One would certainly think so if this article is any indication, “Why Reporters Are Down On President Obama“. Color me a bit surprised to learn that reporters were down on Obama. I could be jaded after the overwhelmingly positive articles of him during the election, especially compared to favorable articles on Hillary Clinton, but I hadn’t noticed that they were “down on President Obama,” had you?

Heck, just today, the Washington Post put out a poll it did with ABC News in which the headline says things might be a bit hairy for incumbents for the next election, but that overall, Obama is seen as trustworthy on a number of issues. But what you DON’T learn in that article is the breakdown of the 1001 people polled, and how Obama’s positive numbers could be higher now than they were in a recent Gallup poll. Well, HotAir explains:

Why did Obama and the Democrats still manage to hold more trust over their GOP opponents? The pollster talked to more of them, that’s how — and more of them than they did in the last poll, relative to Republicans. In the March 26th poll, the WaPo/ABC sample had a D/R/I split of 34/24/38, giving Democrats a partisan advantage of 10 points in the poll. This time, the sample’s split went 34/23/38, and even the independents split in favor of the Democrats, 19/17, up from 17/17 last month. Just to give some perspective, the partisan gap from their November 2008 poll just before the election was nine points — and 26% of the sample was Republicans, compared to 23% now.

Given the expanding partisan gap shown in this poll, small wonder that Obama winds up with more trust than Republicans among respondents. It’s also no mystery why the WaPo/ABC poll shows Obama adding to his job approval rating, 54/44, when every other pollster has Obama sinking. That ten-point swing in the sample makes quite a difference.

It also makes a big difference in the consolation news the Post and ABC offered Democrats. The 46/32 split for Dems on trust by party shows that Democrats would be considerably narrower than the 14-point lead this survey shows. The eleven point lead that Obama has over the GOP for trust on the economy would be completely gone, and the 4-point edge Obama enjoys over Republicans on the deficit would have more than reversed itself.

So you can see why I was a bit surprised to see the Politico story indicating the love affair with Obama was over. Yet that is the claim in this lengthy article. (Let me say up front, I will not be including the whole thing here for space reasons, but I urge you to read the whole piece.)

And now to the story itself:

One of the enduring storylines of Barack Obama’s presidency, dating back to the earliest days of his candidacy, is that the press loves him.

“Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me,” Obama joked last year at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

But even then, only four months into his presidency, the joke fell flat. Now, a year later, with another correspondents’ dinner Saturday night likely to generate the familiar criticism of the press’s cozy relationship with power, the reality is even more at odds with the public perception.

President Obama and the media actually have a surprisingly hostile relationship – as contentious on a day-to-day basis as any between press and president in the last decade, reporters who cover the White House say.

Reporters say the White House is thin-skinned, controlling, eager to go over their heads and stingy with even basic information. All White Houses try to control the message. But this White House has pledged to be more open than its predecessors – and reporters feel it doesn’t live up to that pledge in several key areas:

— Day-to-day interaction with Obama is almost non-existent, and he talks to the press corps far less often than Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush did. Clinton took questions nearly every weekday, on average. Obama barely does it once a week.

— The ferocity of pushback is intense. A routine press query can draw a string of vitriolic emails. A negative story can draw a profane high-decibel phone call – or worse. Some reporters feel like they’ve been frozen out after crossing the White House.

— Except for a few reporters, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs can be distant and difficult to reach – even though his job is to be one of the main conduits from president to press. “It’s an odd White House where it’s easier to get the White House chief of staff on the phone than the White House press secretary,” one top reporter said.

— And at the very moment many reporters feel shut out, one paper – the New York Times – enjoys a favoritism from Obama and his staff that makes competitors fume, with gift-wrapped scoops and loads of presidential face-time.

“They seem to want close the book on the highly secretive years of the Bush administration. However, in their relationship with the press, I think they’re doing what they think succeeded in helping Obama get elected,” said the New Yorker’s George Packer.

“I don’t think they need to be nice to reporters, but the White House seems to imagine that releasing information is like a tap that can be turned on and off at their whim,” Packer said.

Okay. You know what I am going to say about this already. Had they actually done their jobs during the campaign, looked at who Obama really is, his job performance (or lack thereof), refrained from categorizing him as “cool” when he was being arrogant and aloof, maybe they would not surprised now.

And they sure would not be surprised by this, had they followed his “career”:

Much of the criticism is off-the record, both out of fear of retaliation and from worry about appearing whiny. But those views were voiced by a cross-section of the television, newspaper and magazine journalists who cover the White House.

