Obama extends his media war to Edmunds.com

T

Timshel

New member
Anybody that understands basic economics knows that cash for clunkers was a bad idea. But the White House can't stand criticism.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...es-to-war-with-car-website-edmundscom-2009-10

The White House Stupidly Goes To War With Car Web Site Edmunds.com


It is an odd, and we'd say regrettable, pattern of this White House that it lets itself get dragged down into fights with specific media outlets.

George W. Bush experienced acrimony with the New York Times, but for the most part, other than general frustrations of a conservative administration, complaining about a liberal media, it was no big deal.

But in addition to Fox News, now The White House is going after highly-respected and influential car site Edmunds.com.

They're actually using The White House blog to dispute the site's analysis of Cash-For-Clunkers (via Detroit News).

The post is snarkily titled: "Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers"
 
RStringfield said:
Anybody that understands basic economics knows that cash for clunkers was a bad idea. But the White House can't stand criticism.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...es-to-war-with-car-website-edmundscom-2009-10

The White House Stupidly Goes To War With Car Web Site Edmunds.com


It is an odd, and we'd say regrettable, pattern of this White House that it lets itself get dragged down into fights with specific media outlets.

George W. Bush experienced acrimony with the New York Times, but for the most part, other than general frustrations of a conservative administration, complaining about a liberal media, it was no big deal.

But in addition to Fox News, now The White House is going after highly-respected and influential car site Edmunds.com.

They're actually using The White House blog to dispute the site's analysis of Cash-For-Clunkers (via Detroit News).

The post is snarkily titled: "Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers"
Click to expand...


Are you serious, String? Disagreeing with the assumptions of the Edmunds.com report is "going to war?" Get real.
 
The way they handle it, is telling. The car sales on Mars comment is juvenile. As the BI author sums up...

Seriously, what's the point of this? Clunkers is over. It just makes The White House look thin-skinned, though it's great publicity for Edmunds. And yes, Clunkers massively distorted this morning's GDP number, as we demonstrated here, but we're with Edmunds that it was a giant waste with little long-term benefit.Seriously, what's the point of this? Clunkers is over. It just makes The White House look thin-skinned, though it's great publicity for Edmunds. And yes, Clunkers massively distorted this morning's GDP number, as we demonstrated here, but we're with Edmunds that it was a giant waste with little long-term benefit.
 
this administration has a war going on with the people of the United States not just businesses and news organizations..

people better wake up before it's too late.
 
I'd certainly prefer that Obama just let the media do its thing, for better or worse, without comment, but I also agree that "going to war" on this one is a bit of hyperbole.

Look - it already stoked the paranoia of meme...
 
RStringfield said:
The way they handle it, is telling. The car sales on Mars comment is juvenile. As the BI author sums up...

Seriously, what's the point of this? Clunkers is over. It just makes The White House look thin-skinned, though it's great publicity for Edmunds. And yes, Clunkers massively distorted this morning's GDP number, as we demonstrated here, but we're with Edmunds that it was a giant waste with little long-term benefit.Seriously, what's the point of this? Clunkers is over. It just makes The White House look thin-skinned, though it's great publicity for Edmunds. And yes, Clunkers massively distorted this morning's GDP number, as we demonstrated here, but we're with Edmunds that it was a giant waste with little long-term benefit.
Click to expand...


So you claim that the "Mars" comment on the White House blog was juvenile and is "telling" yet at the same time you accuse the White House of "waging war" on Edmunds.com? That's quite telling as well.

I agree that the Mars comment was a bit much, but the idea that the White House defending its policies is "waging war" is stupid.

Moreover, this claim from Business Insider is a joke and it too is quite telling:

The Bush Administration experienced acrimony with the New York Times, but for the most part, other than general frustrations of a conservative administration, complaining about a liberal media, it was no big deal.
Click to expand...
 
Onceler said:
I'd certainly prefer that Obama just let the media do its thing, for better or worse, without comment, but I also agree that "going to war" on this one is a bit of hyperbole.

Look - it already stoked the paranoia of meme...
Click to expand...


The idea that the administration should "just let the media do its thing" is ridiculous. The Bush Administration didn't "just let the media do its thing." The Republicans don't "just let the media do its thing." Christ, no one is politics "just lets the media do its thing."
 
ah yes there is that word again "paranoia" a favorite commie word..
or they like to tell you, you aren't really seeing what is happening right in front of your eyes..
 
TurdFerguson said:
So you claim that the "Mars" comment on the White House blog was juvenile and is "telling" yet at the same time you accuse the White House of "waging war" on Edmunds.com? That's quite telling as well.

