The Press Corps Gets Feisty
By K. Daniel Glover | July 2, 2009
Helen Thomas, the veteran White House reporter who thinks there aren't enough liberals in the press, reached her breaking point yesterday with the Obama White House's attempts to manage the news. She publicly scolded Obama's team for handpicking the questions at a faux virtual town-hall event on health care and then insulted President Obama by saying he is worse than Richard Nixon.
First the video from the daily White House press briefing, where Chip Reid of CBS joined Thomas in grilling press secretary Robert Gibbs about the town hall:
Now for Thomas' profanity-laced rant to CNSNews, where she complained that not even Nixon, the epitome of a bad president to liberal reporters from the Watergate era, tried to control the press like Obama has in his early days:
"What the hell do they think we are, puppets?" Thomas said. "They're supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them."
Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama's press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.
"When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you," Thomas said.
"I'm not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well -- for the town halls, for the press conferences," she said. "It's blatant. They don't give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame."
Yesterday's public airing of press grievances is the latest sign of trouble for Obama's stage managers, and Michael Wolff's essay in the July issue of Vanity Fair may have something to do with that. Like the "Saturday Night Live" skit that embarrassed Obama worshippers in the press into tougher coverage during the 2008 Democratic primary, Wolff's essay reminded reporters that every White House (and presidential candidate) tries to manipulate the press -- and that the Obama team is especially adept at doing so.
The media navel-gazing has been intense since then:
- Phil Bronstein of the San Franciso Chronicle scolded the press for being seduced by Obama;
- The Washington Post fired a liberal White House columnist who acknowledged that he was still trying to get his "sea legs" in covering Obama;
- Doug Bates of The Oregonian decried today's "gerbilism" as "soft and warm and cuddly, safe and timid, with no sharp teeth and no bite whatsoever";
- The establishment press in Washington went nuts when the White House gave liberal blogger Nico Pitney special treatment for Obama's most recent press conference;
- And Dan Thomasson of Scripps Howard News Service bemoaned the fact that Obama has "done a masterful job of keeping the Fourth Estate, if it even exists these days, off balance and frustrated.
The sudden burst of introspection is a good sign. Democracy benefits when the press is skeptical and feisty. But the media's outcry about Obama's management of the news isn't necessarily signaling an end to his presidential honeymoon.
For now, journalists are asking more tough questions about how Obama is selling his messages than about what messages he is selling. Their egos have been bruised because Obama is bypassing them as often as he is using them, so they are striking back at the bruiser.
When the media are truly tired of being controlled by Obama, they will stop whining like puppies about process, get off his lap and start acting like the watchdogs they are supposed to be.
K. Daniel Glover is a project manager for Accuracy In Media. He has worked as an editor, writer and new media specialist in the Washington area since 1991, spending most of that time at National Journal and Congressional Quarterly.
32 Comments | Post a Comment
Well, we can only HOPE that they will be willing to take off their rose colored glasses long enough to fully wake up now that they have been personally bruised and had thier egos affected. And hopefully they will soon realize that Obama really doesn’t give a damned about America and about the fredoms of ANYONE here !....And that includes the liberal media ! For the first time ever, I actually enjoyed hearing Helen Thomas, and I also enjoyed watching Gibbs squirming in his booties, and feeling ever so anxious to move on ! Perhaps the liberal media will begin to figure out now that Obama would love nothing more than to be able to pick and choose his very own puppet press, and to be able to TOTALLY dictate to them what they are allowed and not allowed to report to the American people; let alone what to ask him ! Hopefully they will be able to figure out (before it’s too late), that he also takes orders from a higher source, and that he is in a huge rush to serve the desires of socialist / marxist eletists who are pulling HIS strings; and that we are (ALL) in extremely serious danger here of losing all of our beloved freedoms !
Well said Diane.
Only problem is that they put those ‘Rose Colored Glasses’ on for a reason; it is another shade of Red and they pleasure in that.
