Irritated Obama 'Stares Down' Reporter During Press Corps Visit

Quote :

When a reporter tried to quiz Obama on Thursday about a lobbyist chosen for a top Defense Department job, the president quickly became agitated.

WASHINGTON -- President Obama paid a surprise visit to members of the White House press corps Thursday evening when he walked through their working area of the West Wing, but he quickly became agitated when he was confronted with a question by one of the journalists.

According to reports, when the Politico's Jonathan Martin asked the president about his nominee for deputy secretary of defense, William Lynn, Obama refused to answer, saying he was not there to take questions.

"I came down here to visit. I didn't come down here -- this is what happens. I can't end up visiting you guys and shaking hands if I am going to grilled every time I come down here," the president said.

Pressed further by the Politico reporter about his Pentagon nominee, Obama turned more serious, putting his hand on the reporter's shoulder and staring him in the eye.

"All right, come on" he said, with obvious irritation in his voice. "We will be having a press conference, at which time you can feel free to [ask] questions. Right now, I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself to you guys -- that's all I was trying to do," Politico.com reported.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/22/obama-suprises-white-house-press-corps-visit-briefing-room/

How dare this journalist ask the Messiah any questions! Gee- how long 'til this chap is out of a job?

All bow at the glory and presence of the chosen one!

Yeah, well I don't reallly see much difference between this and a request from any public figure to speak to a reporter "off the record." It was a "social" call, not a press conference.

If anything, the press probably shouldn't have repoted this "incident" at all.

When the POTUS says "no questions," then that request should be honored, and I'd say that no matter who happens to be the President.

Sorry, I just can't completely agree there. He's a public figure and the leader of this nation and should expect that he will be questioned. If he is going to get irritated every time someone questions his decisions, then maybe he might want to rethink the whole POTUS thing....

"I came down here to visit. I didn't come down here -- this is what happens. I can't end up visiting you guys and shaking hands if I am going to grilled every time I come down here," the president said.

Pressed further by the Politico reporter about his Pentagon nominee, Obama turned more serious, putting his hand on the reporter's shoulder and staring him in the eye.

"All right, come on" he said, with obvious irritation in his voice. "We will be having a press conference, at which time you can feel free to [ask] questions. Right now, I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself to you guys -- that's all I was trying to do," Politico.com reported.

In a word - Sam Donaldson. Remember him? Any time the President is in public any question is fair game.

Yea, I'm sure President Obama would like to change the rules of engagement with the press to his liking. So has every President before him. He is clearly in the wrong here, unless he feels he deserves entitlement or something that nobody else ever got.

That said it always irritated me when the press would grill a President, any US President, on domestic issues at a press conference with a foreign head of state or dignitary. To me it's just tacky but I didn't make the rules. I don't recall off hand but I'm sure there were plenty of Monica questions for Clinton in front of foreign heads of state.

Well maybe this is just part of the change President Obama has been telling us about. If he stopped to answer every question any reporter asked him he would never get anything done.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/22/video-obama-meets-white-house-press-corps-gets-annoyed/



Here's the way it really played out. See the video. He wasn't as agitated as some have said.

It was obvious the visit was just to get to know the people that work there and it was very casual as you can see by the casual questions and statements that were asked and made. It took a different route when one reporter desided to make it into a press conference. {Notice none of his colleagues jumped on the bandwagon.}

I don't believe any of this was even news worthy but keep in mind people, this President hasn't even been in office for a week. The media is going to try to report on EVERY move he makes, if they could get into the bathroom with him they would!

Seems to me this casual meet and greet with the President was not the place to get on the bad side of the President if ya ever want to get called on during a press conference. I think the reported screwed up.

happy jack wrote:

party42 wrote:

I think the reporter screwed up.

Yeah, imagine a reporter actually doing his job.
That bastard!

Yes, that overzelous, rude, reporter was a bastard.

By your logic Jack, does that mean that all the other reporters that were there that didn't ask those kinds of questions not doing their job?

Well you are in the minority Jack.

Maybe you are in the wrong profession as well. Ever consider being in the media since you seem to think you would do a better job of reporting things?

He may be "in the minority" (add me to that minority) because so many brainless doofs didn't know or didn't want to know the truth behind what he stood for. Oh-Bama! Change?? Hope?? That's all they heard and cared about. Package anything nice enough and it'll be bought.