“These are people who came in with every reporter giving them the benefit of the doubt,” said another reporter who regularly covers the White House. “They’ve lost all that goodwill.”

And this attitude, many believe, starts with the man at the top. Obama rarely lets a chance go by to make a critical or sarcastic comment about the press, its superficiality or its short-term mentality. He also hasn’t done a full-blown news conference for 10 months.

Obama’s White House aides can rightfully say they’ve set new standards for opening up access on several fronts, such as releasing previously secret visitors’ logs, expanding White House web content and offering more than 150 sit-down interviews with Obama to selected reporters.

But Gibbs is unapologetic about sometimes taking a hard line in his dealings with the press, saying it’s a response to the viral nature of modern media.

“There’s a danger in letting something go. Trust me, I read a lot of news every day. Not a day goes by that something that I didn’t pay enough attention to, or close attention to, doesn’t go from being myth to reality over the course of several hours,” Gibbs told POLITICO.

“I understand if you’re a reporter and get 95 percent right, and your word choice isn’t right on 5 percent. But that 5 percent goes on to become reality. I’ve got to live with that, when it may or may not be true,” Gibbs said. “It does make our jobs difficult.”

The correspondents association recently met with Gibbs to discuss, in the words of Bloomberg’s Ed Chen, “a level of anger, which is wide and deep, among members over White House practices and attitude toward the press.”

A few days later, Gibbs said at one of his briefings, “This is the most transparent administration in the history of our country.”

Peals of laughter broke out in the briefing room.

Hold the phone. Did they agree with Chris Matthews that a journalist’s job was to make Obama’s presidency a successful one and that’s why they gave him goodwill he did not EARN?? If so, they are unclear about the role of a journalist in a free society.

At least they acknowledged the total Obama/Gibbs “Transparency” meme with the response it deserved – laughter.

Here are their beefs with the Obama Administration:

The press’s bill of particulars boils down to this:

Dodging questions

If you cover City Hall, you talk to the mayor. If you cover the Yankees, you’ll hang around Derek Jeter’s locker. The White House is no different, and aides past routinely filled that need by letting the press pool toss the president a couple of questions every so often, usually at one of the various events that fill his calendar every day.

Not Obama. He has severely cut back the informal exchanges with the press pool, marking a new low in presidential access.

The numbers speak for themselves: during his first year in office, President Bill Clinton did 252 such Q&A sessions—an average of one every weekday. Bush did 147. Obama did 46, according to Towson University Professor Martha Kumar.

“Too many of the president’s meetings are ‘no coverage’ for my taste,” said ABC’s Ann Compton. “That is a stark reduction in access for us.”

White House aides say Obama has hardly avoided the media. Indeed, he has done so many interviews that at times journalists have accused him of being overexposed. In his first year, Obama gave 161 interviews, according to Kumar’s tally. Bush and Clinton each did about 50.

Reporters point out that the Bush White House was no paragon of press transparency. And since the meeting with Gibbs this month, Obama took a couple of questions at a meeting with congressional leaders last week and still photographers got into a couple more events.

“I give credit to Robert for having the meeting, hearing our concerns and taking some action after the meeting to show that, while he may not agree to all the things we’re pushing for, he respects our concerns,” said CNN’s Ed Henry, the correspondents’ association’s secretary.

Playing favorites

It’s one thing to feed a scoop to the Times. Every White House does it.

But Team Obama did it right in front of the other reporters’ faces – then, in their view, lied about it.

Say Whaaaaa?? The Obama Administration LIED about something? Yeah, like every time Obama or Gibbs open their mouths. For the rest of this particular tale of how the White House dissed a whole bunch of reporters and lied about it, click HERE.

As for the New York Times being a favorite of the Administration, Spokesweasel Gibbs had this to say:

Gibbs denied an “unnecessary advantage” to the Times, while saying it has far more reporters covering topics of interest to the White House than most outlets. Times Deputy Washington Bureau Chief Dick Stevenson said it would be “absurd” to suggest the Times doesn’t get access in certain instances that others don’t.

But Stevenson said, “Like every other journalist in Washington I would say there’s a lot more they could do in terms of access for us and everyone else. While we appreciate the instances in which they cooperate and are accessible, there are plenty of cases where they’re not terribly accessible or responsive.”

While the Obama administration’s decision to stiff-arm Fox News caused a huge dust-up for a time last year, his back-benching of the Wall Street Journal has barely generated a peep. The Journal’s White House reporter, Jonathan Weisman, occasionally vents his frustration over the near freeze-out that has left the Journal with a single exclusive interview since Obama took office.

