Obama To Chuck Todd: Take Your 24-Hour News Cycle And Shove It
At his presser just now, President Obama offered a surprisingly harsh response to MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, who asked Obama repeatedly why it was that he wouldn’t outline “consequences” for the violence towards Iranian protesters.
Obama said it was too early to see how things were going to “play out.” After Todd persisted, Obama rejoined, sharply:
“I know everybody here is on a 24 hour news cycle. I’m not.”
Obama and his advisers have repeatedly disparaged the D.C. cable bubble as petty and distracting from the country’s challenges, though the White House happily uses good cable coverage to its advantage on occasion. I guess Obama wants to make it clear that he won’t handle sensitive international crises on cable’s clock, either.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
He’s smackin’ ‘em down, left and right.
He also said “I already answered your question Chuck” scolding him like he was a belligerent toddler. It was GRRRRREAT! LOL
Fantastic…too bad more of our elected officials are not taking this position when it comes to the issue of Iran…there are just too many talking heads out there trying to fill in time on their shows…the President should not structure his reponse on Iran to satisfy these people…there is plenty more to talk about and I like Chuck, but I am sick of everyone insisting that “President Obama should say this” or “President Obama should say that”…SHUT UP and just let the man say what he is going to say…and if you have a problem with his statement then say so and then you should read up on some of our history and how us meddling in Iran’s affairs in the past has so helped our mideast relations – Not!
Chuck has a history of asking inane questions at Obama’s pressers. Remember the question about American sacrifice in March? This is no different. I don’t understand why Chuck Todd is generally viewed so positively.
Chuck got owned. I mean, completely.
I always thought they should have left Gregory in that spot. It’s not a good fit for Todd.
Greg: Seen this yet? “Choreographed Obama HuffPost question”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_HuffPost_for_Iran_question.html
sbj
.
NewsFlash Nico Pitney has been doing some of the finest reporting on what is going on over in Iran out of anybody, bar none, traditional or new media. He got a question because he earned and deserved it whether he worked for HuffPo or the NYTimes or FoxNews. So you can take your faux scandal and shove it.
@SG: Damn SG, what’s the deal? Doesn’t it violate a board rule to tell another poster to shove it? What the heck is up with that? And SG, Calderone reports this – I don’t. You know for damn well sure that it’s not usual to put this guy in the front row and then coordinate a question. This isn’t a faux scandal, this is not typical. Call it what you want but spare me the invective.
sbj
.
Actually it was not only typical in this situation it was also warranted and expected. If you don’t know who Nico Pitney is then go look him up and see what he has been doing over the last week before you try to make hay out of a GOPolitico story. Its funny how many times commentors like you will post a link then run from the content after people call you out. If you didn’t agree with the story or believe it then why did you post the link in the first place?
sbj – whether or not it’s a scandal, it’s a non-story. No one cares.
By the way, just to be clear, the problem with Chuck’s question is that none of us knows what the end game will be. If we give some kinds of specific consequences then it will be seen as trying to influence the outcome. And also if we give those consequences and the reformers end up prevailing well will we still hold them accountable for what the current regime did? It was a totally idiotic question.
No way, Obama’s press conferences are choreographed? He has, what, a plan? How dare he? By the way, Pitney not only deserved his seat and his call, but maybe that was the WH’s way of rubbing the noses of the MSM in their (with a few exceptions) pathetic Iran coverage.
sbj~oh please…always trying to scrape something off of the floor…this smells like the whole “outrage” that FoxNews played up about ABC’s unprecedented access to the White House…only to be schooled by YouTube that FoxNews was granted unprecedented (in their own words no less) access to the Bush White House, Air Force One and the Crawford Ranch, plus they also received unprecedented (again in their own words) access to Cheney…you know…Hypocrisy negates the validity of ones beliefs and credibility. The current GOP leadership isn’t mastering much these days, but on hypocrisy they are pros…let’s hope for some new GOP leadership that will recognize that a hypocritical platform is a weak platform.
@sg: Who’s running from the content? Enough with the lies, man! It was warranted to pre-screen questions during a Presidential news conference? If he wants to make a point htne he makes it during the pre-questions statement, he shouldn’t coordinate questions with any news outlet – liberal or conservative. I don’t care who the hell Nico is or how good his reporting is, how is that even relevant? The president should not know the content of a question before he receives it at a Presidential news conference. I’d think this would be something we could agree on. “Not afraid to take those tough questions: Obama goes to HuffPo’s Nico Pitney, who he just happened to hear had a question from someone on the ground in Iran . . . Pitney gives Obama an opening to go back to the we-didn’t-have-observers-on-the-ground, hands-off Iran schtick. (Obama knew it was coming: HuffPost operative 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.)” This stinks to high heaven. No one cares? I do.
