Someone brings to my attention, via-email, this WSJ item about Obama's news conference the other night:
About half-way through President Obama's press conference Monday
night, he had an unscripted question of his own. "All, Chuck Todd," the
President said, referring to NBC's White House correspondent. "Where's
Chuck?" He had the same strange question about Fox News's Major
Garrett: "Where's Major?"
The problem wasn't the lighting in the East Room. The President was
running down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The
White House had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the
President and who was left out.
Well, yeah, I noticed that the people who were called on had been pre-selected. That seemed obvious. What I didn't know was whether the actual questions were picked in advance, or just the questioners.
But now that I think about it, if the president's going to pick 'em ahead of time, I hope next time he picks people who ask some better questions. As I said before, many of those were embarrassing.
Related Posts
Tell you what, Mr. President, now that I’ve thought about it a little more… Write the questions yourself, and hire actors to ask them. Anything to avoid the pain of listening to that foolishness from Helen Thomas et al.
And for those of you who will be shocked, shocked that a journalist could suggest such a thing: a) I’m being a little bit tongue-in-cheek here; b) I see such events as theater anyway, rather than being truly meaningful exchanges of ideas and information (as I said; I’ve held such events in contempt since my reporting days) and c) the media are unpopular enough; these things just make us all look even worse.
Think how much more you’d like it if a really smart question (such as, “If it’s going to take $1.5 trillion or more just to shore up credit markets, why do you think $789 billion can save the whole economy?”) were asked by, say, Scarlett Johansson or Marisa Tomei. You’d say, “I really like these media people; they’re smart AND good-looking!” This would boost the fortunes of newspapers and other outlets, helping them survive to do hard-hitting journalism in the future, and that would be good for the country.
It is pretty obvious that Obama is not that smart or articulate. Without script, teleprompter, pre-selected questions and coaching, he is lost.
How much longer is the media going to play along with propping up Obama?
Questions are one thing. I’m more concerned with how Obama picks his cabinet.
The way things are going, he may be running for re-election before he gets all of them confirmed.
It would help if he’d give up trying to remove the layers of insulation that would prevent him from using the next census to rig districting for Democrat benefit.
Obama has made more mistakes putting his administration together than any president I can remember. One tax problem amongst appointees would be unusual, but five of his appointees have tax problems, more have conflicts of interest, and the one Republican he appointed under the guise of bipartisanship realized today he couldn’t be Obama’s man, probably because Obama’s definition of bipartisan is Republicans doing whatever he wants.
Republicans need to realize that bipartisanship means that the party in power leads and implements its program while inviting the defeated party to participate, moderate, and critique the implementation. It doesn’t mean that if the Democrats win then Republicans get to implement their program. That’s nonsense.
Obama has merely asked the GOP to nod its head, Rich. That’s not bipartisanship.
Meanwhile, the campaign goes on and on, and that’s not leadership.
Obama looks like a one-trick pony.
I’m predicting the press is about a month from saying en masse, “Oh, dead God! What have we done?”
I agree, Weldon. There’ve been cabinet problems for presidents before this, but I can’t recall anything this excruciating. It’s worrisome.
I’m predicting the press is about a month from saying en masse, “Oh, dead God! What have we done?”
Who knew the press was so Niezsche-ist?
It had to be said.
Given the endorsement for a ticket containing Sarah Palin it’s laughable that anyone representing the State can, with a straight face, be critical of the Huffington Post. What a complete joke.
Quote by Brad: “I see such events as theater anyway, rather than being truly meaningful exchanges of ideas and information (as I said; I’ve held such events in contempt since my reporting days).”
Well, well, well! The Wizard gave you a brain after all.
I hate to agree with you twice in one day but you ARE the proverbial stopped clock.
If you can see this situation for what it is, why don’t you REPORT on it? Tell the emperor that he has no clothes. Have your reporters print up an article castigating Obama for every inanity and the White House press corps for every sucking-up softball question.
If you really want to change things for the better instead of incessantly whining, you have the perfect platform to kill the dignity of such a dog and pony show by publishing the more than obvious truth of the situation instead of the usual old blather.
It’s all been staged for Obama so far. How does a homeless women get front row seating and allowed to ask a question regarding homelessness? I believe his news conference the other night was the first time I’ve seen a president call roll to the media.