This was news to me. I read a lot of news. How is it that this was NOT out there? I mean, the Wall Street Journal is a pretty big news source, so why was this not discussed more? If anyone knows, I’d like to hear it.

Anyone who watched MSNBC during the Primaries/Campaign is familiar with Richard Wolffe, the Obama sycophant. Well, guess who is a WH fave? You got it:

[snip] Another event that riled many in the press corps took place on March 20. The Washington Examiner’s Julie Mason confronted former Newsweek correspondent Richard Wolffe, author of a highly favorable book about the Obama campaign, when he attempted to join the White House pool on the Saturday before Congress’ big health care vote.

“You’re not in the pool,” Mason recalled telling Wolffe. “You shouldn’t be joining.” Mason said Wolffe claimed that he was there courtesy of “a special invitation from the Obama administration.” Wolffe is working on a second book on the Obama administration.

“Are you working for them officially now?” shot back Mason.

“The White House wants their friend to be in the pool and we don’t know what recourse we have,” Mason later told POLITICO. “It’s just completely unfair to the press corps and flies in the face of the concept of a free press.”

Oh, snap. And a “free press”? Yeah, I’d love to see what this country was like if we REALLY had a free press. You know, one that actually covered the differences in protests between, say, Tea Partiers and AZ Anti-Immigration people. I suppose a girl can dream, right?

As indicated above, this White House can be a tad vindictive:

[snip]Getting mad

And just what happens when you upset the White House?

Among White House reporters, tales abound of an offhand criticism or passing claim low in an unremarkable story setting off an avalanche of hostile e-mail and voice mail messages.

“It’s not unusual to have shouting matches, or the email equivalent of that. It’s very, very aggressive behavior, taking issue with a thing you’ve written, an individual word, all sorts of things,” said one White House reporter.

“It’s a natural outgrowth of campaigning where control of the message is everything and where a very tight circle controls the flow of information,” the New Yorker’s Packer said. “I just think it is a mistake to transfer that model to governing. Governing is so much more complicated and is all about implementation—not just message.”

One of the most irritating practices of the Obama White House is when aides ignore inquiries or explicitly refuse to cooperate with an unwelcome story—only to come out with both guns blazing when it takes a skeptical view of their motives or success.

“You will give them ample opportunity on a story. They will then say, ‘We don’t have anything for you on this.’ Then, when you write an analytical graf that could be interpreted as implying a political motive by the White House, or something that makes them look like anything but geniuses, you will get a flurry of off the record angry e-mails after you publish,” one national reporter said. “That does no good. If you want to complain, engage!”

Gibbs said the White House’s efforts to push back tend to focus on fixing factual mistakes before they take hold in the media.

“The way we live these days, something that’s wrong can whip around and become part of the conventional wisdom in only a matter of moments and it’s hard to take it, put a top on it and put in back into the box,” Gibbs said. “That’s the nature by which the business operates right now.…This isn’t unique in terms of us and it’s likely to be more true for the next administration.”

Asked about some of the more aggressive tactics, including complaints to editors, Gibbs said, “We have to do some of those things….I certainly believe anyone who goes to an editor does so because it’s something they feel is very egregious. I don’t think people do it very lightly.”

Some reporters say the pushback is so aggressive that it undermines the credibility of Obama’s aides. “The willingness to argue that credible information is untrue is at its core dishonest and unfortunately calls into question everything else the press office says,” one White House reporter said.

While some reporters note improvements since the Bush era, like more informed deputy press secretaries and assistants, others complain of rigid image control pervading the government. “The access is much poorer than the Bush administration,” one national newspaper who regularly covers the White House said. “This is wider than just the White House. I feel like the political appointees in a variety of agencies are more difficult to get to. There are people…you could reach in the Bush administration that now they say ‘That position does not speak to the press. We do not give background. We do not give anything.’ ’’

Compton said that if the Obama White House’s sense of being besieged by the press is authentic it bespeaks a kind of innocence born from a candidate and a president who have never confronted a full-on Washington feeding frenzy.

“They ain’t seen nothing yet,” the longtime ABC reporter said. “Wait ‘till they have to start really circling the wagons when someone in the administration under attack, wait ‘till there’s a scandal, wait ‘till someone screws up, then it’ll get hostile.”

Well, it seems like the press is going to have ample opportunity with the revelation of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s phone calls with Obama. We shouldn’t have long to wait to see if there is a “feeding frenzy” over THIS scandal.

And if the press actually does their job, I am sure the level of push-back will be noteworthy given what the press is receiving now:

Getting even

While complaining about stories is hardly unique to the Obama administration, White House reporters charge that sometimes, aides even retaliate against reporters who cross them.

