More pissy reporters:
While the White House seems to believe the American people deserve to hear from Kagan, it has not made her available to reporters. That prompted some consternation at today’s White House briefing.
“It appears that Solicitor General Kagan did an interview yesterday right after the president’s announcement,” said a reporter. “You’ve now posted that on the White House Web site. Who did the interview? And can I have one?”
“I think it’s — I think it’s on the website if you want to see it,” responded Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
Soon after, the reporter can be heard saying, an edge in her voice, “So a White House staffer interviewing her.”
Gibbs says yes, and the reporter asks if Kagan would like to do another interview.
“She has — she’s not told me that, no,” replied Gibbs, prompting the reporter to respond, “Tell her we’re deeply frustrated.”
The decision to post an interview with Kagan conducted by a government employee – not a journalist – is in line with the Obama administration’s policy of regularly using new media tools to go around traditional media.
Poor babies. They helped write the new rules during the last campaign, when they refused to demand access to Sarah Palin, but clung to her every word in scripted speeches. This continues on today, with our beltway stenographers breathlessly “reporting” what someone writes on Palin’s facebook page as if it was relevant or her own words.
For the record, I think the WH should make her available and they probably will later on, but sorry guys- your rules. You wrote them with your decade of subservience to the GOP that continues on today. The White House is just following them. But hey- Gibbs is working on your internet access on Air Force One.
Just exactly how lacking in self awareness do you have to be to be a reporter these days? And has anyone seen any of the stenographers even so much as mention the abuses at Gitmo last week? Of course not, but if Gibbs is late for a briefing- HISSY FIT!
mistermix
I can only imagine the stupid questions the WH press corpse would ask her – a combination of “Why do you hate the troops?” and “R u teh ghey?”
pharniel
Amazingly. The general media is basically just catchers for whatever the people paying (GOP) are pitching
Keith
And they would have also complained if she had only given a single interview to an outlet because they would have felt that in that single day it would demonstrate favoritism to a single outlet. No exaggeration because they’ve done it before (can’t recall if it was ABC getting the interview or the NYTimes or both…journalists suddenly developed hypersensitive fee-fees since they stopped getting folksy nicknames from POTUS last year)
Tazistan Jen
@mistermix:
Really. I think I will check out the interview by the staffer, as I wouldn’t be surprised if it is more substantive and worthwhile than any we’ll see from the White House press corp.
chopper
yeah, the guys who shrugged their shoulders through years of being denied any access to W are suddenly pissed about access to kagan days after the announcement.
just goes to show how quickly the gears change when a democrat is in the WH in the media just like everywhere else.
V.O.R.
“Just exactly how lacking in self awareness do you have to be to be a reporter these days?”
Oh please. You grossly overstate. Reporters *can* get by with some self-awareness even if it interferes with regurgitation. Just like you can have conservative Republicans who aren’t misanthropes. Or religious-right leaders who aren’t gay.
Those characteristics help, but they aren’t absolutely necessary.
What do you think deeply frustrated the reporter, btw? A little more evidence that interviews – ie, asking questions and noting answers – can be done by pretty much anyone? The need to go look something up on the web rather than be handed hard-copy?
So even there I think you might be jumping to conclusions.
demo woman
Sarah is a repub and you know that it’s okay if you are republican. The news media was mean to her also too because they asked her what publications she read.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@mistermix:
Exactly. How many ways can they ask about her sexual orientation:
“Are you gay?”
“Do you prefer dating men or women?”
“If someone asked you if you were gay, how would you answer?”
“When you place your hand on the bible to swear in, are you going to smile because it only says that men cannot have sex with other men, and doesn’t talk about women?”
Tazistan Jen
Here’s the link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/05/11/meet-elena-kagan
I will report back.
Sue
The very best way for the White House to handle this would be call the Daily Show and schedule her on that, immediately. That way, we could have an actual interview where real questions are asked and answered AND the ensuing hissy fit could provide Daily Show segments for about another month.
jl
Off topic, but here is an interesting issue that they could be covering, if they had the guts and the smarts.
Arizona state government goes further down the wingnut rabbit hole.
Arizona gov. signs bill targeting ethnic studies
JONATHAN J. COOPER, AP
May 12,
The measure signed Tuesday prohibits classes that advocate ethnic solidarity, that are designed primarily for students of a particular race or that promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group.
…
The measure doesn’t prohibit classes that teach about the history of a particular ethnic group, as long as the course is open to all students and doesn’t promote ethnic solidarity or resentment.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100512/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_ethnic_studies
The description of the bill in the two extracts above seem to clearly contradict each other, IMO. Whether that is due to reportorial deficiencies, or due to the bill being incoherent nonsense, I do not know.
Other parts of the article indicate that the AZ law will affect not just Mexican-American, but African-American and Native-American studies classes as well.
How you could teach a half-way decent Native-American history course that could not be accused of perhaps maybe just kind of, one way or the other, fostering resentment against ‘Whites’ is a mystery to me.
Joe Buck
Wow, John. So you’re justifying Obama turning into Bush Lite, because the press let Bush get away with being Bush?
Even though the White House press corps is useless, we badly need to know more about Kagan, so we can figure out whether Greenwald or Lessig is right about her.
evie
@jl:
Wow. This is frightening. I thought it was parody.
Banning Ethnic Studies? Really?? Perhaps they should just declare themselves an Aryan state and be done with it.
jl
Another question, I guess they would ask:
‘Are you very very sorry you went to the Ivy League and are therefore a snoot, rather than the Litchfield Law School, or many of the wonderful grassroots real American internet law schools?’
stuckinred
@Joe Buck: And when you “figure it out” just what will you do next?
jl
@evie: Hell if I know what they are really trying to do. It will be interesting to see if the law makes any sense at all. It might be complete gibberish.
Tazistan Jen
Back from the interview. She sounds like a liberal to me. It is video, so I can’t quote, but she talks about her dad being a community leader and law being a force for making people’s lives better and such.
No word on her dating habits. :-)
Ash Can
@mistermix: This was my first thought as well. I’d be a lot more sympathetic to the press on this — I don’t particularly care for the idea of someone who can so easily be presumed to be biased conducting the interview — if I were more confident that the press would be asking mature and substantive questions.
slippy
@Joe Buck: False equivalence much?
kay
I’m going to disagree. I hate the White House approach to the press. I think it’s defensive and stilted and will ultimately backfire. As an aside, why can’t Gibbs be on time? It’s arrogant to make people wait, again and again.
“Going around the press and to the people” means something different to me than this. It doesn’t mean excluding the press. They can run “new media” alongside old media. A presidency isn’t a campaign, and they are not going to be able to control every interview (thank god).
