Obama Administration Found in Contempt of Court, Media Silent

Obama Administration Found in Contempt of Court, Media Silent

Kyle Dreennan
Media Research Center
Feb. 7, 2011

On Thursday, Louisiana Federal District Court Judge Martin Feldman found that the Obama Interior Department was in contempt of his ruling that the offshore oil drilling moratorium, imposed by the administration in 2010, was unconstitutional. After Feldman struck down the initial drilling ban, the Interior Department simply established a second ban that was virtually identical.

While the story was reported on Thursday by wire services like the Associated Press and picked up by frequently cited internet news sites like Politico and The Huffington Post, the television media, including ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN, all ignored the story.

In his ruling, Judge Feldman forcefully admonished the administration's attempt to circumvent his 2010 decision: "Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second blanket and substantively identical
moratorium and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this Court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt of this Court’s preliminary injunction order."

As Politico further explained: "Gulf state lawmakers have criticized the Obama administration for stopping drilling last summer, and accuse Interior of continuing a 'de facto' ban on permits, saying it cost their states thousands of jobs."

Earlier in the week, the media provided scant and dismissive coverage of another court ruling against
the Obama Administration, that of a federal judge in Florida who deemed ObamaCare to be unconstitutional. On Tuesday's Good Morning America, ABC's JuJu Chang downplayed the major challenge to the legislation:

"...the Obama administration is expressing confidence that the new health care law will be upheld. It's vowing to appeal."

On Monday's CBS Evening News, fill-in anchor Harry Smith declared: "In the legal battle over President Obama's health care reform law, the score is now two to two. A federal judge in Florida is the latest to weigh in, ruling today the law is unconstitutional...A judge in Virginia issued a similar ruling in December, but two other courts have upheld the insurance mandate."

Okay... show of hands... who says this gets completely ignored or back-paged by the mainstream media?

<--- has hand up...

Ignored, not back-paged.

TexasBlue wrote:Ignored, not back-paged.

Well according the article, there is an AP wire out on this. It's possible a daily paper somewhere in this country would carry this on A-22, below the fold...

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Ignored, not back-paged.

Well according the article, there is an AP wire out on this. It's possible a daily paper somewhere in this country would carry this on A-22, below the fold...

Doubtful.

Which leads to to say; if this were Bush, this would be on page 4 at least.

TexasBlue wrote: Obama Administration Found in Contempt of Court, Media Silent

Kyle Dreennan
Media Research Center
Feb. 7, 2011.

dblboggie wrote:Well according the article, there is an AP wire out on this. It's possible a daily paper somewhere in this country would carry this on A-22, below the fold...

tex if you look at the date the-washington-times published it's editorial on "Obama Administration Found in Contempt of Court" you will see it came out 3 days before your right wing version



EDITORIAL: A contemptuous administration
Obama team runs afoul of the law in drilling dispute

10:00 p.m., Friday, February 4, 2011

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/4/a-contemptuous-administration/

cable2 wrote:tex if you look at the date the-washington-times published it's editorial on "Obama Administration Found in Contempt of Court" you will see it came out 3 days before your right wing version

Bleh. The Washington Times is a right wing paper.

Try again.

cable2 wrote:

TexasBlue wrote: Obama Administration Found in Contempt of Court, Media Silent

Kyle Dreennan
Media Research Center
Feb. 7, 2011.

dblboggie wrote:Well according the article, there is an AP wire out on this. It's possible a daily paper somewhere in this country would carry this on A-22, below the fold...

tex if you look at the date the-washington-times published it's editorial on "Obama Administration Found in Contempt of Court" you will see it came out 3 days before your right wing version



EDITORIAL: A contemptuous administration
Obama team runs afoul of the law in drilling dispute

10:00 p.m., Friday, February 4, 2011

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/4/a-contemptuous-administration/

Uh... this is a case where not being an American familiar with the local scene earns you a FAIL!

The Washington Times is a well known right-wing daily paper... with a circulation of about 40,000... not what I'd call the "mainstream media" by a long shot.