One reporter said that after he wrote a story the White House viewed as critical, aides tried to cancel meetings he’d lined up with other administration officials. “I was told very clearly the press office tried to stop those appointments going ahead,” the journalist said.

Gibbs said he couldn’t recall any such instance. “I’m sure people may have thought that, though,” he said.

While the Times clearly enjoys more access than any other publication, its perceived transgressions often get a heated and sustained response from the White House. “There certainly is no lack of friction or the appropriate tension that goes into this relationship—to put it mildly,” Stevenson said.

And that is with a favored organization. I imagine we can extrapolate to those the WH does NOT like:

[snip]“They throw some brush-back pitches every now and then,” one White House reporter for a major newspaper said. “They’ve been pretty heavy handed and have cut some people off.”

Edward Luce of the Financial Times drew the ire of Obama aides for a couple of articles arguing that decision making in the Obama administration is extremely centralized. Neither piece was a devastating indictment of the White House, but they prompted a furious reaction.

“I was just in awe of the pummeling Ed took from top White House people,” said policy blogger and New America Foundation senior fellow Steve Clemons. He began talking to White House reporters and came away convinced that what he calls an “extremely unhealthy” relationship has developed in which the White House generally cooperates only with reporters who are willing to write source-greasers or other fawning articles.

Gibbs referred questions about the Luce stories to McDonough. “Who’s Ed Luce?” McDonough said. “I’m not familiar with that.”

Clemons’s post on his findings, “Communications Corruption at the White House,” was harsh, particularly coming from a policy wonk who tends to agree with most of Obama’s stances.

“Has the bar moved so far that a reasonable piece that gives and takes a little but provides both criticism and applause, that is something White House has to respond to in such a prickly, thin-skinned way?” asked Clemons.

Um, YES!! For the gazillionith time, we tried to tell you so. We tried to get you to really, really look at this candidate instead of regurgitating whatever talking points Obama wanted you to spew for him. Or to quit transferring definitions for one word to another, like “even keeled” for “prickly,” “angry,” or “dismissive.” But would you listen? No. So on many levels, the press is getting what it has coming to it.

And that would be peachy keen-o if the press hadn’t given such a massive pass to this man who now occupies the White House, shoving through policies that are disastrous for our country, using the legal system as his personal bully under the guise of the Constitution (several things come to mind, but I’ll mention two: the DOJ supporting DADT, and Obama going after Arizona for trying to do something the Federal Government has failed to do – strengthen their border). Who knows, maybe when these reporters’ own outlets decide it’s cheaper to NOT cover their health care now that Obama got this god-awful law signed, they’ll wish they had actually done their jobs a bit better.

You know, come to think of it, they deserve pretty much what they are getting from the White House now. I’m willing to bet good money that a Clinton White House, even a McCain White House, would not be treating the press – our eyes and ears in the public arena – with such callous disregard, and even contempt. But they wanted Obama in there, and as he noted, they (most likely) voted for him.

So how does it feel now? Those Kool Aide fumes dispersing any?? If so, welcome to our world, the one you, the media, helped bring upon us. And thanks shitloads for that. Ready to do your jobs now?

  • AbigailAdams

    Don’t want to leave you in suspense.  He called me back within about a week of receiving this email.  I can’t remember exactly what we talked about except that I do remember he started the conversation with “I don’t do politics.”  What’s funny (strange?) is that he said it in a flat, monotone voice that seemed to convey a fales disinterest or that he knew full well that the subject deserved someone’s full attention.  Maybe he’d used up all his chits?  Maybe he is at heart a full-on barry supporter.  I hope that he saved my email and that it nudges his conscience from time-to-time.

  • AbigailAdams

    (continued, from above)

    I speak for a lot of people, not some lunatic fringe, who desperately want to know why we haven’t heard anything from PBS’s David Brancaccio or Frontline?  We all breathed a deep sigh of relief when Tom Brokaw sat in front of the camera at CNN—but held it in again with he told us about Barack Obama’s “youthful…wrong turns.” 
    Mr. Bergman, I, we, just want the truth.  If it turns out that Barack Obama is a good guy and deserves to be believed based on evidence that supports his words, that’s fine by us.  We currently don’t have that evidence and in fact have all evidence to the contrary.  We have been waiting for someone we can trust to give us some sort of rational view based on supporting evidence of these many questions.   If I’m any example, I believe we are all ready for the truth as painful as it may be.  Right now we can’t seem to get at the truth no matter how hard we try.  It feels like for the first time in a long time that our situation as a country is more than ever at a tipping point and this coming election will make or break us.  I know that sounds dramatic, but so many people are voicing that opinion.  Unlike the elections around WWII, we have a number of global developments that seem to hinge on how we make out as a country.
    I hope to hear from you soon and thank you very much, again, for your kind consideration.
    (Abigail Adams)