Look, no one gets madder at the bobbleheads than me, but there isn’t an alternative to the media we have, and using the White House PR shop as the alternative isn’t acceptable.
It isn’t even going to work, politically. They have to find some better approach. This is ham-handed and hostile. Obama seems to get the fine nuance that he’s trying to pull off here, in speeches anyway, but I don’t think his media team in the White House do.
demo woman
Reporters have become wimps. They are so afraid of being called liberal that they have to take their cue from the Republicans. I don’t remember Alito and Roberts sitting with reporters two days after their nomination. What I do remember are the pretty pictures of the Roberts’ family.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
eric
@Joe Buck: she is subject to the Senate for confirmation, not the press. I have no problem at all with any nominee by any president NOT meeting with a single reporter ever. If the vetting is poor, it is the fault of the 100 elected Senators. The record is recorded, there is no editting, follow-ups are allowed, and there can be substantive give and take.
eric
eric
@demo woman: You get the additional problem, of which reporters….Hannity? Beck? Gregory? Thomas? Walters?
Certainly she is not going to a press conference?
the whole thing is nonsense.
I am old enough to remember when Woodward and Bernstein sat down with Mitchell and Nixon to discuss the break-in during the Post’s series on Watergate. Now, that was real reporting back then.
Pu$$ies.
Jules
Do people nominated to be on the SC normally give interviews?
Brian J
If they want to let the public know more about her, why didn’t the White House simply distribute her many interviews in Out and The Advocate? Sheesh. I mean, sometimes, it’s like this White House is staffed by amateurs or something.
Seriously though, she was officially nominated Monday morning. It’s not Wednesday morning. And I thought my five-year-old niece was impatient!
eric
@Jules: that would require reporting to figure out. :)
evie
I don’t recall a SCOTUS candidate giving an interview to the press during the confirmation process. Certainly not in this decade. It’s absurd, but so is the whole process. Candidates have nothing to gain and everything to lose by accepting a media interview before they go in front of the Senate.
But I also agree that Gibbs seems to purposely provoke the press for sport. And I think the reason he is always late is that he is generally disorganized.
Rosalita
It’s funny when the press finally becomes interested in reporting and frightening what compelling questions they might feel the need to ask. We know it would be about her personal life.
The staffer interview is probably more comprehensive and on task.
ChockFullO'Nuts
We talk a lot about the self interested, incompetent, narcissistic, personality-obsessed press around here …and nothing embodies these awful traits better than the White House Press Corps. A bunch of catfighting, whiny preoccupied shits who are all trying to use the White House pressroom as a stepping stone to some higher-paying and more visible assignment or plum pundit job inside the beltway.
If I were the White House, I would be looking to fuck these people over at every opportunity. And …
I think that a presidency is exactly a campaign, a more baroque and theatrical one, but definitely a campaign. And it’s performed in front of a large panel of critics who are borderline crazy people most of the time, with their underwhelming grasp of issues and obsessive interest in personality and the inconsequential.
Their campaign is a counter to the vile, dishonest, destructive campaign being waged with another press corp down the street by their opposition in congress, and the contest between those campaigns is the basis for a lot what we see and hear on the airwaves every day. Nothing short of constant counter-campaign can possibly save a White House from being ground into mincemeat by powerful forces entirely bent on destroying them.
slippy
@kay:
Yeah, there is. It’s called the Internet. Obama is proving you wrong every time he excludes the worthless press corps. I applaud him for it. It’s about time they learned their place. If they are going to be superficial children about everything, they’ll get superficial coverage and superficial access.
This situation was status quo for 8 years under Bush. Why is it different now? Explain that to me.
Says you. I think it’s working just the way they want it to.
The press have proven that they will outshout a substantive story with superficial bullshit every time. Why give them more chances? It’s not like there’s anything important going on.
You are outing yourself, Kay. Sounds like you know or are a member of the Press corps. I fucking love listening to you people whine.
As a consumer of the news, let me give you a reminder: I could care less about your fee-fees. I hate talking heads, and I hate stupid reporters, and I hate worthless opinionators who are wrong about everything. If you people did your fucking jobs you wouldn’t be in this position in the first place. The press has made their bed, and now they have to lie in it. Tough shit.
TR
Great post. Can’t believe it, but I liked the media more when they were acting like air-headed children and not the tantrum-throwing children they are now.
kay
@eric:
Really? You don’t think people should have an opportunity to see and listen to her, outside a confirmation hearing? They’re going to prep her for weeks for those hearings. Why not let her take unscripted questions?
I’m just to the point where I think this “jeer at the press” thing isn’t working, regardless of any lofty ideas about democracy. I don’t think it works on any level, and they seem to be doubling down on it.
At some point you have to cede a little control, or all you’re doing is reinforcing this inane “messaging” idea that has ruined the press. This is like some hellish circle of stupidity, with Robert Gibbs locked in some inane battle with the bobbleheads, and the public all but excluded. Even if he wins, we lose.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Joe Buck:
From John:
I am tired of Reporters suddenly discovering how to be journalists at the beginning of Democratic administrations and then forgetting it during Republican ones.
slippy
@evie:
No. A person who can make everyone else wait for him is doing so to establish who is in charge. The press have believed for too long that the Presidency is dictated by their opinions and biases, and that would be fine if the press were asking questions that mattered to people. But the press are asking questions that matter to superficial dumbasses like Sarah Palin. Elites. People focused on who to blow rather than what to know. Gibbs is turning them on their heads and reminding them that the show doesn’t start without him. THEY are not the show. They have made themselves the show for too long.
El Cid
With this degree of pissiness, wait and see what they unleash if the Republicans manage to take the House. Did anyone like 1995 – 1998? Whitewater! Filegate! Monica!
slippy
@kay:
Perfectly reasonable and informed people have already pointed out that this is not typical for a SCOTUS nominee. So why are the rules suddenly changing?
Lolis
@Joe Buck:
I don’t think it is common for Supreme Court nominees to give interviews with reporters. Isn’t that what the upcoming hearings are for? I can’t remember any past nominee to the Supreme Court doing an interview.
kay
@slippy:
Well, I’m not a member of the press corps, and the only reporter I know is the local wingnut I occasionally email. So much for your brutal cross examination.
But I’m happy to answer your questions, and I have full confidence in Kagan, who answers questions for a living, to be able to go head to head with Katie Couric.
fucen tarmal
only arguing for freedom of speech gets the media gloriously as combative as when they assert “the public’s right to know”, it is their wheelhouse.
now they aren’t wrong in the sense that there are reasonable questions to ask of kagan, but the question becomes whether or not they have the right to demand it.
these are the press corps that trade insider info the public might have a right to like party favors, so they can see who is dumb enough to actually tell the public, then perfect their wasn’t me face when someone ask who went and told whomever it was that gave away the secrets of the realm. they all keep info from the public in order to maintain access. its as much a part of the job as the public having a right to know, which ends when they have filled the required space.
the problem is, who is really qualified to interview kagan on behalf of the public? she should have a right to stand on the substance of her career, such to the extent that it is the basis for her appointment. we all know the unlitmus test questions the public wants, abortion, guns, throw in some flag burning just for ease of digestion, but who is qualified to dig into the questions that might actually be relevant?
no one covering the white house, for damn sure. maybe someone who covers the supreme court? but they can’t do that, it would be a violation of pecking order….