Big Media is just another branch of Big Government… and happy about it.
Did the State make mention of Jeff Gannon’s involvement in the Bush news conferences? Just curious. Now that was a bizarre episode in journalistic integrity.
Maybe a more apt description would be “T-Ball Press Conference for the President”.
Brad criticizes the Huffington Post for asking a very important question about whether the previous administration should be investigated. Obama’s answer was poor. He waffled and dodged. Of course they should, but the question was excellent.
Yet Brad doesn’t seem to have much of problem with Michael Fletcher of The Washington Post asking about A-Rod. Now that was an awful question, and completely irrelevant to the POTUS.
What we have here is a pattern. Brad is hopelessly pre-occupied with the process. He worries endlessly and rants constantly that few Republicans are on board with the Obama stimulus package. Yet the bill passed with a 24 vote margin. Would it have made a difference if the vote had been the same but distributed more evenly between Dems and the GOP? In Brad’s hyper concern with bipartisanship I believe that it would. As for the news conference, as long as a “respectable” organization such as the Washington Post asks a question, no matter how stupid it is, Brad is ok with it. Yet if someone from the “non-reputable” internet asks a question, regardless of how important, it’s automatically tainted.
Brad, the world doesn’t care much about process but rather results. The press conference told us a lot about Obama. Frankly there was much that bothered me. I wish he would have said, “Yes, we will actively investigate the previous administration, given their callous disregard for the American people and the rule of law”. Or to the question about the flag-drapped coffins – “Yes, we will reverse the previous administration’s position on that and allow photographs of the coffins. America is an open society and we honor the freedom of the press to inform us no matter how painful the images may be”. But he didn’t answer like that. Too bad.
At the end of the day the press conference was generally pretty good, if a bit boring. But this not about being entertained, it’s about learning what our president thinks. In that regard I found it pretty good overall.
You know, Birch, I meant to write “Oh, dear God,” but Freud may just have been tired of hearing about Lincoln and Darwin and steered me even higher.
bud, read what I say, then criticize. Or not. Whatever.
I DID criticize the baseball question. (Remember, I said that if I’d been in the president’s shoes, I’d have said, “This is a news conference. I think the sports conference is down the hall.”) And thanks for reminding me just how stupid the question from Huffington was. I had forgotten.
Meanwhile, Tommy says, “If you can see this situation for what it is, why don’t you REPORT on it?” What do you think I’m doing here? This is like, my second post on the subject. As for your advice that I have my “reporters” do something — I don’t have any reporters. I last supervised reporters in 1993.
Brad:
Do you have nothing to do with setting policies at Der Staat? Are you just a figurehead or can you steer the direction that the paper takes in its reporting policies and areas of interest?
Also, is the circulation of your paper so bad as to compare with the number of readers of your blog?
One reason, besides technology, that papers are suffering from poor circulation is that they’ve all become pretty much the same rags not really strongly questioning the status quo on basic fundamental violations of the law in what is supposed to be a republic based on laws not men.
Personally, I’m thinking 88-year-old Helen Thomas asked the dumbest question:
“Mr. President, do you think the Pakistanis are maintaining the safe haven in Afghanistan for these so-called terrorists, and, also, do you know of any place in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?”
So-called terrorists? Stunning terminology from a so-called journalist.
Bushbaby’s reply to the aged wonder’s query would have been “Iraq” and McCain would have offered “Persia.”
It seems the answers of Republicans are dumber than any question set forth.
With regard to news, I’m not even a figurehead. I’m walled off from them, as a matter of policy. Just as I have nothing to do with advertising. I can no more send a reporter out to do something than I could an ad sales rep.
My title is vice president and editorial page editor. Mark Lett is VP/executive editor, and he’s over news. I just do editorial.
And yeah, on my previous post I noted the irritatingly crazy questions from Helen Thomas. Sort of reminds me of a skit that SNL did about the press back before the 91 gulf war. Kevin Nealon was the straight man as a military officer doing a briefing, and he was fielding such questions as one from an Iraqi reporter asking, “Where are your troops, and can I go there and count them?” Another good one was, “Sir, what would be the one piece of information that would be most dangerous for the Iraqis to know?”
Thanks for the clarification, sir.