I agree that the Mars comment was a bit much, but the idea that the White House defending its policies is "waging war" is stupid.

Moreover, this claim from Business Insider is a joke and it too is quite telling:
Click to expand...

I don't know why people always dwell on these titles. Titles are meant to grab attention not make points. Didn't you get a silly hand slap on this same issue?

BI made the "War" comment in it's title and I simply paraphrased.

These fights with the media have seemed to increase under Obama. Bush was really bad after 9/11, but it calmed down after that. I don't recall them refusing to talk to some networks.
 
RStringfield said:
I don't know why people always dwell on these titles. Titles are meant to grab attention not make points. Didn't you get a silly hand slap on this same issue?

BI made the "War" comment in it's title and I simply paraphrased.

These fights with the media have seemed to increase under Obama. Bush was really bad after 9/11, but it calmed down after that. I don't recall them refusing to talk to some networks.
Click to expand...


So titles are meant to grab attention? Like a snarky title to a blog post "Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers". Something like that?

Apparently, the rules are that anyone can say anything they want about the policies of the White House and if the White House defends their policies they are "going to war." That's pretty ridiculous.
 
good gawd, now we are going to haggle over whether the word "war" is the right word..

WAR has been declared by this administration and it is against us citizens..

start with this health care takeover that the majority of citizens are against, yet they are still going forward with it..

Next is the cap and tax that the majority of citizens is against, yet they are still going with it...

next will be amnesty for the 30 to 40 million illegal invaders that a majority of people have been against passing..

WAR people is the right word...

wake up..
 
Obama reminds me of a kid that gets elected president of his junior high class, then gets up and announces a list of ridiculous rules that he wants to implement. When the class starts pointing out his bullshit, he starts to whine and tells them all to shut up.
 
you must stamp out the truth, no matter where it comes from. If media outlets won't praise the hope and change administration, they must be made an example of.
 
No matter what Obama tries to sell you here, at the end of the day every dealership will still be using edmunds.com as the standard while they negotiate prices during sales. There is nobody that is more accepted as the standard in that industry.
 
Damocles said:
No matter what Obama tries to sell you here, at the end of the day every dealership will still be using edmunds.com as the standard while they negotiate prices during sales. There is nobody that is more accepted as the standard in that industry.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you are trying to sell here. Maybe you're right that Edmunds.com is the industry standard for prices but that really has nothing to so with the dispute over their report on the Cash for Clunkers program.

What I find most interesting is that they have yet to show their work on how they determined the number of sales that would have occurred in the absence of the Cash for Clunkers program.
 
TurdFerguson said:
I'm not sure what you are trying to sell here. Maybe you're right that Edmunds.com is the industry standard for prices but that really has nothing to so with the dispute over their report on the Cash for Clunkers program.

What I find most interesting is that they have yet to show their work on how they determined the number of sales that would have occurred in the absence of the Cash for Clunkers program.
Click to expand...

you are such an Obama apologist.
 
RStringfield said:
Anybody that understands basic economics knows that cash for clunkers was a bad idea. But the White House can't stand criticism.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...es-to-war-with-car-website-edmundscom-2009-10

The White House Stupidly Goes To War With Car Web Site Edmunds.com


It is an odd, and we'd say regrettable, pattern of this White House that it lets itself get dragged down into fights with specific media outlets.

George W. Bush experienced acrimony with the New York Times, but for the most part, other than general frustrations of a conservative administration, complaining about a liberal media, it was no big deal.

But in addition to Fox News, now The White House is going after highly-respected and influential car site Edmunds.com.

They're actually using The White House blog to dispute the site's analysis of Cash-For-Clunkers (via Detroit News).

The post is snarkily titled: "Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers"
Click to expand...

How is refuting a charge a "war on the media"? Essentially, you're exaggerating. And your take on the Shrub's administration reaction to the media was a complete distortion.....or did you forget a prime example of the McClellan - Gannon/Gukkert affair?
 
TurdFerguson said:
I'm not sure what you are trying to sell here. Maybe you're right that Edmunds.com is the industry standard for prices but that really has nothing to so with the dispute over their report on the Cash for Clunkers program.

What I find most interesting is that they have yet to show their work on how they determined the number of sales that would have occurred in the absence of the Cash for Clunkers program.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because the people who project sales, know the prices, and know the industry so well that they have become the standard (not for selling, only for their knowledge) couldn't possibly have any knowledge of what they set forward in the report.

:rolleyes: <- this is what I am using to signify what I wrote above was sardonic.

Again, no matter what Obama says about them, they know the industry far, far better than any of us and are the standard by which every dealership works. It takes special blinders to ignore actual knowledge so that you can press wishes as a contradiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top