  • AbigailAdams

    (Continued, from above)

    Ordinary folks, like myself (I work from home as a recruiter in high-tech here in XXXXXXX and am raising a 12 year-old daughter) are suddenly thinking and talking openly about extraordinary things like deliberate suppression of the truth, conspiracies by the DNC to elect Obama since 2004 (under the Dean Plan), deep concern over Senator Obama’s relationships with people that have not been fully explored by the media.  A few months ago we were fearful of bringing these things up less we raise a few eyebrows and be thought of as a kook.  But in the past several weeks really ordinary people (by any standard of the term) are speaking openly about these fears and questions.  And instead of a true dialogue or real interest in what we have to ask the mainstream media as well as organizations like, we are met with open hostility, attempts to discredit us and bloggers whose sites have been repeatedly attacked and shut down.   We started out as individuals asking the same questions and found one another on the internet.  We discovered that we all have the same sorts of questions and want pretty much the same things—to have our questions answered honestly.  The question comes up about why average citizens who are asking legitimate questions are being targeted and pilloried this way.
    Are you or anyone you know attempting to produce any sort of true reporting about the many questions people want answered about the Democratic primary; the candidate’s backgrounds, the media’s involvement and biased reporting, the effect of sexist, misogynistic or racist slanting of the “news” or why the DNC made the decisions they made and who is behind the meteoric rise of a junior senator who has no real background in the senate, is surrounded by highly questionable people and who has reversed his stance on nearly every issue on which he based his campaign?   Are you or anyone you know who is a real, trusted journalist attempting to get to the bottom of some of these things?
    In the absence of unbiased reporting it is difficult to figure out the truth and many of us are just trying to sift through every scrap of information available in order to piece together something that feels like the truth for ourselves.  So far a lot of us have come to the conclusion that Senator Obama is a fraud—maybe an unwitting man who feels his own sense of power first and is not fully aware of a bigger mission those who back him have in mind.
    I and many others search the television news shows for some sort of rational, reasonable programming about this election and it is a desert.  After the Jeremiah Wright episodes Bill Moyers, who I regarded as the voice of reason, did his Journal on him and interviewed him on his show.  I’ll have to go back and review the entire program, but my  reaction to Mr. Moyer’s interview was incredulity.  Where were the questions we were all hoping would be asked?  Questions about what Black Liberation Theology means and how could Senator Obama say that he’d never heard any sorts of sermons like the one the rest of America heard when that is the credo of TUCC?  Instead, Mr. Moyers made it sound like all African-American churches have their own version of Jeremiah Wright.  My hopes that anyone would be asking any more hard questions were dashed after seeing that show.
    (continued, below)

  • AbigailAdams

    This will be a very long message so brace yourselves, but I wanted to share an email that I sent to Lowell Bergman on June 30, 2008.  I was inspired to write to him after seeing the film The Insider, the story he broke while at “60 Minutes” on the Brown/Williams tobacco case.  He has an illustrious career in investigative journalism and (at the time, though I don’t know if anything has changed recently for him) holds the Reva and David Logan Distinguished Professor chair at U.C. Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism and is the most senior journalist (perhaps producer/directory?) of the PBS program Frontline.  Take note: “Collaborating with other New York Times reporters, Bergman helped produce a series of in-depth articles detailing the financial arrangements between Vice President Dick Cheney and Halliburton both before and after his retirement as C.E.O. of that firm to re-enter politics.” (from Wiki)

    So with that lengthy preamble, here is my email to him:

    Dear Mr. Bergman,
    Thank you for taking the time to read my email.  How I came to call your office at Berkley last week is a rather long story, so I’ll try to be brief and get to the point quickly.  My search for you or someone like you started because of the incredible events of the Democratic primary race; from the mass media’s shockingly biased reporting of Senators Obama and Clinton to the internet-based activities of and others.  There is evidence of Republican and Democratic party duplicity in efforts like “Democrat for a Day,” and rumors flying about George Soro’s relationship to this election and how he has used his money and agenda to sway voter’s decision.  On I even saw a video of a story reported by Al Jazeera about a Palestinian phone bank’s support of Sen. Obama.
    In and amongst all of this craziness I keep hearing the same refrain from people all over the country:  “Where are our real investigational journalists?”  “Why isn’t someone with actual investigational background—someone who we admire for their determination to tell the truth—saying anything about any of this?”  There are thousands of us, probably millions of us, who are desperate for the truth on so many of the questions about why mainstream media has been so unutterably biased, why huge organizations like Moveon (but there are several more) have gotten away with calling themselves “grass roots” when we know that while they may have started out that way in response to the Bush administration, they are using the voice of their membership to support highly questionable actions.  I’ll be glad to share a personal, recent example of that if you like. 

