Posted on 03/03/2013 5:12:49 AM PST by Kaslin
There is a rule in Politics 2013 that's evident in the flap about a White House aide's maybe threatening or not threatening Washington Post veteran reporter Bob Woodward. The rule: The more superficial the brouhaha the bigger its impact.
What public figures say is more important than what they do, because cable TV and political blogs can cover a mud fight more cheaply and more easily than they can a real story.
Quick synopsis: Woodward has reported doggedly on the White House's role in putting "sequester" cuts -- $85 billion this year -- in the 2011 Budget Control Act. Last week, as Woodward was writing that President Barack Obama was moving the goal post in negotiations on those cuts, a White House aide yelled at him on the phone for a half-hour, Woodward says. Economic adviser Gene Sperling later sent him an email to apologize for raising his voice. Sperling also wrote, "I think you will regret staking out that claim."
The White House says no threat was intended. I believe that. I also see why Woodward might perceive the exchanges as a threat -- not to harm him physically but to deny him access. Without access, Woodward cannot write best-selling books.
Why am I writing about what Ron Fournier, National Journal editor-in-chief, described as "a silly distraction to a major problem" -- Washington's failure to lead under a budget deadline? Because this could be a turning point -- the moment when the White House press corps starts pushing back.
As Fournier wrote, the Woodward flap is indicative of the "increasingly toxic relationship between media and government." Things have gotten so ugly that in the midst of the Woodward flap, Fournier put an anonymous White House source on notice that if he continued to send him emails filled with "vulgarity, abusive language" and you'll-regret-it talk, Fournier would feel free to print said missives with attribution.
It would be nice if a more substantive dispute than the White House's treatment of Woodward sparked this mild rebellion. Think Benghazi. Yet there is a substantive dispute behind the fluffy fight.
As Politico reported, the White House "has, with great success, fudged the facts. The administration has convinced a majority of the country that Republicans are more to blame by emphasizing that Republicans voted for the plan. Which they did -- after Obama conceived it."
In an October presidential debate, Obama claimed that "the sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen." PolitiFact rated that claim "mostly false." Obamaland's misinformation cookie is crumbling.
By Thursday's White House news briefing, the mutual disdain between the press corps and spokesman Jay Carney bubbled over. Reporters questioned dubious administration claims about layoffs attributed to sequester cuts. Ed Henry of Fox News asked why the White House had held a closed-to-the-press swearing in for Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.
Henry also is president of the White House Correspondents' Association, so Carney used the question to crack a joke about the group's complaint about reporters' lack of access to the president during a recent golfing vacation. Keep it up, White House, and the press corps will wear your scorn as a badge of honor.
Most reporters do not even know who Woodward is. They may remember the name from some class in journalism school, but nothing more.
Who cares if the White House devours him? It is right because nobody should criticize Obama.
This is what happens when socialists take control. Some of their own revolt at the horror and are the first sent to die.
“If it bleeds, it leads!”
Time for the White House press to report and get their collective noses off this president’s coccyx. It is beginning to affect his golf swing.
Look how far we’ve come from having a press corps that exercises some degree of objectivity. It’s like the excitement a thirsting man gets when crossing a desert and he sees a mirage on the horizon.
What they don't know is who Obama is....It's called bootlicking....or die....
This abuse crosses party lines:
“Former Clinton aide, columnist joins Woodward in claiming White House threat”
(Lanny Davis has been a high ranking Dem for many many years and he received same treatment)
Obozo’s minions are evil. He and they serve the father-of-lies.
Bob Woodward is a modern-day Leon Trotsky.
Really? And what does that mean? No more after date "I love you" texts? No more reach arounds? Does the one stream media actually want an apology this time before they forgive him? Maybe if you gave him another Nobel he'd be nicer to you?
I've never seen such a love fest between the press and politicians as now with obama, and that's after eight unwanted years of blue dress, voter voyeurism watching Clinton getting getting done by the press corpse and debating the meaning of "is".
Perhaps it is finally time for some serious presidential bleeding
Papers might spark a comeback if there is a presidential bleeding lead
Perhaps Obama has jumped the shark.
He should do it anyway!
Why would he feel the need to protect the dirtbag from the taxpayers?
LOL. Now that’s funny right there.
No, Obama has not jumped the shark.
No matter how he treats the WH press, when (if) his neck is actually on the line, the WH will make a few overtures and the press will be right back in his camp.
If a crunch time occurs, they will not abandon him. It’s all fantasy to hope that would occur. I believe that we could have a few reporters grabbed by DHS for some BS subversion charges and it wouldn’t matter.
They most CERTAINLY know who he is.
These reporters may be jealous, but ALL of them would like to BE Woodword or Bernstein.
Cut off that chance, by denying access, and you destroy the hopes of the “little” journalists.
They will FINALLLY turn—and it’s about time!
They most CERTAINLY know who he is.
These reporters may be jealous, but ALL of them would like to BE Woodword or Bernstein.
Cut off that chance, by denying access, and you destroy the hopes of the “little” journalists.
They will FINALLLY turn—and it’s about time!
Lover scorned.
With Democrats, the press bears all the traits of battered person syndrome.
I'd like to believe this, except for the matters of "the moment when the White House press corps starts" and "pushing back".
No less than Helen Thomas harrumphed vigorously back in 2009 about how the "journalists" in an upcoming press event were going to be called in a predetermined order.
And recall a few weekends ago when they were moaning and wailing about having no access during his golf weekend with Tiger Woods. Ready for the pushback? The first and only question after all that: "Who won?"
I may be wrong, but I think the “little” journalists are more than content to scrounge for the scraps underneath the table of a Democrat President.
They only covet the best 5 star feast on the planet when it’s a Republican President. Look how voraciously they worked to bring down Bush and Cheney.
Ah here we go, Chip Reid of CBS and Helen Thomas vs Robert Gibbs in July, 2009. If you’ve forgotten what a douchebag Gibbs is, this should refresh your memory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.