As a note, what Tex posted was not a "right wing version" of the story... it was a simple reporting of the facts. It pays to know the difference between the two.

cable2 wrote:tex if you look at the date the-washington-times published it's editorial on "Obama Administration Found in Contempt of Court" you will see it came out 3 days before your right wing version

TexasBlue wrote: Bleh. The Washington Times is a right wing paper.

Try again.

dblboggie wrote:Uh... this is a case where not being an American familiar with the local scene earns you a FAIL!

The Washington Times is a well known right-wing daily paper... with a circulation of about 40,000... not what I'd call the "mainstream media" by a long shot.

As a note, what Tex posted was not a "right wing version" of the story... it was a simple reporting of the facts. It pays to know the difference between the two.

as your artical was crying over the fact America's main media did not pick up on the story.. my post blow the guy's tears away.. or mayhap you 2 are going to say "the TIMES" was not one of America's main media publications.. or is you 2 saying cos.. "the TIMES" is a right wing paper, it don't count as one of America's main media publications ???

O' I did Not say "the TIMES" was not a right wing paper, did I ??? What I said that "the TIMES" version was published days before your right wing article claimed America's main media had ignored the story.

The Times has a small circulation. The Times isn't part of the big newspapers. The big television here were stated above. None mentioned it. Since you don't live here, you have no idea what people watch. The viewership of ABC, CBS and NBC far outweighs anything that any of the cable news channels get.

This means people aren't getting the news they should. The big media is ignoring it. Many people don't get cable news for reasons unknown.

Had this been a Repub, it would've been news... guaranteed. I see many parallels between this administration and the last. I also see plenty of things not covered that were covered before under your buddy, Bush. I also see many things being spun to favor this administration that would've blasted the last (your best buddy, Bush).

TexasBlue wrote:The Times has a small circulation. The Times isn't part of the big newspapers. The big television here were stated above. None mentioned it. Since you don't live here, you have no idea what people watch. The viewership of ABC, CBS and NBC far outweighs anything that any of the cable news channels get.

This means people aren't getting the news they should. The big media is ignoring it. Many people don't get cable news for reasons unknown.

Had this been a Repub, it would've been news... guaranteed. I see many parallels between this administration and the last. I also see plenty of things not covered that were covered before under your buddy, Bush. I also see many things being spun to favor this administration that would've blasted the last (your best buddy, Bush).

surly fox-news makes up for any left wing interpretation of the news ???

cable2 wrote:

cable2 wrote:tex if you look at the date the-washington-times published it's editorial on "Obama Administration Found in Contempt of Court" you will see it came out 3 days before your right wing version

TexasBlue wrote: Bleh. The Washington Times is a right wing paper.

Try again.

dblboggie wrote:Uh... this is a case where not being an American familiar with the local scene earns you a FAIL!

The Washington Times is a well known right-wing daily paper... with a circulation of about 40,000... not what I'd call the "mainstream media" by a long shot.

As a note, what Tex posted was not a "right wing version" of the story... it was a simple reporting of the facts. It pays to know the difference between the two.

as your artical was crying over the fact America's main media did not pick up on the story.. my post blow the guy's tears away.. or mayhap you 2 are going to say "the TIMES" was not one of America's main media publications.. or is you 2 saying cos.. "the TIMES" is a right wing paper, it don't count as one of America's main media publications ???

O' I did Not say "the TIMES" was not a right wing paper, did I ??? What I said that "the TIMES" version was published days before your right wing article claimed America's main media had ignored the story.

Can you not read? It's the WASHINGTON TIMES... not the Times (which is shorthand for the New York Times) and its circulation is only FORTY THOUSAND... which is a TINY circulation by any standard.

So NO... it is NOT a part of the mainstream media.

dblboggie wrote:

cable2 wrote:

cable2 wrote:tex if you look at the date the-washington-times published it's editorial on "Obama Administration Found in Contempt of Court" you will see it came out 3 days before your right wing version

TexasBlue wrote: Bleh. The Washington Times is a right wing paper.