Communism has taken a much firmer hold on the minds of the American public than they have the spine to admito penly.
After Obama puts one big red star on the American Flag all the Communists will come out by the millions waving their little red flags in the street. Then the iron gated ghettos will be built with further Stimulus monies.
Welcome to Obamaland, otherwise known as the U.S.S.A. (United Socialist States of Amerika), where the only newspaper allowed to publish will be…PRAVDA (Truth), with Robert Gibbs appointed as Minister of Spin and Enlightenment.
You people are way off base. If we hadn’t had eight years of bush, the obama admininstration would not have had to have bailed out GM, banks and AIG. That was the result of cronyism playing loose and fast with free market principles—ie, stealing and getting away with it because they were rich and could pay off the right people. Millions of people have already lost jobs as a result of those politics….gm workers actually get to keep their, along with the thousands of people who make livings off of GM. so what are your people whining about wih your paranoid fantasies? Are the press liberals or communists, and if you actually knew anything you’d know they can’t be both….
you people are the reason the GOP is in such a sorry state, blaming everything on some hallucination with no real intelligence to back it up.
Good lord.
Andrew, don’t blow your top this beautiful and honorable July 4th. Enjoy what has been handed to you. Please don’t
Crapp on it.
Re; Post 7;
Your comment:
“... If we hadn’t had eight years of Bush, the Obama administration would not have had to have bailed out GM, banks and AIG ...”
I certainly agree with your sentiment on the “eight years of Bush” - and the fact that the Obama administration is stuck with trying to rectify the screw-ups of the worst presidential administration in my lifetime.
However, the “banks and AIG” were actually “bailed out” by the Bush administration with their TARP program (and funds) - and the current economic mess actually crystallized between March, 2008, and the end of the Bush administration on January 20, 2009. Bush 43 put the holes into the hull of the ship of state - and he left Obama the task of preventing that ship from sinking.
And your comment:
“... hallucination with no real intelligence to back it up ...”
It sure seems there’s a lot of that going around these parts!
Re: (posts #7 and 9)
Remember that Obama, as Senator last fall, signed on to those bailouts of the banks, Fannie, Freddie, and AIG. He apparently shares Bush’s “cronyism playing loose and fast with free market principle” philosophy that andrew mentioned.
Neo-Conned,
Some people in this blog are Revisionist Reactionaries. They sprang up with the falling of the Iron Curtain.The Iron Condom evidently had a blowout.
Thank you for helping with the facts.
BB
Re: Post 10;
“Signed on”? I don’t know if that’s the right term - but the fact is neither Obama nor the Obama administration SUGGESTED or INITIATED those bailouts - and Obama and his transition team certainly had NO VETO POWER. So, no matter how one slices it, the whole issue of the origination of “bailouts” is on Bush 43 and his administration.
TK (post #12) - ““Signed on”? I don’t know if that’s the right term - but the fact is neither Obama nor the Obama administration SUGGESTED or INITIATED those bailouts.”
Senator Obama voted for the bailouts last fall. The fact that he didn’t initiate them doesn’t erase his culpability. He had the opportunity last fall to show he was a person of ‘change’ by not supporting the corrupt status quo, but instead, revealed himself, along with McCain, that he shared the same flawed political perspective as Bush, the establishment Republicans, and the establishment Democrats.
Re: Post 15;
Well, if you want to go back to Obama’s vote in the Senate, then there are many other senators “as culpable”, as you put it, including Republicans.
Did you vote for Bush 43? If so, then YOU are also “culpable” for this economic mess we’re in!
???
I’m going to have to agree with TK. I can only begin to imagine the political and cultural fall out had Obama NOT gone along with the aid the feds agreed to, thanks to the Grand Pig paulson, before Obama had even got there. The Internet would no doubt be going wild with posts claiming that Obama wanted GLOBAL CAPITALISM TO FAIL—ANOTHER SURE SIGN OF HIS COMMUUNIST TENDENCIES, ETC, ETC, blah, blah blah.
