journalists alike have been protesting for months, but the clock is ticking toward the March 27th deadline. The future of Taiwan's independent media is at stake.

Taiwanese government regulators announced earlier this week that they have received all the necessary paperwork in order to review, and then approve or deny, the merger - but there's the possibility the government will lay down to the big business interests pushing the deal and allow it.

Secretary of State John Kerry, if he and Obama plan to maintain the strong U.S.-Taiwan alliance and reaffirm U.S. support for an independent Taiwan, should publicly urge regulators to shutdown the merger. Such a stand would send a strong signal to Taiwan, to China, and the world that our support for freedom of the press does not stop at the water's edge.

Media deal may cost Taiwan a free press

As a nation that values freedom of speech and a free press above all else, Americans everywhere should at least be aware of the disaster that’s about to happen to democratic Taiwan’s media market.

Taiwan’s most popular and independent media organization, Next Media, is about to be sold to China-based tycoon Tsai Eng-Meng, in a deal which would give him and his company (Want Want China Times Group) control of 50% of Taiwan’s entire print news industry. Considering the fact that Want Want already controls many cable and television systems on the island, Eng-Meng is buying his way to being the top-dog in Taiwan's media market. 

The $600 million takeover is not so much a business deal as it is a proxy invasion of Taiwan’s independent press by the Chinese Communist Party. Eng-Meng, who is Taiwanese himself and holds large financial stakes in China, has been a vocal supporter of unification between communist China and democratic Taiwan. He is also an ally of Beijing’s communist government. These positions put Eng-Meng deeply at odds with the vast majority of the Taiwanese people.

Free media watchdogs everywhere have been crying foul over the deal. Objections go beyond the inherent hazards of one individual controlling the lion's share of a nation’s media market; they center on the fact that Eng-Meng already has a record of using his existing media empire to promote pro-Beijing bias and censorship in Taiwan. As the Committee to Protect Journalists recently declared, "A media buyout in Taiwan which would put independent news outlets critical of China into the hands of a pro-Beijing media tycoon is cause for concern for the island's press…letting it pass unchecked could mark the beginning of the end for Taiwan's freewheeling media culture."

The Taiwanese people are afraid of the deal and what it might mean for their free press, and have taken to the streets to protest. Last weekend, as many as ten thousand Taiwanese protested in the capital.  Persuading regulators to stop the media deal from taking place was among their demands.

The people of Taiwan have long been allies of the United States, and share our belief in freedom of the press, democracy, and sovereign peoples' right to self-government. The free people of Taiwan may be about to lose control over their own press to the Chinese Communist Party, without a shot even being fired. The American people, our press and our government need to stand alongside those in Taiwan fighting for free speech, freedom of information, and free press, and prove that our belief in those freedoms does not stop at the water’s edge.

Gibbs hammered over planted questioner at Obama news conference

President Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, was beat up by the White House press corps over the "planted questioner" at Obama's press conference.

At Wednesday's White House briefing, Gibbs insisted over and over again that Nico Pitney from the Huffington Post was not a planted questioner. When it was suggested, as I did yesterday, that the Obama plant was similar to the Hillary campaign planting questions during the Democrats' presidential primary, (at about the 5:53 mark in the following video), Mr. Gibbs went into a “no, no, no, no” rebuttal:

To borrow a famous line from Shakespeare, Gibbs doth protest too much.

At the New York Times, Kate Phillips wrote Gibbs "insisted that Mr. Pitney wasn’t a 'planted questioner,' despite the fact that the HuffPo blogger had gotten a rare heads-up the night before that he might be called upon."

Phillips explains that the significance of Obama's planted questioner scandal is that it transforms Mr. Pitney into an advocate for the Obama agenda:

The problem is not just that Mr. Pitney, for just one day, was afforded a cherished seat in the room or given an airing for his question. And no one is diminishing his work that has drawn accolades for his devoted attention to an issue. Rather, the criticism is that he was cherry-picked, with a call-upon hours and hours beforehand, and handed a status that no one among the so-called elite of the press corps receives on any given day.