Yeah, Cap, when you make them up, the Republicans’ answers are just as dumb as dirt.
p.m.s., since you are too dense to understand the context I was referencing, I will elucidate. It’s okay: I’m used to dealing with Clemson fans.
McCain has referred to Iran, a potential nuclear power, as “Persia” on a couple of occasions.
One of Bushbaby’s consistent lies was that Iraq had nuclear capabilities.
Both of those countries are in the Middle East. In your terms: east of Pumpkintown, west of Senec(k)a.
Ok Brad, since you are “walled off” from the rest of the paper’s operations how about a nice editorial on the policy of outsourcing by big business. You could use The State’s outsourcing of it’s support operations to the Philipines as a good example.
Bush did not say that Iraq had nuclear capabilities. President Bush, like President Clinton, Hans Blix, and lots of UN inspectors, said Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program, which they had not fully dismantled.
Iraq had purchased an entire first-generation Soviet 1949 atom bomb manufacturing facility from Red China, which had used it to produce their first atomic weapon.
Bipartisanship cannot be achieved by the Republicans when Speaker Pelosi shuts them out of the bill writing process, and then she and President Obama gloat about it on television.
Lee, I’ll grant you half of that split hair. The rest of us know what the previous administration meant by the following as reported in 2003:
“The gravest danger our nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology,” Bush declared in the introduction to his national security strategy, issued last fall. It said enemies of the United States “have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction.”
Source: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0126-01.htm (from an L.A. Times article)
As ridiculous as it seems now (and even then), Bushbaby et al were considering a nuclear option AGAINST Iraq in 2003. I guess I got my answer for how the previous administration potentially could have bungled the war effort even more so than they did.
A person really forgets how incompetent the previous administration was until he is moved to go back and provide links of proof and veracity for one who does not extend the same courtesy to others.
In 2003, Bill Clinton was still making speeches about Iraq’s WMD. Hillary Clinton was tell us that Leon Panetta had briefed her on Iraq’s WMD, that she did not get all her information from the Bush administration.
Libya handed over its nuclear weapons, which no one knew they had, after we invaded Iraq.
Last week, Obama’s team predicted that Iran was 3 years away from having a missile. Three days later, Iran launched a satellite into orbit.
Yesterday, Obama’s security team announced than Iraq is less than one year away from having a nuclear weapon.
So we have less than a year for Obama and the Democrats to snap into reality and do something about nuclear Islamofascism, or Israel will be forced to make a preemptive strike.
Can one of you explain why it’s such a big deal for Iraq or Iran to have nuclear weapons? We have nuclear weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons.
What’s the difference? Do you honestly think they would try to launch a missile at us? What sense does that make?
Would a nation of suicidal, medieval religious zealots us a nuclear weapon against the Jews in Israel, New York or Hollywood?
Hmmm. Just sit there and do nothing for a year, and you’ll find out.
Personally, I think the time to shoot a mad dog is before it bites you.
Personally, I think the time to shoot a mad dog is before it bites you.
And personally, I think that if you don’t jump over the chainlink fence with the “Beware of Dog” sign on it, you aren’t going to get bitten by the mad dog in the first place.
Cap, I love it when you call me names. It gives everybody a good idea just how mature you are.
I live 200 miles from Seneca, by the way. But I bet the crime rate there is preferable to Columbia’s.
As to the Clemson-Carolina thing, you’re showing the same name-calling fetish common to the fans of a school owned athletically by its rival.
So come on, call me a Tater, or call Clemson Clemtek or Pickens County Tech, so I can tell you we rank above Carolina academically, too, in terms of who we admit and the education those students get.
Not only that, but our campus and stadium look better, too.
Google it, Cap. It will all come raining down on you.
But one thing I have to admit. Columbia is bigger, and Carolina, too. Y’all practically have the State House on campus. I know that comforts you.
That “Beware of the Dog” sign is supposed to be on the outside of the border fence of the USA, were mad dogs Iran can read it.
If Obama sits around wondering what to do for too long, Israel isn’t going to wait for Iran to jump over their fence. They’ll shoot that mad dog as soon as he comes into their sights.
This is serious business, and no place for delusional game playing like we are getting from Obama. The phony peaceniks in the Democratic Party could easily bring us to a nuclear war.