The point is, its the press’s job to be acually getting the real, down and dirty stories on ALL the bailouts, and how this mess really happened (which should be easier now that the main culprits are oout of the picture)...not to mention following all the money and holding AIG to the fire in FORCING themn to actually clean up their act and be a company of integrity. And yet has any of that happened????
No, but we sure know ever detail and dimple about pooor Michael Jackson.
Re: Post 17;
I’m not sure how far back it goes - certainly some 30-40 years that I’m immediately aware of - and probably longer than that - BUT - EVERY president in recent memory has filled EVERY important position dealing with economic policy with - WALL STREET RE-TREADS from the big investment banks and/or brokerage firms - including Sec. of the Treasury, Federeal Reserve Bank, etc. So - that might be a good starting point for journalists to begin looking for the “down and dirty stories”.
There’s no doubt, at least in my mind, that there were, therefore, GLARING conflicts of interest in terms of the relevant U.S. government authorities fully and effectively enforcing existing regulatory controls on the giant financial services firms and their domestic and international activities - as well as proactively initiating NEW regulations to deal with dramatically changing circumstances and legislation.
And - GOP and DEM presidents, administrations and congressess are all EQUALLY guilty in this regard.
TK (post #16) - “Well, if you want to go back to Obama’s vote in the Senate, then there are many other senators “as culpable”, as you put it, including Republicans.”
If you re-read my post #15, I said “that he [Obama] shared the same FLAWED POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE AS BUSH, the ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS, and the establishment Democrats.
You said - “Did you vote for Bush 43? If so, then YOU are also “culpable” for this economic mess we’re in!”
No, I didn’t.
Once Bush proclaimed himself a “Compassionate Conservative” I knew he was a RINO and would never vote for him. I ended up voting for Constitution Party candidate Howard Phillips.
In 2004, I voted for Constitution Party candidate
Michael Peroutka. In the 1996 election, I voted for Buchanan. In the 2008 election, I voted for Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin after Ron Paul discontinued his campaign.
As far as bailouts…. I am vehemently against them.
Re: Post 19;
My only point is that we’re in an economic disaster that was 25-30 years in the making - promulgated by bad economic policy-making by presidents, congresses, and bureaucrats from BOTH parties - and that Obama is CERTAINLY NOT responsible for the fix we’re in. He’s been dealt a hand that NO ONE is EXPERT in playing - so, to me, the sensible thing to do as a citizen is to hope that he succeeds in effectively ending the disaster.
The ‘bailout’ was initiated and expedited by the Bush 43 administration. Period. On the other hand, if you want to also call Obama’s ‘stimulus plan’ a ‘bailout’, that would be your prerogative - although, in terms of keynesian economics, I don’t see it that way.
Historically, in many of America’s, shall we say, ‘recessions’, the economy was clearly boosted by the government injecting money into it. The most obvious example is the some $3 trillion the government spent on production of war materiel during the 4+ years of WWII. However, the current meltdown may be different - and it seems obvious that no one can claim with certainty to have “the answer”.
Personally, regarding these bailed-out companies that were “too big to fail”? I’d like to see the government use anti-trust legislation to break them up into smaller, more manageable units easier to regulate - as was done 25 or so years ago with ‘Ma Bell’.
andrew (post #17) - “’Im going to have to agree with TK. I can only begin to imagine the political and cultural fall out had Obama NOT gone along with the aid the feds agreed to, thanks to the Grand Pig paulson, before Obama had even got there.”
If that was the case, that Obama was personally against the bailouts but was compelled to vote for them for the reasons you gave, then what does that have to say about Obama’s character and principles?
I mean, we’re talking about a MASSIVE piece of legislation here with negative long-term consequences. That’s another reason that I look at Obama as just a typical politician rather than a man of ‘change’. The typical politician, to me, believes in perpetuating the ‘status quo’ because either he really wants to, or because of political expediency.
The few principled politicians out there such as Ron Paul, don’t give a hoot what the Democrats, the media, or even his own Party would say about his votes on various issues.