Has anyone noticed an “attitude” problem, over time which includes the WH Briefing, when Chip Reid, Chuck Todd or Jake Tapper ask questions. These buggers sound so superior and come of as know it all. I am glad that the President called them out. It was good to see the smackdown.
sg, you have to know the deal with sbj and all the wingnuts out there; they think it’ll be death by a thousand cuts, just like it was in 1993. All they have to do is keep ginning up outrage about anything and everything, and then sooner or later, the people will be outraged along with them. The difference this time is that the net is the great equalizer. All the Repubs in the world are on TV lying and spinning everyday (don’t they have jobs to do somewhere) trying to find anything that will stick, and never have anything positive to say about the Pres unless he upholds some Bush policy, and then they are only happy because “it’ll make some liberal somewhere cry”. Oh boo hoo, “the President knew Nico had a question, it was pre-planned”, and W had people sign loyalty oaths just to hear him ramble on about nonsense for a couple hours. Were you complaining so much then too?
Give me a break about your feelings and your facts sbj; if you had any, of either you wouldn’t be a republican.
Anybody who smacks down a Villager like Todd is ok with me.
I hate Politico. But I checked the Calderone post. Headline: White House-HuffPo conspire? Calderone backed down from his sensational conspiracy accusation, with this update added at end: (This post was rewritten shortly after the exchange and updated in the text. Initially, I wrote the exchange was “clearly coordinated,” but have since put the question to a Huffington Post spokesperson for more elaboration). Clearly, Nico Pitney was there for one reason. He wasn’t going to ask about health care. He may have pitched his participation (or HuffPo did) saying he had questions from Tehranese. That doesn’t mean that Obama knew the question. Also, a reporter called out as Obama departed, what, no questions on Iraq or Afghanistan? Now who’s fault is that? Obama calls on a list his team has drawn up. The usual suspects, then he sprinkles around. Who knew none of those called up on would have a state-of-the-wars question? But I’m sure he was prepared for them. Is it his fault none of the ones he called on asked? Should he shout out, hey, somebody ask me about Iraq? Do your freakin’ jobs people? You are shocked, shocked, when really, no sin was committed here.
KH, to paraphrase Rummy…you ignore wars with the press corps you have, not the press corps you might want or need…
Chuck should take to heart this famous piece of advice from Gilda Radner: “Don’t be a clod, Todd!”
WilliamC and jzap, wheezing here!
sbj – Just so we are clear, you are saying that you are concerned that the leading US Reporter on what is going on in Iran was told ahead of time that they would get to ask the President a question about Iran?
.
Follow-up: please provide evidence of your concern (and Politico’s for that matter), when Dubya called on reporters knowing their question ahead of time. You know, to avoid the obvious hypocrisy charges which follow you around like white on rice.
@sg: Ouch! You have cut me to the quick.
I hope people didn’t miss the point of Nico Pitney’s question. It was a terribly important one. First, it gave President Obama a chance to answer a specific question from someone in Iran. He was able to speak directly to their concerns. But, perhaps more importantly, the question cut to the heart of the matter: Will Ahmadinejad be accepted as the “legitimate” leader of Iran? President Obama did not say yes. In effect, he said that as long as the people of Iran question Ahmadinejad’s legitimacy, America will not disregard the concerns of the people of Iran. It would be a shame for such a profound question to be overshadowed by a sideshow that is ultimately of little to no consequence, and will have no significant bearing on political discourse.
@sbj
Two words – Jeff Gannon
In addition, as sg noted, Pitney has been doing some of the best reporting in the blogosphere on the Iran electoral crisis. His reporting is most about what’s going on in Iran, not about our domestic disputes over what Obama should and shouldn’t do. His reporting on this has been praised by bloggers on both the left and the right. He’s probably more in touch with folks on the ground in Iran than any of the establishment media boobs at the presser. I don’t find it shocking that this question was coordinated. And it’s not like they hid this fact – I believe Obama actually said, “I think Nico has a question from Iran”, or something like that. Hardly scandalous.