Sentient Puddle
I’m pretty sure that the press whined about access during the Obama campaign. So I don’t think this is so much a case of them having to live by the rules they wrote as much as it’s IOKIYAR.
slag
@kay:
I both agree and disagree with this. I agree that the media needs access to Kagan at some point. I disagree that there isn’t an alternative to the media we have.
Remember the #dickwhisperer controversy? HuffPo got to ask a (reasonably good) question and it was all fire and brimstone. The outrage seemed even worse than when the media gets shut out altogether. Their concern is not just whether the WH is meeting the people’s need for news, but whether they’re also following the Village Code of Conduct.
I’ve said from the very beginning that I wished the WH would grant better access to more serious media. Find some reporters who routinely do substantive, meaningful work (they exist) and give them the hottest interviews. But that too would violate the rules of the tribe.
Uloborus
@evie:
They’re having trouble drafting the ‘But not in a racist way, honest!’ part of the bill.
ChockFullO'Nuts
Not really. She is not running for Supreme Court Justice. She is nominated into a tightly controlled, theatrical, political process run by a club of rich, powerful and conniving mostly old men who have the sole power to approve or not approve of her.
The process is not, and should not be, set up to operate a public circus while this antique procedure is going on.
The Supreme Court is not a very public operation, and I don’t think it should be. For entertainment, the folks can always watch Judge Wapner.
kay
@evie:
I have actually looked into this, and he states that the reason he is always late is that he has an unusually close relationship with the President, so leaves the President and goes to the briefing, so can’t (I guess) wander off when Obama’s talking.
But, shit, it’s been two years. Can they figure this out?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Does anyone have any stats on how often previous SCOTUS picks were interviewed by the press? I would have no idea where to look, much less the time.
Sentient Puddle
Actually, just read from Benen that it’s not standard practice for presidents to make Supreme Court nominees available to the press, at least prior to the confirmation hearings.
So at this point, I think the press is just playing Calvinball, making up whatever shit they want.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Yeah. There is a public interview for SC nominees. It’s called a fricking confirmation hearing.
@mistermix: Heh. “Do you hate the troops because you’re teh ghey or are you teh ghey because you hate the troops?”
Brandon
It reminds me of the royal hissy fit that occured when Leonardo DiCaprio had the nerve to interview Bill Clinton.
As for worst Presidential interviews ever, it’s a toss up between Cavuto and Mike Allen’s interviews of W. Why didn’t the press complain then about the W WH making Bush available only for pseudo-interviews by sycophants. I haven’t bothered to read the Kagan interview by WH staff, however I’d be willing to bet it was more professional than those two pathetic examples.
stuckinred
@kommrade reproductive vigor: Do you hate the gay troops?
slag
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Good question. I know it’s not the standard these days. But whether that convention has just come about in the last 20 years or so, I do not know.
But the convention is a problem. That said, our whole political process is a problem, and this is just one part of that.
ChockFullO'Nuts
@kay:
Who cares? It’s Gibbs’ shop. If those White House press people don’t like the way he runs the operation, they can always ask for another assignment. I’m sure the waiting list for “reporters” to get in there and make names for themselves is quite long.
It’s hard for me to believe that anyone other than a shill or a spoof would be defending those people here.
soonergrunt
The winger side of the blogosphere is all atwitter (in some cases, literally) that Mullah Omar has been captured.
http://tinyurl.com/2aexxca
Of course, teh EVIL LIBERAL ™ Obama administration won’t announce the capture of Omar because that would make the US look good!11ONE
It’s good for a LOL, anyway.
Midnight Marauder
@slag:
Which is ultimately what this entire brouhaha is about, really. It has nothing to do with whether Elena Kagan can handle a one-on-one sit down interview with Katie Couric or Brian Williams (she can). It has everything to do with the White House Press Corps (and the Village at large) wanting to dictate just who exactly runs things. And it’s not like they’re all going to just sit back and let only one outlet get a crack at interviewing her. So, again, we are dealing with an issue that is fundamentally being driven by how a bunch of anachronistic grumpy stenographers feel about a perceived “slight.” Color me unimpressed.
I understand the point that you are making about providing more access to Kagan, kay, and in due time that will most certainly come. But as has been pointed out repeatedly thus far, that is not how the process for SCOTUS nominees traditionally works. And it is certainly fascinating that they are throwing a conniption over this right now. To be honest, I don’t even remember this much madness when Sotomayor was nominated.
kay
@slag:
But what about broad public knowledge (granted, such as it is). Don’t they have to talk to outlets that ordinary somewhat disinterested people hear or read? I see what you’re saying, reward good media with access, but isn’t that subject to abuse? Who decides if they’re good? Robert Gibbs? He wants easy questions, understandably, so it can’t be him. It can’t be the President. So who?
stuckinred
@soonergrunt: Maybe they hooked up the field phone wires for a little intel gathering?
Midnight Marauder
@stuckinred:
Trick question.
There are no gay troops.
stuckinred
@Midnight Marauder: this brouhaha is buuuuuulllllshhhhiiiitttttt!
Neutron Flux
@kay: It is pretty cool to watch your argument evolve over the last few days.
fucen tarmal
did you hate the troops before you were gay?
Svensker
@demo woman:
Did Sotomayor?
I think the reporters just wanna ask about her sex life. Otherwise they wouldn’t give a shit.
But they have been so busy being all over the Guantanamo stories and the new black site at Bagram story that they just won’t have time for anything else, knowaddimean?
ChockFullO'Nuts
Careful, you are blowing your cover here.
He wants easy questions? Really? Did your friend who works in the White House building maintenance crew tell you this?
John Cole
@mistermix: While I was writing this I was wondering to myself ‘What asshole would actually ask her if she is a lesbian?” and I kept coming back to Chip Reid or David Gregory. Those would be my frontrunners. Do they even let Chip Reid near serious people anymore?
baldheadeddork
John – any chance you could put an update on your post to note (as a couple of people here have already mentioned) that there is zero precedent for a SCOTUS nominee talking to reporters? Once you’re a nominee, you make a statement on the day the president nominates you (I’d include the WH video with that) and after that the only people you talk to are members of the Senate.