Re: Post 21;
Your comment:
“... The typical politician, to me, believes in perpetuating the ‘status quo’ because either he really wants to, or because of political expediency.
The few principled politicians out there such as Ron Paul, don’t give a hoot what the Democrats, the media, or even his own Party would say about his votes on various issues ...”
I generally agree with your entire statement - and give the benefit of the doubt to Ron Paul. However, and for whatever reasons, those ostensibly “principaled politicians”, like Ron Paul - - - never even come close to being elected!?!?
TK (post #20) - “My only point is that we’re in an economic disaster that was 25-30 years in the making - promulgated by bad economic policy-making by presidents, congresses, and bureaucrats from BOTH parties - and that Obama is CERTAINLY NOT responsible for the fix we’re in.”
I understood that and never argued that Obama was solely responsible. I would say though, that 25-30 years is not going back far enough. To me, more like 96 years with the passing of the Federal Reserve Act along with the subsequent injection of government interference into our economic system via Keynesian policies that BOTH parties adhere to.
“The ‘bailout’ was initiated and expedited by the Bush 43 administration. Period”
....and wouldn’t have passed had it not been for the affirmative votes of various congressman and senators which included McCain and Obama. So they ALL share in Bush’s culpability.
“On the other hand, if you want to also call Obama’s ‘stimulus plan’ a ‘bailout’, that would be your prerogative - although, in terms of keynesian economics, I don’t see it that way. Historically, in many of America’s, shall we say, ‘recessions’, the economy was clearly boosted by the government injecting money into it.”
Well, that’s why you and I can never come to an agreement on this issue since we have fundamental differences in economic philosophy; you being a Keynesian and me being a Misesian.
Re: post #22 - “However, and for whatever reasons, those ostensibly “principled politicians”, like Ron Paul - - - never even come close to being elected!?!?”
Which is why the “voting the lesser of two evils” mentality prevails.
What did we reap from such a mentality?
A new breed of politicians from both parties that are more corrupt than ever before. They take our votes for granted, so they have no incentive to change their ways, which is why I only vote for principled candidates.
As a former Republican, I was open-minded enough to eventually acknowledge that I’ve been duped by the Irving Kristol/William Buckley New Right that have predominated the GOP since the mid-1950’s, and recognized the futility of my continued support of them through my vote.
Re: Post 23;
Personally, I’m not a cheerleader for Keynesian economics. My only point is that it seems to me there are times when money injected by the government into the right places in the economy has worked.
And, rightly or wrongly, I’m sure there were many people in Congress who supported Bush 43’s bailout simply because of partisanship - or - because they believed it was the right thing to do; I also believe there were probably some who voted “aye” not necessarily because they agreed - but simply because they didn’t want to be caught on the outside looking in - or - because they didn’t want to buck the trend and come out being accused of being “unamerican” for “not supporting” the effort.
And, generally, it would seem to me that for at least the last 110+ years, the American economy, to varying degrees at varying times, would probably be best described as “a managed economy” - and, if so, it shouldn’t be a revelationary that the government might step in to “manage” a “problem”. (Theodore Roosevelt’s trust-busting might be an example of “managing the economy” WITHOUT a “priming of the pump”.)
Re: Post 24;
I agree with the post.
And, I have no clue why it is that we are always “voting for the lesser of two evils” - except that both major political parties are corrupt and out of touch with the interests of average Americans and the idea of serving “the common good” - and they, therefore, ALWAYS seem to select candidates that have those same characteristics (???)
Plenty of the founders and early political theorists issued the warning that the citizenry “should beware of the establishment of permanent political parties”.
Personally, I think the only mentality at play is “the party MUST WIN!”. And, this has no relevance to outmoded idea of running “the best and the brightest” candidates or even promoting “effective governance”. it’s only about “winning”.