The other journos are ticked off because some blogger dude got picked because Obama and the WH press office knew he had a good and relevant question, not like many of the rest of these so called “journalists”. It’s freaking Drudge candy – just check out the comments thread on the Calderone post on Politico. It includes all of the typical wackos that a Drudge link attracts. Of course, most of the folks commenting have read nothing but the Drudge headline.
“First, it gave President Obama a chance to answer a specific question from someone in Iran.”
And Pitney would be one of the few reporters in attendance to have such a question since it’s likely that the establishment boobs haven’t spoken to anybody on the ground in Iran and frame their questions using daily GOP AM talking points releases. And come on, the thing was hardly a softball question. Of course, that didn’t stop Politico from presenting it as such.
Sorry for the bolding in my last post. Used a tag instead of . Of course, that could be avoided if this damned blog would accept hard returns.
And now everybody is going to be bold. I hope this fixes the problem.
It didn’t. Sigh….
@Ajax and OGLiberal and Travis: I think it was a great question and I agree that the answer should not be overshadowed by the unusual nature of the coordination or the departure from White House protocol by calling on The Huffington Post second. If I read Travis correctly it seems that there may indeed be consequences for the actions of Iran’s ruling regime which is what I and many conservatives have been pleading for this past week. I am concerned that the President might try to decide which outlets have ‘good questions’ and ‘good reporters’ and which outlets do not in the future. I am concerned that the President would tell a reporter ahead of time that he was going to be called upon to ask a question on a specific topic. I am concerned that the President might call upon sympathetic outlets to ask the ‘tough’ questions.
Two updates from Calderone:
UPDATE: 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.”
UPDATE 2: Knoller, again via Twitter: “Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney says the WH called him this morning and invited him to ask his Iran questions at the news conference.”
The problem with the other news outlets is that they aren’t in touch with folks on the ground in Iran like Pitney has been. They also aren’t following it as closely, especially from an Iranian perspective. I would have welcomed the same question/approach from Michael Totten, who is hardly “friendly” to the administration but who has also been doing great reporting on the Iran crisis.
The WH and Obama obviously weren’t hiding the fact that this was semi-coordinated. And Burton’s post-presser comments were very upfront and hardly defensive. I can understand your concern, sbj, but in order for this sort of stuff to be nefarious, you kind of have to do it on the down-low. There was nothing sneaky about this and he still called on all of the usual suspects.
sbj
.
Just a question but have you looked to try to find the work Nico has been doing yet?
Why not call reporters and bloggers randomly. This sense of entitlement by the front bench is a nonsense. The front bench is not reserved for the “Royal Family of the Washington Village”. That went out in the 18th century.
The concern trolling of sbj notwithstanding, the President has little choice. Are Fox or the other nets going to ask a tough substantive questions? No. They will ask questions laden with the politics of the moment, because even if they have reporters with the background to ask substantive questions, that is not who they send to the presser. These guys get one question each and aren’t going to waste it on something silly like pure substance.
Im going to see if a closing tag will stop the bolding.
I’m new to this so please be gentle. I do find it ironic that if GW Bush had been at that podium during this presser he would have been hounded for an answer, possibly even for a flub that could be replayed ad infinitum on the cable shows later this evening. And to that, all of the people on here high-fiving President Obama now for his rebuff of Todd would then be complaining that Todd and the press were playing Patty-cake with the Prez and should have torn the *** out of Bush’s shorts like a Pit-Bull like he deserves because he’s a lying, cheating, stealing NeoCon. Or something like that.
@sg: I have not but I will when I complete my current project or otherwise have a bit more time. Please note that I am responding to you without name-calling and would appreciate the same respect from you in future. @og – Agreed, not nefarious. Concerned President decides which outlets have ‘good questions,’ concerned reporter would be constrained to ask a certain topic, concerned that sympathetic outlets ask the ‘tough’ questions. I repeat, it was a good question and the answer was important if not entirely clear.
He put the whoopin’ in *** whoopin! He put the splat in kasplat!
sbj
.
Are you not going to acknowledge that this was a special situation where there is an ongoing crisis and Nico Pitney was pretty much the most informed person in the room on the subject? Everybody in this country is watching Iran every day and all of the sh*t going on and its a major story and what would you have the President do? Not call on the person who would probably ask the most informed question of the whole presser on the major, or at least one of the top three, stories of the day? And maybe, just maybe since Pitney is NOT the usual WH correspondent for HuffPo it might make sense for the WH to let him know if he showed up they would call on him. If you can’t pull back from your partisanship for five minutes to realize how ridiculous you look to take that tact I don’t know that there is any reason to ever take you seriously again.
