Tag Archives: White House press corps

media news, national news, political news

Do as Trump says, not as he does

Donald J. Trump cracks me up.

Except that I’m not laughing with the president, but rather I’m laughing at him for the preposterous declarations he makes about the media — and what he does before and after he makes them.

Trump stood before the Conservative Political Action Conference audience this week and excoriated the media — the “enemy of the people,” remember — for using anonymous sources.

What, then, occurred that makes this attack so laughable?

His White House staff talked to a select group of media on the grounds that they be allowed to speak anonymously.

D’oh! Huh? Eh? What the … ?

Trump’s CPAC rant was the latest ramping up of his war against the media, the folks whose task is to report to their own constituents what is going on with the White House, the president’s staff and, by golly, the president himself.

This ridiculous and nonsensical rant in which he blasts the media for granting anonymity to sources only demonstrates the president’s utter ignorance of the traditional role between the media and the White House.

It’s supposed to be adversarial. Every single president — regardless of party or ideology — has bitched about his treatment by the media. Some have taken that complaint to more intense levels than others; President Nixon’s troubles come to mind.

However, every single one of them has said essentially the same thing: The media treat me unfairly; they’re too harsh; they’re too probing; they pry too much and too deeply.

The treatment Trump is getting is really no different than what has occurred since the founding of the Republic.

Now, for him to blast the media for granting anonymity — while allowing his staff to request it of the media — simply makes me shake my head in sheer amazement at this president’s ignorance.

media news

It’s the temperament, man … the temperamant

I’ve been trying to determine when I’ve ever seen a president of the United States treat the media in the manner being displayed by the current one.

I cannot remember a single time. Not even during President Richard Nixon’s time in the White House.

Donald Trump has shown utter contempt and disrespect for the men and women assigned to cover the White House for their various news organizations.

It manifests itself when he gets a question he dislikes. He tells reporters to “sit down, that’s enough” when they seek to elaborate on their question, to fill in a blank or two. No, the president will have none of it.

Forget for a moment that he calls them “dishonest” out loud, in public, to their face … and then expects these fellow human beings to treat him with kid gloves.

The disrespect — as I’ve witnessed it — is unlike anything I’ve ever witnessed, even from afar.

If we march back through time — starting from Barack Obama and going backward — I cannot remember a president acting the way this one does in front of the media.

There was one memorable, testy exchange in the 1970s between then-CBS News correspondent Dan Rather and President Nixon. The president was getting entangled in the Watergate scandal and Rather asked him a pointed question. Some members of the press gallery chuckled, some even clapped. Nixon asked Rather, “Are you running for something?” Rather responded, “No, Mr. President, are you?”

Presidents usually have strained relations with the media. They dislike negative coverage, as does any politician — no matter what they might say. As I’ve watched presidential/media relationships from a distance over the years, I have noticed a sometimes cool cordiality between the Big Man and the media that cover him.

What we’re getting now is open hostility and an exhibition of extremely bad manners from the guy who needs the media as least as much as they need him.

I’m trying to imagine what will occur if and/or when the crap really hits the fan at the White House. I fear the president will go berserk.

Didn’t someone mention temperament as a quality we look for in a president of the United States of America?

media news

‘Leaks are real, news is fake’ Huh? What?

I’m trying to digest the contents of Donald J. Trump’s press conference today.

It’s upsetting my stomach.

The president has declared all-out war on the media, which he calls “dishonest” and “fake.” The very men and women who cover the president’s statements and actions are told to their face that they are out to get the president, that they have an anti-Trump agenda.

One of them asked Trump today about the leaks that have allowed information to pour out into the public. Trump’s response is utterly mind-boggling on its face: “The leaks are real. The news is fake.”

I don’t even know what that means.

My media activity these days is confined exclusively to this blog. I did spend nearly four decades covering and commenting on local and state governments in two states — first in Oregon and then in Texas. I didn’t have the honor of covering the White House or politics at the highest level imaginable.

However, I do share a bit of empathy with the reporters who are doing their job in the face of withering attacks from the president of the United States.

He should seek to use the media to his own advantage. The president has a message to deliver, or so I am presuming. He must rely on the media to deliver it to the public. Why, for heaven’s sake, does he insist on the ad hominem attacks on the media? Why does he insult the men and women sitting in front of him with labels such as “dishonest” and “fake”?

This guy — the president — cannot remove himself from flat-out campaign mode. He used that tactic against his Republican Party primary opponents and then against the Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The media now have taken over the role political opponent.

I think I am picking up the scent of Steve Bannon, the White House senior strategist, who has called the media the “opposition party” and suggested that the media should keep quiet.

The media are nothing of the kind. Nor should they keep quiet; the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the media’s right to pose probing questions of those in power.

If only the president of the United States could demonstrate an inkling of knowledge of the media’s role in a modern society.

media news

Trump continues to play the media perfectly

Donald J. Trump has the media right where he wants them.