As a young kid, I lived in a state with mechanical voting machines. As early as 3rd grade, at election time, they would bring a machine into the classroom, explain how it worked, and let the students vote for the actual candidates of the day - and I was actually “horrified” that the machine had what was called “a party lever” - where one flick of the lever would record a vote for EVERY GOP or EVERY DEM running in that election - regardless of the relative pros and cons of each of those candidates! From that day - my first day of learning about “party” politics and the “party” lever - I have disrespected those who, by rote, by inane habit, or by their lemmingness or dittoheadedness - voted by automatically flicking “the party lever”.
For the most part, I believe “the lesser of two evils” is the result of permanent and ever-powerful political parties - - with the result that, today, “party politics” runs the show almost totally irrespective of the citizenry.
(I’ve been a registered voter for 45 years; 4 of them as a Republican (1988-1992) and 41 of them as a non-partisan, non-ideological Independent!)
I was day dreaming one day recently, and thinking about that it might have been nice if the majority of the people would have voted Liberterian (belief in smaller govt and far less taxes and pork spending) this past time ......if nothing else just to send both the Democrats and Republicans a very powerful message ? And,that if we had done that, I seriously doubt that our country would be in any worse shape at this point than it is now ! Perhaps that is really the kind of change that we have needed here ! Just cannot help but wonder, even though I know it could never happen.
TK (post #25) - “And, generally, it would seem to me that for at least the last 110+ years, the American economy, to varying degrees at varying times, would probably be best described as “a managed economy”” and “
Technically, you’re right that our managed economy goes back even further than the creation of the Federal Reserve, especially concerning the policies of neocon hero, Teddy Roosevelt.
However, I tend to concentrate on the Fed because of their past inflationary policies which helped finance our unnecessary involvement in so many wars over the past 90 years, devalued the dollar to the extent that it’s now worth 4 cents compared to the dollar in 1913, allowed the government to grow to its current, intrusive, massive size, fund useless money-draining international organizations (IMF, World Bank, UN, etc.), and caused all those recessions Americans have suffered under, just to name a few.
I agree with the various reasons you gave for congressional support of the bailouts. From what I recall, it was pressure from constituents that kept the first version of the bailout from passing through the House.
Re: Post 28;
Once again, going back to my young years: Primarily because of the extreme level of power and authority allowed to the Chairman and Board Members of the Federal Reserve - - I’ve been opposed to it simply because - - the board and chairman are NOT ACCOUNTABLE to the citizenry, not individually elected by the citizenry, and are not subject to any citizen initiatives of any kind, including recall - - and - - the board members and chairman aren’t even subjected to review and confirmation procedures similar to those used for appointing justices to the Supreme Court!
(Obviously, however, my objection to the Federal Reserve is based more on my political rather than economic philosophy.)
Re: #29
Your political objections to the Federal Reserve are valid and understandable simply because there is nothing ‘Federal’ about the Federal Reserve. It’s not a government agency, but rather a cartel of banks that has a partnership with the government and is not subject to audits, although Ron Paul is presently trying to push through legislation to change that. GOOD LUCK!!
The mechanical voting machines you mentioned in #26 is something I wish they would bring back. I feel that we are now more vulnerable to fixed election outcomes with the advent of today’s electronic voting machines
Diane (post #27) - “I was day dreaming one day recently, and thinking about that it might have been nice if the majority of the people would have voted Libertarian.”
I share your ‘day dream’. I’m just thankful that we have the Internet which gives us access to great sites such as Accuracy In Media, LewRockwell, Mises.org, newswithviews, and a new one from AIM poster, Will Gerard, examiner.com. Add to that, book-sites which sell books that I’m not so sure are accessible from our local public libraries, such as those from the late, great, Murray Rothbard, Thomas Dilorenzo, Ron Paul, etc.
Reading this stuff keeps me from going crazy!
Re: Post 30;
I definitely believe the old “mechanical voting machines” common in my area in my younger days were THE BEST! Nothing since is as reliable or as trustworthy. The only thing I ever objected to was “the party lever”.
July 2 at 4:15 pm | #1 | Link
Sounds like a good thing to me!