While that may indeed be a thorn in the feet of the corps who toil daily, the perception of a favored one who got exceptionally advance notice may send signals — far and wide — as to what lengths the administration will go to stage and control the message the president wants to send.

That is what has gotten lost in all the old vs. new media antagonisms. It’s not about Mr. Pitney’s work or for that matter, the question he asked. It’s about how the administration finagled the position in which he became an actor for the president’s agenda.

Does Obama truly expect the media to support his presidency with planted questioners? Has the main stream media's unprecedented infatuation with Obama changed things that much?

The Obama news conference - desperate to control coverage Obama plants questions

Remember last November, when, during the heat of the battle for the Democrats' presidential nomination, the Hillary campaign created a scandal by planting a question at a campaign "town hall" meeting?

At yesterday's press conference, President Obama, desperate to turn the tide on recent negative news coverage, reverted to the discredited and disreputable practice of planting questions.

Dana Milbank describes Obama's plant in the clever, "Stay Tuned for More of 'The Obama Show.'" You can read the details below. Most important is Milbank's blowing the whistle on this latest Obama abuse:

The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world -- Iran included -- that the American press isn't as free as advertised.

Planting questions is dishonest and inexcusable. This despicable conduct just reinforces the perception that Obama's permanent campaign is manipulative and schemes to bend the rules in order obtain his goals. You know,m like that old, tired and wrong-headed idiom the ends justify the means.

Just to make sure there was no mistake Obama planted more than one questioner at The Obama Show Obama's press conference. Perhaps Obama was trying to demonstrate that two wrongs do not make a right.

Here are the details of Obama's plants as revealed by Millbank:

After the obligatory first question from the Associated Press, Obama treated the overflowing White House briefing room to a surprise. "I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post," he announced.

Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet," Obama went on. "Do you have a question?"

Pitney recognized his prompt. "That's right," he said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian."

Pitney asked his arranged question. Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.

[. . .]

During the eight years of the Bush administration, liberal outlets such as the Huffington Post often accused the White House of planting questioners in news conferences to ask preplanned questions. But here was Obama fielding a preplanned question asked by a planted questioner -- from the Huffington Post.

Pitney said the White House, though not aware of the question's wording, asked him to come up with a question about Iran proposed by an Iranian. And, as it turned out, he was not the only prearranged questioner at yesterday's show. Later, Obama passed over the usual suspects to call on Macarena Vidal of the Spanish-language EFE news agency. The White House called Vidal in advance to see whether she was coming and arranged for her to sit in a seat usually assigned to a financial trade publication. She asked about Chile and Colombia.

Will the main stream media continue yesterday's revival of its watchdog role? A role that has been severly neglected in the coverage of candidate and President Obama. Will the MSM take Obama to task for this transgression? Or will this remain an outrage covered only by Milbank and citizen journalists?

TV press abandons its watchdog role

Thank goodness at least one TV outlet, Fox, is questioning Team Obama as it pushes for the kind of massive change in American life not seen since the era of Franklin Roosevelt. -- David Zurawik

David Zurawik, The Baltimore Sun's long time TV critic, recently criticized television coverage of President Obama:

As we approach another version of what I have come to think of as network-White House co-productions,  the TV press desperately needs to step back and question how it is covering President Barack Obama.

Next Wednesday night at 10, ABC News will offer the president an hour of prime time -- as well as prime real estate on all its newscasts throughout the day -- to sell his landmark health care plan.

The need for such self-scrutiny should be all the more apparent in light of the president's complaint Tuesday about one media outlet (read: Fox News) "attacking" his administration. I am no less troubled than I ever was about the way Fox and MSNBC have turned all-news into all-partisan opinion TV in prime time, but thank goodness at least one TV outlet, Fox, is questioning Team Obama as it pushes for the kind of massive change in American life not seen since the era of Franklin Roosevelt.

 [. . .]

Perhaps, the best measure of how compliant the mainstream TV press has become is Obama's complaint Tuesday about having "one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking" his administration.