In his crosshairs. At the center of public policy debates.

Make no mistake, the president of the United States is demonstrating his amazing skill at playing the media like a cheap fiddle.

What has been fascinating to watch is the discussion over this weekend about the media reporting of inaugural crowd size and the attack-dog performance of press secretary Sean Spicer. He went right after the media in the White House press room. The media took the bait and have launched into an amazing discussion of what many reporters call “small things.”

Yes, the media keep insisting that Trump has lowered the level of discussion to issues that don’t matter — such as inaugural crowd size estimates. The media keep talking about it, however, as if it does matter.

How does the president benefit from all of this?

The Republican Party base that held Trump up while he insulted his way to the GOP nomination and then to the election hates the media’s guts. The base is Trump’s essential audience. He seems to not give a damn — no matter what he says — about representing the entire country. He’s still in campaign mode and he’s going to play to his base as long as is humanly possible.

The media are going to allow it as long as they keep tussling with the president over “small things.”

Meanwhile, many of the rest of out here in the vast stretches of this still-great nation are hoping Team Trump will develop some kind of working relationship with the media that cover it.

These first couple of days seem to portend a rocky ride.

Which might be just to Donald J. Trump’s liking.

media news

Sean Spicer: media puncher in chief

Sean Spicer sauntered into the White House press briefing room today and did something quite extraordinary.

The White House press secretary looked the media in the eye and echoed what the new president of the United States has said repeatedly: He called them dishonest.

Think about that. The fellow who will be the president’s spokesman, his point of contact with the White House press corps, took off his proverbial glove and slapped the media square in the face.

And over what? This is the best part.

He challenged the media’s reporting of the size of the crowd at Donald J. Trump’s inauguration. The crowd, he said, was bigger than the media reported. It rivaled the size of the crowd that gathered for Barack Obama’s first inaugural and was larger than President Obama’s second inaugural.

Spicer bitched about pictures he said misrepresented the size of the crowd.

Here we go, ladies and gentlemen. The president of the United States is continuing his campaign to discredit the media. He trotted out his spokesman to lash out at the press corps while he — Trump, that is — was accusing the media of being full of “dishonest people.”

It’s been said that people in power shouldn’t “punch down.” If you’re the president of the United States, you pick fights, say, with members of Congress over policy matters or you argue with heads of state of adversarial nations.

Arguing over crowd size? To be candid, a lot of Trump’s supporters think he’s right, that the media deserve to be taken down, that they are too big, too powerful, too smug, too elitist and, oh yes, too liberal.

Let’s all get ready, folks. There’s much more of this to come. Of that I am quite certain.

media news, national news, political news

Clinton, Trump share mutual loathing of media

hillary media

Donald J. Trump gets the headlines with his ridiculous rants about the media.

The Republican presidential nominee keeps yapping about the “dishonest,” “corrupt” and “failing” media outlets that give him bad press. In truth, I believe he actually loves the media, which keep giving him the coverage he craves.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has another kind of relationship with the media. She doesn’t trust them. Interesting — yes? — given the Democratic nominee’s own trustworthiness issue with Americans whose votes she seeks as she campaigns for the presidency.

Let’s just say that both of these individuals have media relations issues.

Clinton’s is the more elusive to pin down and in many respects is more troublesome.

She rarely conducts full-blown news conferences, opening herself up to tough questioning from the media. Her answers are calculated and calibrated to produce certain reactions. They too often backfire, particularly when the media detect such elusiveness.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-media-press-problem-226944

I am not going to accept the idea that the media have been kinder and gentler to Clinton than they have to Trump. This is not meant to excuse Clinton’s lack of accessibility. However, to suggest that the Democratic nominee has been somehow “shielded” by the media seeking to protect her from tough questions ignores an obvious fact — which is that the media themselves have sought to shed light on the many issues that keep dogging Clinton.

Meanwhile, Trump keeps alleging that the media are in cahoots with Clinton that the candidate and the Fourth Estate are conspiring to “rig” the election to produce a Trump defeat.

Pardon me, sir, but you’re doing a pretty nice job of blowing up your campaign all by yourself.

The media have a responsibility to be the public’s eyes and ears. That role shouldn’t be trifled with by candidates who, for differing reasons, keep suggesting the media somehow are out to “get” them.

Trump’s circus act, I believe, is mostly for show. Clinton’s reticence is more deliberate and strategic.

Trump’s antics are getting more play but they are giving Clinton’s team plenty of wiggle room to stiff-arm the media whenever it can.

media news

Of course the question was intended to offend

Major Garrett, CBS News’s chief White House correspondent, and I have something in common.

We both worked for the same person, although at different times.

How’s that for name-dropping?

Garrett went to work for the Amarillo Globe-News back in the old days. The then-editor of the paper, Garet von Netzer, hired him; von Netzer later would become publisher of the paper and then he hired yours truly, although long after Garrett had moved on.