This non-story is another example of garbage sites like Politico creating a story that doesn’t exist and the lemmings in the WHPC obediently following along.
stuckinred
@Midnight Marauder: I forgot, that was when I was in 40 years ago and probably why charlie kicked out asses.
wrb
@jl:
The reformation and counter-reformation would be tough too.
There was one Catholic kid in my AP European History class. He looked like he wanted to shrink under his desk during those weeks.
slag
@kay: I’m actually not convinced Gibbs wants “easy” questions per se. I think they’re serious when they condemn the puerility in our politics. At least, I’m pretty sure Barack Obama is serious. But I could be wrong.
As re: who gets to decide what “serious” means, personally, I think I should. But since I don’t have the WH on speed dial, I feel like Columbia Journalism Review or some other entity with cred (outside of ratings) should take up this cause. A more rigorous process for dealing with these situations could be developed fairly easily if we could surmount the very high hurdle of dealing with the press corps’ delicate fee fees.
The Moar You Know
White House staffer interviewing the Supreme Court nominee?
I don’t give a shit who is president or what party is in power, that is crap. Absolute crap. It’s a bad move, and it’s going to backfire like an old Buick with low-octane gas.
Unfair because Bush got away with it? Yep. But as we are fond of noting here via an acronym that is so overused that it has become meaningless, there are two sets of rules, one for Republicans and one for Democrats.
Waynski
I don’t remember any SCOTUS nominees doing press either. As was mentioned upthread, the grilling will come from the Senate, and they will probably ask a bunch of inane questions as well. The WH press corps doesn’t want access to her to try and “inform” the public. They all want access to her to try to blow her up. Nothing would do more for a media career in the Village than a SCOTUS nominee pelt in your bag. They want to stick their fangs into her so bad they can taste it and wisely the White House isn’t going to let them. I’m with Cole, live by teh asshole, die by teh asshole… assholes.
Midnight Marauder
@John Cole:
Hands down, David Gregory. Hands.Down. Never forget that he is the man who said this about his first year of hosting Meet The Press:
David Gregory : world-class assholes :: LeBron James : professional athletes
kay
@ChockFullO’Nuts:
God. Forget it. I’m a secret operative for major media. You blew my cover.
You know, my complaint is that Gibbs always comes off as defensive and combative, but I see now that he’s simply mirroring what’s around him. What press secretary doesn’t want easy questions? You really think Robert Gibbs is all about transparency and being forthcoming? Who does he work for? He’s not some neutral presence. It’s a basically adversarial relationship. I just personally don’t think he’s much good at it. He’s prickly and snarky, or prickly and evasive, when a lot of the time a simple answer would suffice.
If they don’t intend to have Kagan interviewed, because it’s not customary, what would be wrong with just saying that?
slag
@Tazistan Jen: Good report. But did you find out how tall she was?
stuckinred
@kay: because he likes fucking with those assholes, why do you care so much?
baldheadeddork
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
The answer (at least since the 70’s) is zero. Nominees don’t talk to reporters, period.
Lexis/Nexis would be the place to look, but it’s trying to prove a negative.
Midnight Marauder
@kay:
Honest Question: What is the point of saying something if everyone (including the supposed media professionals) knows that it’s Standard Operating Procedure?
Adrienne
@kay: Does it really matter? Where the fuck are they (the WH reporters) going that it matters if he is on time? Do they have plans? A hot date or something? Look, their job description consists of three things: Be at the WH, attend the press briefings, and shadow the President if/when he leaves the WH. It sounds to me like it doesn’t really matter one bit if Gibbs is late b/c either way they aren’t going anywhere – they are just being WATBs.
stuckinred
This is the kind of shit they are dealing with:
eric
@The Moar You Know: backfire with whom? you think anyone will raise this as an issue in AUGUST during the actual interviews that matter?
ChockFullO'Nuts
Are you able to write a single post without making something up?
I have never said anything even remotely like your blurb there.
Gibbs is a press secretary, his job is to represent the president to the press and he serves at the pleasure of the president. Period. His role is adversarial to the press corps. It’s a cat and mouse game, always has been. He’s a little snippy, but I like that about him. Anyway, I would guess that Gibbs doesn’t set the policy when it comes to access to Kagan during confirmation.
kay
@slag:
I’m with Obama on this. I think he’s right to complain about how horrible the “debate” is, and he’s gotten to the point where he’s almost petulantly put-out (which is not attractive, it’s the one time he seems small, IMO) so I’m sure he feels very strongly about this.
But is this approach working? Any of it? I don’t think it is. They’re locked up tight in this fight, and they can’t seem to get beyond it. It seems to be one more variant of the press + the powerful and then the long-forgotten readers and voters, not even on the field.
soonergrunt
@stuckinred: Hopefully the wingers are sticking the wire ends in their mouths before they squeeze the lever.
ChockFullO'Nuts
Because the press corps already knows that. Because they went around that unwritten rule to get out some QA with Kagan, knowing the press would be insulted. And they don’t care. And neither do I. Good for them. The more they manage the press, and the more the press hates it, the more I like it.
I have no respect for this press. They deserve no respect from me.
James K. Polk, Esq.
Hurt and ineffective in critical situations?
Man, I hate the SATs…
PS Thanks again for Ron Artest!
ChockFullO'Nuts
Speaking of reporters and politics …
If you are in the area, LD and I will try to be there, stop in and we will buy you a drink.
slag
@kay:
I agree with this assessment. As we see on this very blog, though, these kinds of fights are notoriously difficult to transcend. Tribalism seems to always triumph. Which is a depressing thought, indeed.
I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know what the answer is. If I did, I would patent it (and probably deprive some poor, third world country of a piece of their 1,000 year-old heritage in the process). But I know that if we’re going to get out of this situation, we can’t keep descending into these trivial morasses. And sometimes that means less access for the press, unfortunately. Seriously, it bothers me too. A lot.
kay
@Adrienne:
I think it matters because being on time generally goes to competency, and one of Obama’s core selling points is competency. I simply don’t see the point of pissing off people before you enter the room. It’s a waste of energy. Someone earlier said it’s a power play, okay, fine, but I guess I am just tired of this idea that you change the game by engaging in the same bullshit you’re denouncing, but just being better at it. Obama is much, much better at developing and transmitting his nuanced idea about the role of the media than his staff are at putting it into action, again, IMO. Gibbs is down there brawling with them, while haranguing them to reach higher. Maybe this is all some larger plan, but I don’t feel as if they pull it off.
ChockFullO'Nuts
@kay:
You’re right. Bring back Dana Perino.
Regnad Kcin
@Sue:
I’m Jon Stewart and I approve this message.
geg6
@evie:
Fixed.
