Anyone prepared to bet money that this ended when Bush left?

Government prepared "news" stories that were aired unattributed in the media.
(Ignore the hyperbole at the beginning.) We know that the Bush administration gave propaganda to broadcasters to air as news - the question is did the practice stop with the new administration? I don't know the answer to that - nor have I seen anyone ask the question.

The question isn’t whether Media Matters and the Obama White House are colluding to distribute coordinated propaganda, but which one is pulling the strings.

lol

Like Obama is bothering to pay them, they'll do it for free.

19 Reporters, Media Executives Officially Join Team Obama

What Robert said - pretty straight forward. Is the Obama administration following in Rove's footprints. I ask because I remember it happening under Bush but have not heard of it under Obama. Is this because of lack of reporting, or because the Obama administration has a different media strategy or some other reason. I don't expect anyone will be able to prove this thing one way or the other unless something comes up but I thought it was an interesting observation. Is Obama continuing the fake news videos and he's just doing it so much smarter that no-one has cottoned on, or it just old hat now and no-one would even bother reporting such a thing now because it's old news.

But it is fair to expand the conversation into where else the administrations media strategy may be going. I don't think that the Obama administration had nearly the competence of the Rove administration in terms of putting out their side of the story as "truth" and the discipline of messaging nor the total hypnotism over the media that the Rove White House had. Perhaps they are fixing that now.

There are lots of news stories every day, however what gets on the 30 minute evening news cast is limited, and subject to the bias of the broadcaster. Bush was not sending out "fake" news stories, just stories that the networks didn't want to broadcast, positive stories from Iraq that things were improving. In retro-spec those stories were correct.

The situation with Obama is different, all he has to do is fax the networks his daily talking points then they come out the anchor's mouth the next broadcast. The networks carry water for Obama.

Stories that the network didn't want to broadcast ... that were broadcast by the networks ... without the networks telling people that the stories had been given to them by the government...

The broadcast networks "carry obama's water" for him, they will make propaganda videos for Obama and call it unbiased news.

The phrase "carry water for him" comes from the person who emptied the chamber pot. He was euphemistically referred to as "carrying the water" so the master didn't get his hands dirty.

This at least would represent no change. Remember that when the Bush White House wanted to go to war in Iraq the networks ran mostly pro positions and very few anti. In fact, networks like Fox were notorious for saying that anyone against invading Iraq was treasonous and offering support for the terrorists.

Obama, on the other hand, when he first got in was all about reforming health care and, if you can remember back then, every single network was saying how great this was and how great Obama was.

Even now as Obama says we should pursue diplomatic channels with Iran the media all line up behind him saying that's exactly the right thing to do.

The Iranians could try, problem is they lack the kit to do it.

Both the French and ourselves on the other hand have the capability to turn much of the middle east into a very quiet neighbourhood for the next 10,000 years.

As for isolationism...

I mean, with your massive manufacturing capability, you could possibly go it alone, oh, wait.