Headlines

The enforced silence about what went down in the session only invites speculation, an invitation that this blog is happy to accept. Perhaps MSNBC’s Schultz proclaimed to the president, “We at this table have your back, Mr. President.” Perhaps the president expressed disappointment that these left-leaners aren’t hitting the opposition squarely enough. Perhaps someone mentioned Fox News, and everyone else just sat there shaking their heads. Perhaps the president solicited advice from the group, though a journalist who has attended off-the-record White House sessions in the past says that’s unlikely. “It’s my hunch based on my limited experience that presidents are more interested in explaining themselves rather than seeking advice,” says the journalist. For all we know, the attendees pressed the president to place things on the record, yet they somehow feel bound not to talk about such efforts.

Enough hammering on the journalists in attendance. The real problem here is a president who fears the record, or at least groups of reporters hungry for answers. The oft-cited Towson University Professor Martha Joynt Kumar has compiled numbers documenting the president’s lack of availability when it comes to news conferences and Q&A sessions with reporters. Yet, in fairness, Obama outpaces others in terms of interviews granted. (568, compared to 190 for George W. Bush, 187 for Bill Clinton, 294 for George H.W. Bush and 224 for Reagan over a comparable period).

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

There’s a long history of presidents calling up journalists and talking to them. Complaining, explaining et cetera. JFK did it a lot. Most of that was with columnists but they did call publishers and editors tc complain about stories. So, it’s been done.

But having an entire group is a little bit, well, different. It’s almost like an attempt to orchestrate coverage and not inform.

I wonder if these folks were told that the meeting was off the record? Probably so.

…protecting and defending secrecy?! That’s a word of Mau and Stalin and secret police, secret trials …secret… secret deaths. You force the press into the cold and ALL you will get is LIES and innuendo and NOTHING!- Nothing is worse for a free society than a press that is in service to the… to the military and the politicians. Nothing! You turn that camera off when I tell you to turn it off! You think I give a damn what you think about me? You serve the people? So do I! -Emmett Bregman

W met with a bunch of talk radio folks. At least these folks are honest about how they are. The scary ones are the ones like Brian Williams, bowing to the president literally and figuratively at every opportunity and then look down their noses at Fox.

It is a bit scary when the President of the United States seeks advice from people like Ed Shultz.
SoulGlo on December 9, 2012 at 10:41 AM

I don’t think they are giving Mao advice, more likely they are getting tips and talking points on how to disarm republican attempts to focus on issues like the actual fiscal problems we have, or Benghazi, or giving them ways to bolster what he hasn’t said yet publicly etc.

I wonder if that is what rubbed you wrong. It happens sometimes. People who are bitter about not having a degree or profession sometimes get offended by elitist back-scratching and butt-sniffing. It’s understandable.

I wonder if that is what rubbed you wrong. It happens sometimes. People who are bitter about not having a degree or profession sometimes get offended by elitist back-scratching and butt-sniffing. It’s understandable.

Capitalist Hog on December 9, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Lame.
I’m intelligent enough to recognize a silly fool dodging a question when I encounter one.
They have one consistent characteristic. When unable to answer they resort to ad hominens. Not unlike a angry teenager.
Get over yourself. It shouldn’t be that much to get over.
Grow up.

The complaint was not about networks. It was about personal appearances. But nice to see that my direct reference is not “vaguely accurate” while your obtuse and reaching comparison is keen.

OK Johnny.

Capitalist Hog on December 9, 2012 at 12:29 PM

That makes it easier.
Now you seem to be claiming that GWB not only had meeting on multiple times with right leaning journalists and pundits, but the most far right pundits that would equal the verbal stylings of an Ed Schultz, Cris M. Larry McDonald etc.
You claim this, but what is your evidence to prove it? When did Bush call together a meeting with these people and who are these people you claim knowledge of meeting with Bush?

The problem is that we don’t have any activist journalists. We don’t have any activist Republicans in Congress. We don’t have anyone with a platform willing to push conservative ideas.
(Leaving out talk show hosts.)
Too bad for us.
We still need you, Andrew Breitbart.

Fox & Friends Outraged Over Obama Hosting Progressive Media But Had No Problem With George W Bush Hosting Right Wing Media

(excerpt)

The Fox friends are stunned and outraged over Obama’s meeting with progressive media types. Yet, they had no problem at all with George W. Bush meeting with right wing media in 2006. There wasn’t, as far as I know, any Fox & Friends whining about how Bush should have invited oh, say Air America to the soiree. The little pals didn’t complain about how “way” right wing radio hosts, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Mike Gallagher, and Michael Medved “delivered the message” for Bush. That meeting was fine and dandy.