    (continued, below)

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Is The Love Affair Between The Press And Obama Over? : NO QUARTER --

  • FranSC

    Sassy, my thoughts completely – that Gibbs is not in the same league as Tony Snow, Dana Perrino or any of the Clinton press secretaries.  Can you imagine any of them being as silly as elementary as Robert Gibbs who uses the word “obviously” every other sentence.  Yet the so called ‘intellectual’ media doesn’t seem to notice that the person most often representing this POTUS is juvenile, silly, dismissive, and a koolaide drunk. 

    I was shocked to see how “young” Gibbs is – he is only 39 years old!  That is unless he’s turned 40 since I read that.  He looks in his mid 50’s to me and like a big-time geek.

  • Diana L. C.

    Michelle from the Resistance,

    Wow!  this video is so interesting for me.  My four sets of great-grandparents left the Volga Valley and the steppes above the Black Sea near the Ukraine in Russia just before the Stalin-caused starvation.  Many of our ethnic group remained and suffered greatly.  I did not know this about the NYT’s reporter.

    In regard to the NYT’s reporting on the Holocaust, this video explains something to me.  I had a young student in a freshman research class who wanted to know how much common Americans knew about the Holocaust as it was happening.  I was interested, too, since I clearly remember first really learning about it as a thirteen year old when a film about the liberation of the concentration camps came out and we were reading Anne Frank’s diary.

    Of course, one of the most common databases in any research library when I was teaching that allowed a student to find articles wiritten druing that time period is the NYT database of microfiche/film.  There were also all the old journal databases, and in many libraries that meant doing the painstaking search of the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature index and then hoping their library had a copy of any of those old journals–and then, if they didn’t,, waiting for the articles to come in through interlibrary loan.  Things are constantly being computerized now, but when this student was doing the research, she worked hard to find anything she could.  She was totally surprised that the stories she did find were small stories–pushed to the back, without much detail.  She did not find anything like this or any book at the time written after the fact to explain why possibly there was not much reporting.  She actually hunted down people my parents’ age (the ones who fought in WWII)  to interview them about what they remembered.  Her only conclusion was that perhaps, though people did know about it, they were too busy trying to beat the Nazis before they could do anything about it.

    I’ll have to watch the whole series.

  • bamaLV

    at the next TP rally, all the former and disenchanted democrats   need to carry signs saying just that. we need to let everyone know that the TP is not just made up of republicans, but many, many former dems. (such as myself). we need to show that its a bipartisan effort by AMERICANS  who are fed up with government intrusion into our lives.

  • Ladydawnelle

    pardon me every one reading this but (as far as the MSM /PRESS goes) they can KMA I don’t CARE that they are waking up to the TRUTH (which is not theirs) and being taken for granted and ignored by their MASTERBLASTER

    I’ll stick with “Mad Max” (he/she ain’t so crazy afterall)

  • Diana L. C.

    Cindy and Ellen D,

    Please don’t be so impressed with my teaching the research class.  Those classes are most often taught by “adjunct” teachers at pay so low as to be  laugable.  Since there are always so many of those courses scheduled because the registration is usually limited to no more thatn 25–at least here in CO–colleges and universities go begging for people with MAs to teach them (at least then when there was not the high unemployment).  I was doing adjuct work when I was in the Masters Program.  And I did it working part time as I was raising five kids, three not mine.  And then I did it again as a second evening and weekend job along with my full-time job as a documents editor, when I took time off teaching in public schools since it was too stressful dealing with teenagers at home and at work.

    I loved reading all the papers because I learned a lot from the ones that were done well, and I just plain LOVE libraries.  It was so much fun helping those kids find information they wanted.

    And, Cindy, that’s very interesting about your college roommate.  I really, really enjoyed Sarah’s effect on O, and certainly didn’t think she would be a threat as VP.  O ust seemed so frightened of her; and whenever anyone asked me how I could vote for her as VP, I would simply answer that I was voting for McCain as President.  I knew his mother has lived for a long time and seemed pretty coherent and spry, so I just didn’t feel any threat that he was going to die immediately.

  • Anthony

    “I completely forgot he was black tonight!” O really, Chrissie?  Silly me! I thought you were completely pulling the race card again. Thanks oowawa.  Gonna add that to my next video compilation.  