@sg – I tried the closing tag as well and it didn’t work. Whatever you did, thanks for cleaning up my mess.
“They will ask questions laden with the politics of the moment…”
You mean like, “What took you so long?”, or, “Did McCain and Graham pressure you into saying this?”, or, “Why can’t you tell us your 6-month plan for dealing with an extremely fluid and volatile situation in Iran that only emerged a week ago?”
@sbj–those are always concerns, and they’re always valid. I guess it’s just if you have a glass half-full or half-empty perspective. My take is that it’s responsive and forward-thinking of the WH to go beyond the usual Beltway crowd and bring in a blogger who’s microcovering a topic to the point where he has real expertise on this beat. I don’t expect to see Pitney next time. I won’t be surprised to see somebody else fitting this model.
AudioGuy
.
The problem for you is that President Obama DID answer the question. It just wasn’t the answer you or Chuck Todd wanted. And I would love for you to point to a single time Bush was badgered on his non answers. Hell people had a hard enough time trying to decipher what he was saying when he did attempt an answer.
There was an outrage last time Huffington Post was asked a question. I think that time Fox didn’t get called or some other phony news network and they huffed and puffed. It’s expected. I think next presser should be questions from blogs. I’d like him to pick on some humanevents whackos or the nut jobs from worldnetdaily too so everyone in the U.S. can see what that 20% or so that thought GWB was doing an excellent job is really like.
@Mike. Mr. President, Dill Weeb from Human Events. We’ve been picking up tweets from inside Iraq and were wondering if you could respond to some of them. Sure Dill. Okay, first one: Praise be to Allah when is Obama going to produce his birth certificate?
@sbj, you should stick to telling us what principles define Republicanism. And how we should level consequences at Iran except consequences that won’t impact the outcome.
@sg: C’mon now, dude, you never have taken me seriously! I have already said that I’m not familiar with Nico so I am not going to acknowledge that he is the most informed. But aren’t you concerned that the WH gets to decide who is the most informed? Aren’t you concerend that the next admin could simply bring in pinch-hitters to ask questions? What’s next? For healthcare thay call in Ezra Klein to ask question about the public insurance option? On economic issues do they get to decide who the ‘expert’ is and field only Krugman-approved questions? It was a good question, there was nothing nefarious, I am concerend about some of the precedents it might set. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
President Obama gave an answer like a Mother gives an answer “because I said so, now go clean your room” Watching protestors getting their skulls beaten in is not helping them. One occasion of Bush’s hounding was in relation to his “yellow cake” statement in a state of the Union address. Naturally the press wanted all of the details regarding something relating to national security which the President is uable to speak of. The press naturally will go after that which it cannot have and will ignore the low-hanging fruit(Blago,Letterman and the like) I do fear this “hope and change” will be just like all the others and clam up when the “national security” is at risk. So much for a free and open exchange of ideas, unless he was talking about Iranian police trying to beat good ideas into the heads of protestore with batons. Hmmm…
Who says SG is a dude?
I’m not quite sure what exactly AudioGuy was talking about in his last post or what point he was trying to make. Anybody care to decipher?
sbj
.
No and here is why. Tell me how many questions President Obama asked today. Tell me how many “better” reporters he skipped over. Tell me how many adversarial questioners he declined to call on. Did you even see the presser? If there were better or tougher questions to be asked the rest of the WH press core absolutely had the change to ask them. Instead we get Major Garrett offering commentary on “What took you so long” and getting smacked down for his trouble. Then Chip Saltsman with his “Do McCain and Graham rule your world” question who then got smacked down for his trouble. You are freaking out over one guy being invited to ask one question about one of the most important issues of today without examining anything else that happened during the presser nor whether it was in fact a good question. Hey you have your partisan blinders on, more power to you. I tried.
why not ask me what i was trying to say?