Try again.

dblboggie wrote:Uh... this is a case where not being an American familiar with the local scene earns you a FAIL!

The Washington Times is a well known right-wing daily paper... with a circulation of about 40,000... not what I'd call the "mainstream media" by a long shot.

As a note, what Tex posted was not a "right wing version" of the story... it was a simple reporting of the facts. It pays to know the difference between the two.

as your artical was crying over the fact America's main media did not pick up on the story.. my post blow the guy's tears away.. or mayhap you 2 are going to say "the TIMES" was not one of America's main media publications.. or is you 2 saying cos.. "the TIMES" is a right wing paper, it don't count as one of America's main media publications ???

O' I did Not say "the TIMES" was not a right wing paper, did I ??? What I said that "the TIMES" version was published days before your right wing article claimed America's main media had ignored the story.

Can you not read? It's the WASHINGTON TIMES... not the Times (which is shorthand for the New York Times) and its circulation is only FORTY THOUSAND... which is a TINY circulation by any standard.

So NO... it is NOT a part of the mainstream media.

I was going to get into a debate over.. is The WASHINGTON TIMES part of the main meadia stream cos.. as I get most of my news from the interweb.. the WASHINGTON TIMES is seen as part of America's main meadia stream on web.. but I stopped [mayhap I read some where.. that I should] and thought other then knowing it has one of America's on-web newspaers I knew little about the papers [I wondered how many others also knew the history of the TIMES] so I went to the webs main starting point for any infomation on ever subject Wikipedia.

The Washington Times
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Washington Times Type Daily newspaper Format Broadsheet Owner News World Media Development
Founded 1982 Headquarters Washington, D.C.

Official website washingtontimes.com

The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet newspaper published in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon, and until 2010 was owned by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate associated with the Unification Church which also owns newspapers in South Korea, Japan, and South America. The Times is considered to be a socially and politically conservative alternative to the larger and more liberal Washington Post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

but now I know... I still say "the Times" is seen as part of the American main meadia stream.. on-line

cable2 wrote:I still say "the Times" is seen as part of the American main meadia stream.. on-line

No... it is NOT seen as a part of the mainstream media... in print, online, or any other way.

Tex has defined the mainstream media for you already. The three major broadcast TV networks and the MAJOR daily newspapers and the three weekly news magazines.

YOU do NOT get to redefine what we here in America identify as the "mainstream media." That's not how it works.

The Times is a major newspaper. But as we've pointed out, it has a small circulation. Therefore, it's not widely read. The Washington Post is the major paper in DC and is read by many.

Low circulation speaks for itself. Washington DC isn't a bastion of conservatism.

But let's discuss why the major television news networks haven't covered this. That was the reason for the posting of it all.

TexasBlue wrote:The Times is a major newspaper. But as we've pointed out, it has a small circulation. Therefore, it's not widely read. The Washington Post is the major paper in DC and is read by many.

Low circulation speaks for itself. Washington DC isn't a bastion of conservatism.

But let's discuss why the major television news networks haven't covered this. That was the reason for the posting of it all.

Actually, the Washington Times is NOT a major daily... not with a circulation of only 40,000. I would know, it was my job to get clients covered in major daily newspapers... the Washington Times was NOT on the list as the tiny circulation made it inconsequential.

It is a daily newspaper in a major city, but it is not a major daily newspaper.

I guess I could have rephrased it as a well-known daily. Most people know of it.

TexasBlue wrote:I guess I could have rephrased it as a well-known daily. Most people know of it.

Actually, you'd be surprised how few people actually know about it. In our circles, that is amongst those that pay attention to things political, it is well known, but outside of that... few people know it exists... and even fewer know that it was started by the Unification Church (Moonies as they were called).

Moonies. huh? Didn't know this.

TexasBlue wrote:Moonies. huh? Didn't know this.

Yep. Most people not in the business don't know about it. That's part of why its circulation is so low in DC (well that, and the fact that DC is NOT a conservative town)... most people who buy papers in that town know who was behind the Washington Times. As you can imagine, it was not something that set well with them...