You should read the whole thing.

Zurawik discusses how television has abandoned its watchdog role when it comes to coverage of the Obama administration in the following Fox & Friends video:

I wasn't surprised that fox was covering President Obama in the manner it was, but it was really fox was the one channel -- this is Fox News not the Fox Broadcast network, but Fox News was the one channel that was operating as the kind of watchdog that is really supposed to be the function of all aspects of the TV press.

[. . .]

And especially after seeing NBC's White House prime time special with Brian Williams. I thought man this is just going too far. This is practically a White House co-production. And so I really wanted, I was hoping with this piece to get all the networks and cable channels to be a little more aggressive.

[. . .]

I think the press should absolutely be asking that question of the president. It should also be asking questions about the Auto bailout and the bank bailout. This is a massive social change that this country is going through it and we are all invested in it by the way. You know earlier you talked about what would the reasons for this. I think one of the reasons is that, as a nation, we are all invested in some of these programs succeeding. So there's a tendency to want to be positive and want to hope that things are working out. But we cannot, we cannot lose this function of watchdog journalism.

White House press corps: as polite as they are objective

Robert Gibbs, President Obama’s White House Press Secretary, tries to teach the White House press corps a little cell phone etiquette:

The vast new left-wing conspiracy includes the media

Michael Calderone reports the "vast new left-wing conspiracy," includes "several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics" who participate in a secretive and "off-the-record online meeting space called JournoList."

Even though the JList includes Nobel Prize-winning columnist Paul Krugman; POLITICO’s Mike Allen, Ben Smith and Lisa Lerer, staffers from Newsweek, Huffington Post, The New Republic, The Nation and The New Yorker; policy wonks, academics and bloggers such as Klein and Matthew Yglesias, the secretive group receives almost no attention from the media:

A LexisNexis search for JournoList reveals exactly nothing. Slate’s Mickey Kaus, a nonmember, may be the only professional writer to have referred to it “in print” more than once — albeit dismissively, as the “Klein Klub.”

While members may talk freely about JList at, say, a Columbia Heights house party, there’s a “Fight Club”-style code of silence when it comes to discussing it for publication.

All the more reason to consider the JList a conspiracy.

Using Obama sex to sell the New York Times

The mainstream media's Obamamania reaches a new, much lower, level.

The New York Times "Domestic Disturbances" blogger, Judith Warner, writes about dreams of illicit sex with President Obama - not just hers, but also a number of her female friends:

The other night I dreamt of Barack Obama. He was taking a shower right when I needed to get into the bathroom to shave my legs. . . .

Watch Sean Hannity and Bernard Goldberg discuss this latest chapter of Obamamessiah in the following video:

What happened to the "The Gray Lady," which once was regarded as a national newspaper of record? Is there no lower limit to what the financially-troubled Times will allow in an effort to attract readers? How pathetic.

Media offenses of the year - quote of the year

Media offenses of the year - Quote of the year

The Media Research Center has announced its annual compilation of the most outrageous and/or humorous news media quotes from 2008:

The quote of the year was won by  MSNBC's Chris Matthews for his "I felt this thrill going up my leg":

Washington Post admits Obama bias

Now that the election is over the Deborah Howell, the Washington Post Ombudsman, admits that the Post's election coverage was biased toward Obama.

Howell reports readers complained consistently criticized the Post's "lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama." She conducted a survey of the Post's election coverage since November 11, 2007 on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates' backgrounds, horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants, and photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4.

The survey, which conveniently ended on Election Day, found that the readers' criticisms are "right on both counts:"

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement.

[. . .]

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors -- like most of the national news media -- found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic.

Howell also admits, now that it is too late to make a difference, that Obama and Biden should have been scrutinized more:

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

[. . .]

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission.

It doesn't make me feel any better that the Post admits its election coverage was biased toward Obama. Like Bill Ayers, the Post remains unrepentant about the fact the coverage was biased. I'm sure we can look forward to a continued biased coverage of President-elect Obama.