Obama skips major papers: No NYT, WaPo, WSJ, USA Today

I think he did a fine job choosing which newspapers he would accept questions from.

 

You would.

 

I was that guy clapping in the bar when he called on Ward.

 

Giving or receiving?

 

No big deal. Maybe this is a backhanded way of showing respect to newspapers, not the other way around. He has to know that top newspapers will usually give him the best-informed, toughest questions, and when he doesn't have his teleprompted script to help him out in a pinch, he doesn't take any chances live on national TV.

That said, I find it funny that he snubbed NYT and Washington Post, especially. Those ultra-liberal, bash-Bush rags have glorified Obama and given him a free ride for the last 18 months. So what do they get for their campaign contributions?? They get blown off on national TV. They must have done something reallym, really bad to warrant this treatment, i.e. written a page 12 piece wondering why it took him an extra few days to raise the AIG bonus question. You know, something sacrilegious like that.

 

It will be interesting to see if this continues. Regardless of what you think of the WSJ, USAT, NYT & WaPo they are the papers of record in this country and the President just gave them both middle fingers at a nationally-televised press conference.

The administration is sending the message they those four aren't going to control the message anymore and that they need to get on board with Obama's agenda.

From an administration point of view it makes sense to cozy up to smaller outlets that aren't used to getting access. They're more likely to act like the political equivalent of an SEC beat writer in that situation.

 

I got a kick out of watching Obama squirm and "um" and "uh" his way around the question about morality and embryonic stem cell research. In his answer he kept referring to the "ethical" part of the question and not the "moral."

I"ve never seen someone who claims to be a Christian so uncomfortable addressing issues of his faith and being transparent.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear to you naysayers ready to pounce on this----this is NOT about separation of church and state, or however else you want to tear down what I'm saying. Point is, there's nothing wrong with an elected official to express his or her own personal beliefs (i.e., "My own beliefs rooted in Christianity say that embryonic stem cell research is wrong as it involves the final destruction of life, at least for those who believe that life begins at conception, as I do") with the caveat that they then say, 'However, my personal beliefs are not the driving force here---the will of the people is; after all, this is a democracy." But gutless politicos like Obama won't do that, fearful of consequences of expressing their own convictions. Instead, they dance all around issues that involve morality, squirming and filibustering off on some other tangent to make it sound like an answer----which he did 90% of the time last night, answering 13 questions in about 55 minutes.

Also, will he or won't he sign the budget bill if it does NOT include the middle-class cuts he so adamantly promised over the last 15 months?? He was asked that question directly, and again, he danced all around it.

Say what you want about Bush and his antics, that is old news now, folks. The statute of limitations on "blame Bush" has expired, and we are left with Gene Gene the Dancing Machine giving us the old soft shoe.

The party's over.

 

I don't see the story here.

I think it's refreshing that he mixed up the questioners. And isn't Stars and Stripes a newspaper that's been around forever, albeit one that serves a specialized audience? Isn't Ebony a print publication? Isn't the Associated Press a print wire service that's going to be providing copy to hundreds of newspapers across the country? Isn't the Washington Times a freakin' daily newspaper? But I realize screaming "MSM!!!111" at publications like these isn't as fun as it is when the pub is the NY Times.

If he was trying to balance it, it would've been nice if one of the TV networks had gotten shorted along with the big papers, but I still don't think it's anything to get huffy about. Or for Politico to suggest newspapers should get huffy about.

 

The day before his press conference, he met with reporters from six newspapers. I know this because I was shocked to see a bylined story with the dateline of "WASHINGTON --" from my hometown paper, the Fayetteville Observer. So it's not as if he's ignoring newspapers.

 

An interesting dichotomy: We had pages and pages of outrage here a few years back when Bush admitted he didn't go out of his way to read newspapers. But when Obama freezes the nation's three papers of record (OK, and USA Today) out of a press conference, it's met with shrugged shoulders.

I'd think indifference to the product would be preferable to obstruction of the process. Sure, it's great that the Washington Times and the Fayetteville Observer and Ebony freakin' magazine got to have a moment in the sun. But they're not the nation's leading news sources, and the decision to brush aside those four papers shouldn't be brushed away as insignificant.

 

I don't think there's any hidden agendas here. He just decided to open the questions up to a more diverse selection of media. So what? And he's not good at giving short answers so he didn't get that many questions in. I do agree he should punt one or two of the TV networks in the same way as he's punting the major newspapers. And Politico? Please. No one outside the Beltway who isn't a political junkie even knows what or who Politico is. They are self-important foofs and should be taken off the questioner list.

 

It was completely a snub, and I'd be a lot more outraged a few years ago when that registered in the "Top 10 Worst Things To Happen to Newspapers This Week."