I think Obama’s straight talk was necessary. Basically it’s too early to say and if he committed something verbally and reneged because the situation changed, he’d be called out as a liar. Now of course he’s offended the media- a two headed snake… But Obama is a celebrity of sorts- he was goaded/rode the wave of positive media attention into the Presidency and now he’s going to live with it. That’s just how it is with the media whether you’re an actor or the President. In the end unfortunately bad news sells better and though we often scorn China’s “propaganda machine”, in a sense, we have self-imposed propaganda: Basically once the love-fest feeling for Obama has worn out, the media will come out in full force to attack him; but right now, the love-fest is still on, so right or wrong, no outlet will say anything bad. So it’s self-censorship, except what is guiding it is not a central government but a media ratings and personal vendettas by maverick reporters to try to gain attention for their work, even if it’s at the expense of skewing the truth. Basically these are whores to public opinion and it’s ridiculous to see how the news slants one way or another depending upon the prevailing political views in that region of the country: Isn’t news supposed to be impartial? That’s why I alwsys check out BBC and even sites like Chinadaily where I know there will be government involvement, because I want to get a balanced view, and I think it’s really made me see a lot of things a lot more clearly. Everyone should do this.
hear, hear
Anyone know what AudioGuy is talking about? I can’t make sense of it.
I’m saying that brown skin is the ultimate aphrodisiac and the press in in the mood for love. They will gladhand this guy all the way into the gates of hell, all the while blaming the “others” for the mess he “had” to clean up.
Clear enough?
@sg: “You are freaking out over one guy being invited to ask one question . . . without examining . . . whether it was in fact a good question.” SG you’re smarter than me but you still need to play fair and not let your emotions get the best of you. At the least, if you’re gonna insist that I reply to one of your questions then you could at least read the response. For one thing, I am not freaking out. You’re getting that from your own imagination, unless you feel that merely defending my opinion counts as “freaking out.” For another thing, I did, indeed, ‘analyze’ the question and determined that it was not only a good one, but that Obama’s response indicated there might, indeed, be consequences for the Iranian government’s actions (as I have been calling for these past days).
Thanks for “clearing” all “that” up there “guy.”
chuck todd a/k/a. the goateed wonder is a flyweight
hoping to become a lightweight. he asks incredibly
stupid questions that say more about him than whoever
he is questioning. he tried to pull a russert by asking
the same question again, but obama would have none of it.
saying he already answered it. good for obama.NBC
should have given job to chris jansing, she knows how
to ask questions.
Audio~
“I’m saying that brown skin is the ultimate aphrodisiac…”
How Nice! (hope you know what that really means in the South) Any-whoo…perhaps you should come on back to reality from “real America” and peruse this article…clearly you need to bring your talking points into the 21st century..
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/all-nonwhite-converging-on-hypernegative-view-of-gop.php
Shorter Audio
“Im a racist, deal with it”
Gotta give him props for honesty though
“no” “problem” “glad” “to” “help”
“Chuck Todd, who asked Obama repeatedly why it was that he wouldn’t outline “consequences” for the violence towards Iranian protesters.”
Does Chuck Todd, and his ilk, think they have National Security clearance? Granted, one of our constitutional Rights is freedom of speech, but to ask such a stupid question and then feel baffled that he didn’t get a good enough answer is beyond stupid.Todd was just hoping to get a big scoop for his network.
WHY would the President of the United States announce to the world, on TV yet, what the “consequences” might be, even if he does have a plan? that would be like
Truman announcing at a news conference that he was
going to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima, wouldn’t it?
I really wonder where these reporters brains are!
It was THE stupidest question of the entire news conference!!!
@mrspeel…I dont think chuck todd was asking for the flight plan of the bomber headed to Iran, just some sort of a measured response. Obama stood behind his statement that he would meet with dictators without preconditions, now he merely wants to play wait-and-see with the very people he seemed to want to split a decaf latte and a box of donut holes with during the election. possibly he realizes now meeting without preconditions could be considered “meddling”?
Does Obama understand the responsibilities of the Presidency?
So you think it’s much better to go the GOP’s way: make threats against and keep increasing tension with Iran so we have an excuse to to to war with them. I think we will see the Iranian leadership have to open up more toward the U.S. Obama’s message of change is obviously resonating with their people too.
This may have been a smack down, but that’s not the essential point.
The President was saying something substantive, which he repeated several times. The events have not yet played out.
More is happening behind the scenes. No doubt he knows more about those events than the press. But once again the press gets caught up in it’s own story [McCain attacks the President!] rather than thinking through the serious aspects of what may be happening among the power players behind the scenes in Iran.
[McCain, by the way, is the one who wanted to bomb Iran, thus killing many of the people who now he claims to love]