Politico: “Oh Noes! the Best Reporter on a Subject Got Called On!!!”
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THEY FIRED FROOMKIN FOR THIS?!? I assume this tripe is the WaPo’s idea of engaging with people who are too hip for Beltway pablum. But Digbydday’s right–this YouTube comes off as pathetic parody. That said, it deserves condemnation even more for its "journalism" than for its lack of self- consciousness. Here’s the wisdom that Dana Milbank offers on the President. We have some concerns about the tights, Mr. President. Republicans in Congress are already calling Obama timid for his response to the protests in Iran, and it’s hard to sound like a tough guy when you’re wearing red spandex. Compare that with this take, from the guy they fired, on the same topic. President Obama, making his most extensive and personal remarks yet condemning the crushing of dissent by the Iranian regime, also stressed today that it’s not his job to satisfy the 24- hour news cycle, with its rapacious appetite for conflict and ultimatums, but rather to advance the interests of the country on his own clock. Responding to insistent questioning at today’s press conference from NBC News’s Chuck Todd about why he wouldn’t "spell out the consequences" for the Iranian government, Obama shot back: "We don’t know yet how this thing is going to play out. "I know everybody here is on a 24-hour news cycle. I’m not. OK?" And when CBS News’s Chip Reid recounted criticism from Republicans including former presidential candidate John McCain that Obama had thus far been timid and weak in his comments about Iran, Obama fired back: "You know, I think John McCain has genuine passion about many of these international issues. And, you know, I think that all of us share a belief that we want justice to prevail. "But only I’m the president of the United States. And I’ve got responsibilities in making certain that we are continually advancing our national security interests and that we are not used as a tool to be exploited by other countries." He added: "I think that in the hothouse of Washington, there may be all kinds of stuff going back and forth in terms of Republican critics versus the administration. That’s not what is relevant to the Iranian people…. They’re trying to figure out how can they make sure justice is served in Iran." [my emphasis] Both are, essentially, beltway insiders commenting on beltway politicking. One manages to diminish the Iranian crisis into yet another horserace pitting Republicans against the world. And the other refuses that frame entirely and reminds readers what the real import of this story is. And, manages to engage those who refuse the pablum passed by the beltway rag, as well. Update: Oops–it was dday, not Digby, who did the post on this. Thanks 4jkb4ia. POLITICO: “OH NOES! THE BEST REPORTER ON A SUBJECT GOT CALLED ON!!!” Michael Calderone is way out of line with his article bitching that Nico Pitney got called on at Obama’s press conference today. In what appeared to be a coordinated exchange, President Obama called on the Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney near the start of his press conference and requested a question directly about Iran. “Nico, I know you and all across the Internet, we’ve been seeing a lot of reports coming out of Iran,” Obama said, addressing Pitney. “I know there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?” Pitney, as if ignoring what Obama had just said, said: “I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.” [snip] According to POLITICO’s Carol Lee, The Huffington Post reporter was brought out of lower press by deputy press secretary Josh Earnest and placed just inside the barricade for reporters a few minutes before the start of the press conference. When I heard, before the presser, that Nico was hoping to pose a question from an Iranian, I knew some beltway idiot would bitch if the HuffPo got a question. I just thought the bitching would come from someone with a more consistent record of being a complete idiot than Calderone. As to Calderone’s bitching, it’s out of line for several reasons. First, if I knew that Nico was hoping to ask a question from an Iranian, then chances are the people paid to know these things at the White House knew. What better tribute to democracy and free speech could the White House make than to allow this question to be posed to the President? And, after all, one primary focus of the presser was Iran. There are few who would argue but that Nico’s reporting–his tireless compilation of news coming in from both traditional and citizen media–has been far and away the best minute-to- minute news on the Iranian crisis (to take nothing away from the people offering superb commentary and expertise, which I consider something different). Maybe the Politico’s media reporter has missed it, but Nico’s doing something pretty historic with his reporting on Iran. So even assuming the White House isn’t as up-to-speed as I am, how hard do you think it would have been for them to guess that Nico, who has been living and breathing the Iranian crisis since it started, would ask a question about Iran? I mean, c’mon. To try to turn this into a scandal is to assume that both the White House and Politico itself are a lot stupider than I think they are. Update: Calderone has updated his post–and, in fact, the folks paid to know this stuff at the White House did know this stuff!! Deputy press secretary Bill Burton responds: "We did reach out to him prior to press conference to tell him that we had been paying attention to what he had been doing on Iran and there was a chance that he’d be called on. And, he ended up asking the toughest question that the President took on Iran. In the absence of an Iranian press corps in Washington, it was an innovative way to get a question directly from an Iranian." Which means Calderone’s pout-rage amounts to a journalist complaining about free speech and those in power getting asked tough questions. AUTO DECLINE NOT BRINGING LOCAL MEDIA DOWN–AS MUCH AS IT COULD HAVE Since I elaborated on my auto industry/news industry analogy the other day, I wanted to point to this article describing how the auto industry’s woes haven’t brought down local media as much as it might have. As I’ve been pointing out for some time, auto advertising accounts for a huge chunk of local advertising. Local traditional media — television, radio and newspapers — are more reliant on automotive advertising than any other medium. In 2008, TV stations got 23 percent of their total advertising from auto, followed by local newspapers at 17 percent and radio stations at 14 percent, according to a Sanford C. Bernstein & Company report released this month. And the amount of advertising manufacturers, co- op, and individual dealers are buying has declined by numbers that almost match the decline in auto sales. Local automotive ads come from three sources: Companies like Ford and Toyota take out some ads on local television to promote their new models, in addition to their nationwide ads. Local dealers also pool money, helped out by the corporation, to promote their brand of cars regionally. Then, each dealership takes out television, radio and newspaper ads to list its autos for sale or special discounts. The ads from automakers — running nationally and locally — fell 19 percent in the first quarter of 2009, compared with a year earlier, according to research firm TNS Media Intelligence. Ads from dealer associations fell 62 percent, while ads from the individual local dealers declined almost 40 percent. [snip] Auto advertising in local media declined more than twice as fast as it did in national media in 2008 compared with 2007, according to Bernstein. But it has been so bad already this year that local media managers say they believe they have absorbed much of the pullback in auto advertising. But the recent further cutbacks associated with the Chrysler and GM bankruptcy have not hit local media still further, largely because the dealers that got closed really weren’t selling that many cars, and because the ones that are left are increasing their advertising. Plus the dealers that shifted into used sales are re- introducing themselves to consumers. Obviously, the auto industry is so big that it’s linked with everything. That’s particularly true, however, of the auto industry and media. This is an interesting snapshot of how that’s working out. JOURNALISTS AND AUTO WORKERS For probably perverse reasons, this was my favorite moment in Obama’s speech to the Radio and TV Correspondants Dinner. Of course, most of my attention has been focused here back home. As you know, we’ve been working around the clock to repair our major financial institutions and our auto companies. But you probably wouldn’t understand the concept of troubled industries, working as you do in the radio and television. AUDIENCE: Oooh! THE PRESIDENT: Oh — we don’t joke about that, huh? (Laughter.) That’s not funny. (Laughter.) The similarity between the failed American auto industry and the failing American newspaper and news entertainment industries is really apt. It’s a comparison I made–without getting booed–at a couple of panels a few weeks ago.