Having laid down that useless predicate, let me now say that Major Garrett asked a patently offensive question of President Obama, to which the president responded appropriately.

The question involved four Americans held captive in Iran and Garrett wondered how the president could be “content” that they’re still being held on trumped-up charges while he is “celebrating” the nuclear deal worked out with the Islamic Republic.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/obama-major-garrett-shuts-down-press-conference-120156.html?hp=b2_r1

Obama took offense at the tone of the question. He scolded Garrett, saying he “should know better” than to ask a question that contained “nonsense.”

The president said he isn’t “content” over the Americans’ continued captivity and said he and his team are “working diligently” to secure freedom for the individuals.

What irks me about the question and its aftermath is how Major Garrett insisted it wasn’t intended to ruffle the president. He didn’t apologize and he said it was not asked to call attention to himself.

May I be blunt? That’s pure baloney.

That’s how it goes among the White House press corps. It’s always about getting in a question intended to call attention to the inquiry and to the person making it. Such gamesmanship has been going on for, oh, since the beginning of these televised events dating back to the days when President Kennedy introduced them to the public and turned them into some form of entertainment.

CBS’s Dan Rather famously sought to get under President Nixon’s skin during the Watergate scandal; ABC’s Sam Donaldson did the same thing to President Reagan over the course of many years; Fox’s Ed Henry does the same thing today with President Obama.

Well, now Henry and others have company in the “gotcha” hall of fame.

Major Garrett asked an appropriate question. He just inserted a certain word — “content” — that framed it in a way that got Barack Obama’s dander up.

I would bet that was his intent all along.

 

national news

Boys kept out of White House queries

President Obama’s final press conference of 2014 made news in an unexpected manner.

Eight reporters asked him questions in the White House Press Room. All of them were women. Obama said at the outset he had checked his “naughty or nice” list when developing his list of questioners.

I guess the men among the White House press corps had been naughty.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-answers-female-reporters–questions-only-at-year-end-press-conference-212200355.html

What’s the statement here? I haven’t a clue.

One of the other interesting elements of the roster of questioners was that most of them rarely, if ever, get a chance to ask the president something at one of these events. They were “unknowns.”

The “big hitters” among the White House press cadre — the men and women who get the front-row seats — comprise the major broadcast and cable news networks, along with The Associated Press, the pre-eminent print news outlet. They sat there stone-faced while Obama called out names of people sitting in the back of the room.

Actually, I thought it was rather cool for the president to call on those who don’t usually participate in these televised news conferences. It gives others whose job is to report on presidential events a chance to put their own questions on the record with the Leader of the Free World.

Enough of the major-media echo chamber, thank you very much.

***

A memory came to mind just as I was typing this post about “no-name journalists.” Here goes.

Back in the 1980s, NASA announced a plan to send a working journalist into space aboard a space shuttle mission. It then put the word out for any journalist who was interested to apply.

I applied for a spot on a shuttle mission. What an amazing opportunity to report first hand, up close, in real time the immense thrill of orbiting Earth from outer space. Hey, I could do this.

As it turned out, NASA scrubbed its “civilian in space” after the Challenger disaster in January 1986, when school teacher Christa McAuliffe died along with her crewmates.

But after I submitted my application to NASA, I was sharing my desire to fly in space with a colleague of mine at the Beaumont Enterprise, where I was working at the time. I mentioned to my friend, Rosemary Harty, that NASA likely would go with some big-name network TV news celebrity — someone like Walter Cronkite.

“Oh, no they won’t, John,” Rosey said. “They’re going to pick a nobody, just like you.”

 

Uncategorized

‘Regime change’ is hidden strategy

The columnist Charles Krauthammer says any attack on Syria would be a “pointless exercise” if it’s not about “regime change.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/08/27/krauthammer_pointless_exercise_if_attack_on_syria_isnt_about_regime_change.html

White House press guru Jay Carney says regime change isn’t on the agenda if U.S. forces attack Syrian military installations in retaliation for the chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians.

It’s all very interesting. Let me walk us back 20-plus years.

In August 1990, the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein sent troops into Kuwait to invade and occupy that country. He took Kuwait’s vast oil supply hostage, threatening to cut off supply lines to countries such as the United States.

President George H.W. Bush said immediately the invasion “will not stand.” So he put together a coalition of nations, obtained United Nations approval to strike back at Iraq, then got the Congress to go along with it. The president stated over and over that the aim of any planned response would be to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait and nothing more.

A force of more than 500,000 troops, commanded by U.S. Army Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, stood ready to attack.

Then came the first shot of the war, on Jan. 17, 1991. It was a Tomahawk cruise missile launched by the battleship USS Wisconsin. Where did this missile score a direct hit? On the presidential palace in Baghdad.

Had the missile strike killed Saddam Hussein, there would have been a regime change, correct?

No one should be surprised, therefore, if an attack on Syria doesn’t start with a similar targeting strategy.