I also do not remember SCOTUS candidates giving free wheeling interviews before the confirmation. IMHO, all we need to hear from her, we will hear during the confirmation. I have no need to hear anything else, let alone the vapid questions of anyone in the Village press corps.
kommrade reproductive vigor
@soonergrunt: And if he did announce it: WHY IS OBAMA SO ARROGANT!?
“Have you ever kissed your girlfriend in front of a soldier?”
“Do women in uniform make you hot or very hot?”
kay
@ChockFullO’Nuts:
Well, no. She lied constantly. I’m looking for simple, factual statements.
Look, I have been here before. I watched the Clintons get into a pissing match with the press. The press were ridiculous and shallow and clearly gunning for them, but the Clinton approach was to hide, defensively, and occasionally issue a too-broad denial. Every time it failed (and it failed every time) both sides dug in further, and the freaking country was the loser. I still don’t know who “won”. If Obama’s goal is to make this better, I’d like to see them try another approach than the campaign approach. I don’t think governing is like campaigning, and either does Obama, to listen to him. So switch it up, already. Try something else.
ChockFullO'Nuts
@geg6:
Charles Gibson: What do you think of the Bush Doctrine?
Kagan: In what respect, Charlie? Is that some kind of fucking gay joke?
ChockFullO'Nuts
@kay:
Oh Jesus, you are right. I never realized it.
Obama is not only just like Bush, he is JUST LIKE CLINTON TOO.
( rolls eyes )
( around and around like a slot machine )
( passes out )
Midnight Marauder
@kay:
I think the biggest difference in the comparison you’re making between the Clinton and the Obama administrations, is that it seems the Obama administration views the traditional media (and the WHPC in particular) as an increasingly irrelevant and obsolete enterprise. That’s a driving force behind why they don’t feel the need to engage them, and even stick their finger in their eyes on occasion. Because they’re confident that they can get their message out without their assistance and without their filters.
Now we can debate how successful those attempts have been–and there are examples of varying levels of success–but I don’t think there’s a real argument against the point that this White House has demonstrated their ability to consistently go around the traditional media and get their point of view out there. Nor do I think there is much of an argument against the increasing self-marginalization of the White House Press Corps, as this entire incident demonstrates.
geg6
@Midnight Marauder:
This. Perfectly put.
Paula
Hmmm, considering I don’t rely on Beltway reporters for my “news”, whether the WH is more or less “open” with them don’t amount to a hill of beans for me.
I will observe though that the Obama administration has been consistently accused of being either negligent or downright contemptuous of the “normal” press access ritual since the campaign. It’s gotten them into trouble many a time. Given Obama’s (and Gibbs’) stated opinions on the stupidity of the “debate” the press gives when they are given access, I kind of don’t blame them when they act like they don’t give a flying fuck about the press.
Uloborus
@kay:
Dunno. I don’t think being nice, or even polite, to the WHPC would help either. That’s kind of the thing. I look on this as if the White House is in an abusive relationship. After awhile they’ve learned that absolutely no matter what they do the press are going to act like a bunch of vampire chimpanzees. The WHPC has no interest in asking substantive questions, and they didn’t have any interest when Obama took office, and they haven’t since 9/11 at least. With a great deal of coddling and time spent at dinner parties schmoozing instead of making policy, Obama might be able to convince them to spend all their time going down on him – maybe.
Eventually you give up on being nice and you try being an asshole back, to see if it works. Although I think Gibbs is more in the ‘Stern Schoolmarm’ mode, where you make it clear you see through every ruse, cut at their dignity a little, and refuse to reward anything but the behavior you want. It isn’t helping much, but dignifying the press’s treatment of politics just encourages them.
Heck, a WHPC obsessed with ‘Waah, Obama’s mean to us!’ stories that absolutely nobody cares about might be a step up for the administration.
kommrade reproductive vigor
The thing is, if they subjected the press to a few bouts of verbal bitch-slappery … Well, I was going to say the press would go all goo-goo eyed over them just like they did BAdmin, but I’m really not sure.
Joseph Nobles
I wonder if they’ll be satisfied by the softy government employees interviewing Kagan at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing? LOL, which one of those dillweeds will ask her about teh lesbianism?
ChockFullO'Nuts
@Uloborus:
Bozocula just called and said you are giving vampire chimps a bad name.
kay
@Midnight Marauder:
Does that worry you at all, though?
Reagan was really, really good at getting around media and going straight to “the people” and that ended with me watching a really shocking series of hearings one summer where I came to find out he had conducted a secret war.
9/11 scared the living shit out of media, and they had a swooning daddy-crush on Mr. Fake Cowboy, and that ended with something like 70% of the country supporting an invasion of a country that didn’t attack us.
I don’t pretend to understand “messaging”, I don’t think it’s my strength, and I’m an admitted Democratic partisan, but when does the White House getting their “point of view” out there go against our larger goal, which is actually transparency?
Uloborus
@kay:
Alright, transparency good. I like transparency. Especially after the Bush administration.
What does transparency have to do with the White House Press Corps? The whole problem here is that they’re not investigative journalists, they’re not asking tough, insightful questions, and there’s no reason to believe they want to talk to Kagan for any reason other than a vicious desire to stir up absolutely meaningless controversy. What could Gibbs possibly do to make these people do their jobs? Smiling and sweet talk won’t do it.
And transparency isn’t particularly an issue here anyway. She’ll go through the confirmation hearings and be asked every last question, meaningful and trivial, anyone can imagine. Then the decision will be made and the public’s opinion will matter bupkis. I personally found the Sotomayor hearings very educational as to why Obama picked her. Man likes experts, and she could discuss how the law works with you for hours.
ChockFullO'Nuts
@kay:
Honestly, if you want to be taken seriously, which I am starting to doubt, you might want to try a little harder.
White House management of its message and press means that if Reagan did it, then if Obama does it, he might turn out to be like Reagan?
Really? So the black kid constitutional lawyer is going to turn out to be just like the second rate actor with Alzheimer’s? The moderate Democrat is going to turn out to be just like the nutcase tool of the right wing?
The same cool black guy that so far today is just like Bush and also just like Clinton?
Your goalpost is on wheels, honey. It is moving around more than a roach under a bright light.
Rick Taylor
I’d have more sympathy for the reporters if I thought they were going to ask Kagan intelligent relevant questions.
kay
@Uloborus:
I liked the Sotomayor hearings too, but I love “live” testimony. The quality of the questions matter, but so do a lot of other things.
Midnight Marauder
@kay:
It doesn’t worry me for the reasons you are discussing, no. I think it’s respectable, admirable, and hell, necessary in this political day and age to bypass the traditional media as much as possible in order to express your message more directly to the people. That’s part of the New Media/Digital Age we are living in now. As far as the Reagan comparison goes, did we not just find out more this week about the black site at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan that is still operating? The links on that page are a solid collection of traditional and new media sources. The landscape has already irrevocably shifted; there is no going back to the old way.