  • kenoshamarge

    He may be inartful, inarticulate but for me he’s equally as irritating as Ari Fleischer. Loathed that smarmy, arrogant asshat just as much as I loathe this smarmy, arrogant asshat.

    I confess to kind of “liking” Dana Perino. Got me in trouble with my Democrat friends to whom she was a Republican so therefore liking her meant that I was being tempted to the dark side. If they had only known what was coming. 😉  Or if I had.

  • Guest

    I agree.

    David Brooks is on a search to find out how it was that we elected such a “moderate” president and wound up with the worst of big government liberalism and a polarized electorate. He seems stumped as he explores these questions in what can only be described as evasive phrasing….

    For David Brooks and people like him, the primary criterion is social acceptability as understood in a particular circle … theirs. Obama dresses the part, he speaks in a carefully modulated near-monotone and his controversial views are at least fashionable enough to not set the Right People all atwitter.

    Palin is, to them, way out there. It has nothing to do with truth, such a raw fundamentalist concept, so naive and retro. She hunts and kills things for goodness sakes, she actually worked on a smelly fishing boat, can you believe that? So outré. And had a retarded baby on purpose, tsk tsk tsk.

    They just don’t understand her. She scares them, she has absolutes. Obama didn’t, because he doesn’t. It’s all style over substance, and not just any style, but their style. It trumps all for Brooks, and the many people just like him, and they’re now worried about feeling foolish because of it. So, another round of carefully modulated and oh-so-elevated navel gazing. Oh those rubes, they made a mess of things and spoiled the great hope of one of our own, how could this happen? It can’t possibly be that we were wrong, no, it must be something else. And on, and on.

  • Patience

    Sorry, but I don’t trust the recent media hand-wringing.  I’m cynical enough to believe a lot of it is planted — a way for them to give the appearance of not being totally in thrall of the POTUS.  I bet in the end, they’ll still side with him, promote him, make excuses for him, and cover up for him.  They have an agenda and even though they may (or may not) be sincerely feeling a little hurt lately, there’s no way they’d heap the same indulgences on an ideological alternative.  Consider how they’ve treated the Tea Party movement.  Promoting a certain ideology is still the main point with these folks, not journalism as we knew it.

  • Patience

    Sorry, but I don’t trust the recent media hand-wringing.  I’m cynical enough to believe a lot of it is planted — a way for them to give the appearance of not being totally in thrall of the POTUS.  I bet in the end, they’ll still side with him, promote him, make excuses for him, and cover up for him.  They have an agenda and even though they may (or may not) sincerely be feeling a little hurt lately, there’s no way they’d heap the same indulgences on an ideological alternative.  Consider how they’ve treated the Tea Party movement.  Promoting a certain ideology is still the main point with these folks, not journalism as we knew it.

  • Patience

    Sorry, but I don’t trust the recent media hand-wringing.  I’m cynical enough to believe a lot of it is planted — a way for them to give the appearance of not being totally in thrall with the POTUS.  I bet in the end, they’ll still side with him, promote him, make excuses for him, and cover up for him.  They have an agenda and even though they may (or may not) sincerely be feeling a little hurt lately, there’s no way they’d heap the same indulgences on an ideological alternative.  Consider how they’ve treated the Tea Party movement.  Promoting a certain ideology is still the main point with these folks, not journalism as we knew it.

  • oowawa

    Yes, Tingler must not be forgotten.  In fact, he was so enraptured after the State of the Union, he was able to forget for an entire hour that the President has a tan skin complexion that he characterized as “black.”  Well, that was really “white” of him, to be able to forget for such a long period of time!

  • oowawa

    I love the angry tone of this comment, Peggy Sue.  That’s the way I feel.  Evidently the “slobbering love affair” was unrequited by Thee One.  After all, the Prince of Peace deserves total adulation; toadies who are not up to 100% ass-kissing 24-7 are just not sufficiently devout.  My advice to the Press: learn how to grovel and genuflect properly and with total abject subservience!

  • Clara

    Gibbs is the most inartful, inarticulate  and irritating press spokeman in my memory.  He’s worse than a nuisance gnat and to think how much money he’s set to make when he leaves BarryO.  The world ain’t right. 

  • tango

    They went to an Arizona Cardinals game last week togather too.

  • oowawa

    True about Tony Snow & Dana Perino.  I never fully appreciated what intelligent pros they were until now . . .

  • Sassy

    Whoo hoo Peggy Sue!
    You tell ’em, I stutter! LOL!