But here’s the real point: with all of this information out there today, what is the White House Press Corps focused on? Whether or not Elena Kagan is gay and whether or not they are being granted enough fealty by the Obama administration. Again, you are talking about a group of people who are fundamentally unserious.
I think you express some valid concerns, but I don’t think those two goals you’re describing are mutually exclusive or adversarial. Any increase in transparency is going to have to come from a reawakened and reenergized citizenry.
TheyWe will have to pay attention andtheywe will have to demand answers when things don’t add up. Typically, the press would assist in this effort, but they clearly abandoned that duty long ago. So they only other option is to increase involvement from the citizenry, ie. speaking directly to them and demonstrating how the larger abstract political circus effects them directly on a daily basis. Again, you make valid points that they need to continue to adjust and fine-tune this approach, but it’s an approach that they’re going to have to master if they want any kind of success in the long-run.Especially if the Republican Party wins the House this fall.
Rick Taylor
Also, and John made this point, Obama has been far more open with the press and far more willing to put himself in unscripted situations with people in the opposition than Bush ever was. So again, it’s difficult to take them seriously when they complain now.
ChockFullO'Nuts
@kay:
You and I are not shopping at the same Larger Goal store.
My larger goal is undoing all of the destructive shit that the Republicans have been up to for the last couple of decades, especially the devolution of government agencies into impotent toadies, the emasculation of regulation and antitrust enforcement, the replacement of competent managers with faith based empty Brownie suits, and so on. I don’t give a damn about perceived transparency. And I sure as hell don’t think that transparency, or even translucency, will come from being nice to a press corps full of self interested damned fools.
robertdsc
@soonergrunt:
I’m bummed. The first link on that list is for Brad Thor, an author I like. The link says he’s a conservative blogger. I know his main character has said some wingnutty stuff in the books but I didn’t know the author was a wingnut. Ugh.
Then again, I know Orson Scott Card is a wingnut, too, and I love his books.
Corner Stone
kay –
It’s clear now to everyone you hate Obama, and you’ve been a secret PUMA this whole time.
Jeebus you people are crazy. Nothing kay has said in this thread rises above, “I don’t like or agree with this approach and don’t really see the ROI.”
And somehow she’s an undercover agent or dirty reporter or some other nonsense.
It’s interesting, to say the least.
Tim P.
@kay:
What value does the White House press corps add? Certainly it’s not transparency: Bush’s press secretaries lied with impunity and it didn’t seem to much matter to the press corps. Certainly not a better understanding of issues: they almost always take the most superficial, race-horse view of a given topic. Certainly not unique reportage: you have dozens of reporters all writing on the same, banal event.
All they are are tools for getting out your message. Bush figured this out. If you don’t need them to get out your message anymore, then they’re largely irrelevant. Better to fire them and re-allocate their large salaries toward actual investigative journalism.
jl
Steve Benen says historically, no interviews ‘granted’ by administration for SCOTUS nominees
DID REPORTERS REALLY EXPECT A SIT-DOWN?….
Steven Benen, Washington Monthly
May 12, 2010
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_05/023768.php
If true, then press’ real complaint is that they did not like the way the WH is flacking for the nominee? That is, in a WH arranged internet ‘interview’? So what?
geg6
@Corner Stone:
Perhaps you need to be more specific than that because there are quite a few people in this thread who haven’t said anything the least bit crazy, including myself. I don’t agree with what kay said and, in fact, I find her objections pretty ridiculous since it would be requesting Kagan to do something no other SCOTUS nominee has ever done or even been expected to do. But to say that disagreement with her point is crazy is…
Well, it’s crazy.
Cain
@kay:
Let me ask you this. If Obama/Gibbs pisses off the press what would be the outcome? Will they write negative articles about him? How would it be any different than what it is today?
He’s got nothing to lose. The american people aren’t paying attention much anyways. He’s better off hitting the campaign trail and talking directly to the american people. Which is what he’s doing. Write the press off, they are useless and overpaid.
cain
cain
kay
@Corner Stone:
Thank you. It might have to do with the fact that I don’t really believe we’ve replaced traditional media. Most people still get their news that way, and most internet content is derived from or straight-out cribbed from traditional media, plus analysis. It can be solid analysis, or straight-up nonsense, but very little of it is “original”.
I don’t think the WH press corps were designed as an investigative journalism team, either. I think the whole point of that venue is to fire out surface questions and get an initial response. They’re looking for a reaction from Gibbs, a crack in the wall of WH messaging, because that’s part of the nature of that rapid forum. The idea (I think) would be to hand off an inconsistent or nonsensical answer to a further inquiry. They want him to screw up.
Corner Stone
@geg6:
You’re right. My post speaks to nothing about “disagreeing” with her conclusions. And I certainly never said that was a crazy notion. I disagree with kay all the time. In fact, I think we’ve agreed possibly two separate times over the last year.
My post indicates that her comments, while some thought baseless, certainly were not at a point of hyperbole where she’s now some undercover reporter or “outing” herself or setting the bar for the Obama admin so high they can’t help but fail.
Some of the reaction seemed a little wacky for kay’s rather tame comments.
Edited a little bit. And adding that I thought Midnight Marauder had some good comments, which is unusual for him. He usually sucks.
Admiral_Komack
@slippy:
Thank you.
You said everything I wanted to.
After eight years of taking it from Bush, now they want to act like they’re tough.
You’re eight years too late, bub.
I hope Gibbs continues to stick it to them…’cause they deserve it.
Midnight Marauder
@Corner Stone:
As always, you are a delight.
And I noticed that you managed to stumble into the funny in another thread. Well played.
kay
@Cain:
Okay. An example. I get as much of a thrill as anyone when Gibbs goes after them for a stupid question, but answering a stupid question factually and completely can be really effective.
“Obama’s Katrina” can be jeered at, and he can do his long, snarky media analysis, or, he can just answer the question. Because there’s a good question in there, and it’s this: “what was your response to the spill in the Gulf?”
I’d jump at the chance to do a compare/contrast, that’s my favorite question, if I’m Gibbs, because he’s on absolutely solid ground. Instead, we get a lot of energy expended that doesn’t go toward anything positive, and the story is “Robert Gibbs spars with press” rather than “Obama/Katrina is nonsense”.
Do you see what I’m getting at? He doesn’t have to reject the whole forum, or react to the question asked. He can rephrase.
Tim P.
@kay:
I understand that sentiment, but I think more often than not they’re not asking about things that have much value – and when they do, you can be sure Gibbs already has a script prepared. And if they ever do catch him off guard, it’s not very difficult to say ‘I’ll get back to you on that, I haven’t been briefed’. Think about it this way: when’s the last time news was made at a briefing that the White House didn’t want made? If it happens, it’s rare.
Admiral_Komack
@John Cole:
You forgot Jake Tapper.
Nellcote
So where are the demands by the press for LaPalin to be interviewed by a journalist? Maybe Kagan just needs to set up a Facebook page.
JMY
@kay:
I don’t remember the WH press corps getting an interview with Sotomayor after she was nominated.
Uloborus
@kay:
Let’s say he does, in fact, say ‘This Obama’s Katrina business is nonsense’. Do you think they’ll report this as the accusation being refuted? Do you think they’ll include his arguments? Do you think the man doesn’t say a dozen cogent, informative, important things every day?
They ignore it. They’re hunting, not just for controversy, but for stupid controversy. In the case you sited, the controversy would be that the White House is involved in some kind of feud with whatever conservative nutbag made the Katrina claim. Conservative nutbag would be elevated to the level of the White House and the Obama’s Katrina accusation would echo around the entire mediasphere ad nauseum with a strict focus on making it clear that each side’s argument is exactly as good as the other.
There’s no point to treating them nicely. There’s no point to treating them like serious journalists. It actually feeds their belief that they’re the Elite.
kay
@Tim P.:
I actually listen to press conferences because (as I mentioned) I like live testimony and Gibbs relies on “I’ll get back to you” too often. For such a risk-taking, modern campaign, the WH press shop approach to the post-election Presidency doesn’t impress me.
I think it’s nifty that Robert Gibbs makes a headline a week for attacking some stupid theme, but ultimately I think that’s a waste of time. When he does manage to have a substantive answer ready, he adopts this droning, dutiful approach to explaining anything. Listening to one of his press conferences is extreme boredom interspersed with arguments with the person asking the question. Obama manages to turn around the stupid question, rephrase, and answer the better question, and in that sense he controls the interview. Gibbs is all reaction, and the more he reacts, the more he tries to gain control. It’s a freaking death spiral.
kay
@JMY:
That’s a great point, but, again, why not have Gibbs ask the next question?
Which is “why Kagan and not Sotomayor?” Just stand there until they manage an answer.
Mike in NC
At the rate things are going, we’re unlikely to make it through the year without some pandering Red State politician presiding over a public book burning.
geg6
@kay:
I simply couldn’t disagree with you more on this.
Gibbs treats them as they deserve. You seem to think that they will dutifully report actual facts and won’t turn everything and anything into some sort of horse race meme. I honestly don’t think you must watch or read a lot of the Villagers at work. If you did, you’d know that you are looking for unicorns where only trolls live.
binzinerator
@Uloborus:
This. Exactly.
Kay, stop with this white house press transparency nonsense. You’re way too smart to not have figured out what the w. h. press corps really is and what they really want to do.
We’ve already had a decade (Dubya and now Obama) to see plainly and clearly that these assholes have no intention or desire whatsoever to provide transparency to the public.
At best they are dumbfuck stenographers. And at worst they are guilty of actually working against transparency by letting lies and abuses of power slide by uncontested, and by misleading the public by focusing on red herring People Magazine-type bullshit. (Gitmo? New black sites? Hell no! They wanna know if Kagan does it with women!)
The day Helen Thomas finally dies is the day that sack sad outfit finishes its transformation into a 100 percent stenography pool.
Midnight Marauder
@kay:
So basically, you want Gibbs to treat them as unserious people, but just to do it in a serious way. That seems to be the biggest difference in how we’re approaching this issue. But if the White House Press Corps is, again, fundamentally being viewed and treated as though they are unserious and irrelevant (because they are), what difference does it make in how they approach them?
Based on what you’re saying, it seems like you think that if the Obama administration changed their approach to the White House Press Corps and were more accommodating to their needs, then they would start asking substantive questions and aggressively following-up on pertinent issues? There is nothing at all that suggests this would be the likely outcome. Nothing.
@kay:
I don’t think this some kind of accident or happenstance.
kay
@Uloborus:
He doesn’t have to accept the frame of the question. The only real question there is “what was the response to the spill?”
The AP actually did a substantive rebuttal on the Obama-Katrina theme, and decided “not Katrina”. That was days later. So what did Gibbs accomplish, other than hitting that individual questioner with a hammer? If media are going to stick with the theme they’ve decided on, why not use the time up there to add some value to this whole exercise?
kay
@geg6:
No, geg, I’m saying the opposite. I’m saying Gibbs can gain control rather than battling. I’m saying there is more than one way to get a point across. If he wants better questions he can have that. He’ll have to stop reacting and arguing long enough to discern a real question, and then answer that one.
If the next question ( and it’s a good one) behind their petulant demand to interview Kagan is why do they want to do that, when they haven’t done that before, he can respond with that.
I sort of loathe the bobbleheads, and I get the cheap thrill behind calling them out, but I don’t think it works, as a tactic.
geg6
@kay:
Seems like a pretty big accomplishment to me. Wish he’d do it more and with a bigger hammer.
The problem for you, kay, is that you seem to think that actually is some added value in addressing things with the WH press corps that they aren’t interested in.
There isn’t. Because they will either ignore it if it’s wonky or about a serious issue or they will turn it into another he said/he said horse race by finding the craziest wingnut they can to refute whatever it is Gibbs had to say.
It’s a losing proposition to treat them in any other way than exactly the way Gibbs does. And I say this as someone who knows a thing or two about how the press works.
geg6
@kay:
In what universe would this happen? Because it’s not gonna happen in the universe that is Washington, DC.
kay
@geg6:
Since I’m all-in anyway, I think Valerie Jarrett is terrible, too. She speaks in those horrible corporate-marketing meaningless phrases. I understand that’s where she came from, that’s part of her business background, but it reminds me of an employee handbook. Again, if they intend to change the game, I don’t think she’s getting them there. I read that the press bitches because the WH doesn’t make Cabinet members available enough. He’s got some really stellar Cabinet members. Maybe he should use them. Where the hell is Dr. Chu? I mean, take a risk, put him up. Let’s just throw caution to the wind, and let these people speak.
Obama seems serious about his concern with the state of the media. I wish he’d find someone who could advance that idea, but to my mind, he hasn’t.
Uloborus
@kay:
Hmmm. Okay. You think that it’s not so much the specific approach here, but that if the White House were doing it right they’d be able to bend the media to their will.
I don’t agree, and it sounds like the others arguing this don’t either, but at least I know what the basic difference of opinion is.
kay
@Uloborus:
Obama’s idea on substantive media coverage is pretty big, and it must be important to him, because he brings it up every five minutes. They’re not going to get there by playing these stupid games just a little bit better than the reporters.
aimai
@kay:
Jesus, leave Kay alone. She’s not a troll, she’s a long time commenter here with perfectly respectable bona fides and she’s entitled to her opinion. I share it, actually. I like Gibbs personally and I don’t think the press corps is entitled to any kind of deference from Gibbs, or Obama, given how moronic they are but I don’t think his style is actually effective at slapping them back.