  • Peggy Sue

    Oh dear, poor little WH press people aren’t getting the love they expected and after all that bootlicking in 2008.  What’s a journalist to do?  Cry in public.  Whine about the lack of respect.

    Here’s a clue: you people aren’t getting respect because you don’t deserve any.  Obama and his crew were frauds to begin with.  If you had done the research or been willing to expose it, we wouldn’t be in this frigging mess.

    What a shock that Barack Obama and his merry men are thinskinned after all that obnoxious adulation.  Remember Evan Thomas: the man [Obama] is almost a God!  He’s so-o-o kewl.  He’s playing 11-dimensional chess. 

    The fact these press people are whining is ludicrous.  They deserve to be tarred and feathered.

  • Sassy

    President Clinton always seemed at ease with the media even though his coverage was less than positive.
    President Bush was awkward in delivering his speeches, but he made himself available for questions.
    While I did not like the message, Tony Snow and Dana Perrino were professional, not dismissive, of the press corp.
    Gibbs is not in their league!

  • Noogan

    Oh, good lord, polls. You must be the stupidest person on the face of the earth. Do yourself a favor and try to read a few informative posts at The Market Ticker or Financial Armageddon, will you? You’re going to get fiscally slaughtered if you don’t start informing yourself pretty soon. You think it’s cute to post your propaganda polls here, but when you finally grow up one day and are responsible for your own life, you’d better know how to navigate a fiscal path to protect yourself. Start here:

  • Noogan

    A really great blog post, Rev Amy! Comprehensive and Cogent! And, I’m a journalism grad. But I LOVE research, so there ya go. Guess that’s why I didn’t stick with reporting as a career for long. 

  • Sassy

    Good work Amy! And great comments!
    It’s funny really to see these mediocre media personalities in a snit.
    If they hadn’t “put out” on the first date, they might be entitled to scoops…instead they get the brush off!

  • kenoshamarge

    Okay I watched it Anthony. No longer worried about anti-nausea medication it’s the blood pressure meds I need. “Objective Assessment”?

    It’s a good thing “Tweety” doesn’t seem to care that he’s a laughing stock. Or that his ratings are in the toilet. Or that only obots and idiots watch him. Because if he cared, he would go hide in a closet with one thumb in his mouth, the other placed in an orifice a tad lower and hope everyone forgot he exists.

     Fortunately for him he’s so clueless he still thinks he’s relevant. And that’s the funniest thing of all! 😀

  • Rabble Rouser Rev. Amy

    Um, thanks for that?  🙂   Blech.  Maybe as these cracks appear, more and more of these reporters will start getting some fresh air, getting out from under that Hopium haze…

  • Rabble Rouser Rev. Amy

    And he’s the first Pacific president, don’t forget.  Evidently, John Kennedy actually being IN the Pacific doesn’t matter, nor does Reagan being from CA, but whatever – that’s the meme the MSM has established, and dammit, they’re gonna run with it!  Sheesh.

    I fear you are right, though, Fran.  Dangit…

  • Rabble Rouser Rev. Amy

    ROTFLMAO – that is EXACTLY it.  As some of my colleagues were discussing, he’s like the crappy boyfriend who buys you flowers to apologize, and that’s all it takes.  So his catting around and lies no longer matter, as long as he is paying attention for that moment.  Pathetic.

  • Michelle from the Resistance

    “Ready to do your jobs now?”  
    I doubt it. It seems like the Blagojevich-Obama phone calls affair is conveniently ignored by the lamestream media.    
    As for the Gray Whore, this video might shed a new old light:  

    Watch all 3 parts, it’s pretty enlightening.

  • Rabble Rouser Rev. Amy

    Great comment, FranSC – thank you.  Yes, after seeing how the Dems truly operated in those early days, then the incredibly unethical, immoral vote stealing from Clinton, I knew the DNC had lost its way.  And it lost me.

  • Michelle from the Resistance

    “Ready to do your jobs now?”

    I doubt it. It seems like the Blagojevich-Obama phone calls affair is conveniently ignored by the lamestream media.  
    As for the Gray Whore, this video might shed a new old light:

    Watch all 3 parts, it’s pretty enlightening.

  • Anthony

    So sorry, creeper.  Somehow, that clip has become my secret weapon against surrender.  Just seeing him make an ass of himself like that somehow gives me a shot in the arm.  Again, sorry for your distress…

  • creeper

    You talked me into watching it, Anthony.  Would you believe I’ve never seen the actual clip of Tweety and the “thrill” quote?

    I could’ve lived the rest of my life happily if I hadn’t.  That just turns the stomach.