If Gibbs/Obama want to beat the press at their own game instead of being pissy and combative and trying to be funny Gibbs should bore those suckers to death. Every time they ask for something stupid like an interview with Kagan he should just be completely deadpan and tell them to arrange it themselves. End of story. They picked up on the “interview” and they bitched about it? He could just have said “you know, in this day and age of youtube we thought Americans might like to have a readily available video interview with the President’s nominee. We’re not trying to do your job. This is no different than posting a personal statement by the nominee, its just a video version.”
I like Gibbs but he hasn’t found the way to handle the press. And I think there is a way. As others have said they treated Bush like the scary parent (whatever you say dad!) and the Dems like the nice mom (Oh mom, its so unfair that you make me pick up my room!). Once you grasp that that is the dynamic you can change it but you can’t change it by turning into the snarky uncle, or whatever Gibbs is doing.
I’m not sure it would work but I’d try posting a list of important topics–really important topics for the day–and dismissing the stupid questions out of hand by saying “that’s stupid, does anyone have a more important question?” Then stop calling on people asking stupid questions. Give a master class in journalism and make the press rise to the occasion instead of sparring with them.
aimai
Nellcote
@kay:
Finally something I can agree with! You do understand that the mid-day press briefing (not press conference) that you see on cspan is all show biz don’t you? The real press scrum is held early morning, where presumably the ‘reporters’ are not playing to the cameras.
geg6
@kay:
My problem with your theories is that you seem to think that they (Obama and Co.) want to “change the game” within the existing system.
That’s not, IMHO, what they are interested in. They know that the existing system is too corrupt and compromised. They are changing the game by using new media, sending the president out to speak directly to us, and through OFA. They don’t give a damn about the Village, as they rightfully shouldn’t. I applaud them for it and I hope they do it the way they are even more in the future. I want them to make the Village completely irrelevant, even to themselves. The Villagers are beginning, very incrementally, to understand this. And that has made them even more stupid and prone to their Politico model, which is doomed to failure in much the same way that the GOP has now made themselves irrelevant to Hispanics.
It’s all good. We can get our news and information without the Village. I’ve been doing it for years now. And I don’t think anyone would consider me uninformed.
baldheadeddork
@kay:
Mentioned for the seventh or eighth time because this…conversation seems to hang on the premise that there is some merit to the complaints from the WATB’s in the press corps, but nominees do not talk to reporters until the end of their confirmation. Sotomayor didn’t, none of Bush’s nominees did, nor did Clinton’s, or Bush 41’s, or Reagan’s, or Carter’s, ad infinitum.
So is this really all about Robert Gibbs not starting the gaggle and daily briefings when the press corps expect him to? The expectations of the WH press corps would be laughed out of any gathering of reporters who have to cover local or state governments, who (brace yourself) have to work their schedule around the people they are covering.
tim
Normally, I woudn’t care, as I think the MSM sucks big eggs and kissed Bush’s ass for eight years, BUT I’m hopeful this will piss off one of the spineless little divas enough to get them to do some real reporting and get someone to go on record about Kagan being gay and why she feels the need to hide it, which will expose the WH as big fat liars on this issue.
This is very entertaining.
JMY
If she doesn’t want to give an interview, she doesn’t have to, period. I don’t think the administration is gonna force her to. There is a risk in her doing an interview before the confirmation, especially for the supreme court.
I have no problem with how this WH handles the press corp. It’s not as if they pretend that they are not relevant to the political discourse like the Bush, Jr. administration. But they ask some of the most irrelevant questions, and complain about the stupidest things ever. This is the same group of people who got mad because the president just wanted to attend his girls’ sporting events without them. It’s been two days since she was confirmed, and they complaining about something so small.
The real interview is her confirmation hearing. In the end that’s all that matters.
Midnight Marauder
@tim:
You have a very sad definition of “real reporting”.
JMY
@tim:
Again, why does her sexuality matter? If she doesn’t want people to know, she should have that right. And for anyone to do some investigative journalism to find out is petty.
tim
@JMY:
For the background on my position and that of other commenters, I refer you to last night’s epic Kagan thread; I’m not going to rehash.
Inshort, I just find famous, well known, successful people who are too panty waist to be out of the glass closet to be very interesting and entertaining and appalling.
binzinerator
@aimai:
Doing this stuff — changing up a dynamic to get someone where you want them, asking intelligent questions, mastering journalism, and rising to the occasion — is what the goddamn fucking press should be doing.
If a w.h. press secretary has a fuckwit press corps what on earth is the motivation for him to get them to do their jobs for them?
So the press asks stupid questions, chases after trivial bullshit and ignores the real serious shit. This is to the pres sec’s advantage — what he loses by not having serious shit brought up that the WH wants brought up is more than made up for by not having serious shit brought up that the WH doesn’t want brought up.
If the WH wants something to be made high profile they can bypass these morons altogether and take the message direct to the people by other means.
LD50
@tim: Wow, and I thought only homophobic straight people could be this malevolent. Bravo.
tim
@LD50:
“Malevolent.” Such melodrama.
And thank you for the kudo.
LD50
@tim:
I think melodrama is your main motivation in this, so you’re welcome.
Chuck Biscuits
“For the record, I think the WH should make her available and they probably will later on, but sorry guys- your rules.”
When did Glenn Reynolds start posting here?
I enjoy the blog generally, but this was straight out of the Instagrievance playbook.
Corner Stone
@Chuck Biscuits: I don’t know why, but your handle intrigues me. I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter.
deadrody
Hysterical!!! Roll on the floor, laugh out loud, you must be insane – FUNNY
Honestly, what is the color of the sky in the ridiculous bizzaro world you idiots live in ? Not only do you deny the all but confirmed fact that the media leans to the left, no, that isn’t enough, in your delusional fantasies where the toughest question the media asks Barak Obama is “How awesome are you?”, no, you morons claim the media is in the tank for Republicans.
What absolutely confirms this fact is that you somehow think the media did Sarah Palin favors during the 2008 campaign rather than set her up, ambush her, and ruin her as a legitimate politician. That is priceless
Yutsano
@deadrody:
We take zero credit for that. That
honorshame belongs to John Sidney McCain III. The fact that Katie Couric asked her questions she couldn’t competently answer also is not our fault. But hey keep fornicating that pullet.redoubt
“He came in here and he trashed the place, and it’s not his place.”
On Clinton, from a member of the White House Press Corps.