I'm sure the video was posted around here somewhere asking those who voted for Obama what he stood for and they didn't have a clue, or they were wrong about things reported about McCain/Palin because the mindless kool-aid drinkers were fine with what the MSM fed them.

happy jack wrote:

The vast, vast majority of the media failed miserably in covering the Messiah during the campaign and run-up to this election, with not even a polite, token pretense of objectivity, and so far have continued that willful blindness to anything He may have done that could be considered objectionable.
He may or may not turn out to be a good president, but the way He was pre-packaged and sold by the media was shameful.
2008 has been referred to as "the year the media died." I tend to agree.

The GOP lost. It's pathetic to blame the media every time something doesn't go your way. The Republican party needs to do some soul searching and make some major changes or they will find themselves on the outside looking in for a very long time.

IMHO, the first step is to start taking responsibilty for one's actions. You guys got beat. I know that its easier to blame somebody else, but that's a losing proposition. Once your party realizes that it is out of step with the American people, and makes the adjustments that are necessary to remedy that, then perhaps you will see the party begin to recover.

If people in the minority don't know what Obama stands for they haven't taken the time to listen to his speechs or check the many, many websites that detail his plan for this country and how he will do the things he has promised.

I tend to believe there are certain people out there that would NEVER vote for a Dem. under any circumstances and vice versa. That is a shame.

I don't feel the need to post anything that I believe is taken out of context just to make the "other" guy look bad.

Ohhmama, what is the truth behind Obama and what he stands for that you speak of?

Two thirds of this country are behind Obama. Don't you feel a need to at least give him a chance?

I have said I will give him a chance, but that doesn't mean I will stand behind and agree with everything he does. More often than not, I will not agree with what he does because our beliefs are completely different.

As a citizen of this country I have a right to voice my displeasure over certain things he does as others have voiced displeasure over things Bush or the other 42 pres. before him. You can agree I can disagree, that is what is fantastic about this country.

I don't believe Obama has the experience to have this job and I'm not going ever going to jump on a bandwagon just cuz someone is popular, regardless if that person is an (R) or (D).

Ohhmama wrote:

I have said I will give him a chance, but that doesn't mean I will stand behind and agree with everything he does. More often than not, I will not agree with what he does because our beliefs are completely different.

As a citizen of this country I have a right to voice my displeasure over certain things he does as others have voiced displeasure over things Bush or the other 42 pres. before him. You can agree I can disagree, that is what is fantastic about this country.

I don't believe Obama has the experience to have this job and I'm not going ever going to jump on a bandwagon just cuz someone is popular, regardless if that person is an (R) or (D).

Of course you have the right to disagree with me or anyone else. That is our right as Americans. No one has disputed that. No one is asking you to jump on the bandwagon either.

My suggestion and point in this thread is to for everyone to voice ligitimate complants. But because there isn't anything else to post about Obama that would be a negative thing, these kinds of threads are started. That's all I'm saying.

Ohhmama, you never told me what you think Ohbama stands for?


Also, it's kinda hard to believe you are willing to give this President a chance when your signature line says what it says.

happy jack wrote:

How do you know that I am not?[/quote]


I don't know if you are in the media business or not, do you work for FOX news? That could be your problem.

party42 wrote:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/22/video-obama-meets-white-house-press-corps-gets-annoyed/

Here's the way it really played out. See the video. He wasn't as agitated as some have said.

Wow. Thanks for posting this. I hadn't seen the actual video. Talk about much ado about nothing!

Yeah, when all else fails...make something up.

party42 wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

I have said I will give him a chance, but that doesn't mean I will stand behind and agree with everything he does. More often than not, I will not agree with what he does because our beliefs are completely different.

As a citizen of this country I have a right to voice my displeasure over certain things he does as others have voiced displeasure over things Bush or the other 42 pres. before him. You can agree I can disagree, that is what is fantastic about this country.

I don't believe Obama has the experience to have this job and I'm not going ever going to jump on a bandwagon just cuz someone is popular, regardless if that person is an (R) or (D).

Of course you have the right to disagree with me or anyone else. That is our right as Americans. No one has disputed that. No one is asking you to jump on the bandwagon either.

My suggestion and point in this thread is to for everyone to voice ligitimate complants. But because there isn't anything else to post about Obama that would be a negative thing, these kinds of threads are started. That's all I'm saying.

What is a ligitimate complaint to you? So should we not post any articles that is/could be seen as unfavorable to the Obama? The article posted was merely for discussion purposes. I thought it was pretty funny that the Obamiester seems to think he can walk into a room full of reporters and think that they wouldn't want to have the opportunity to have a question answered since, ahem, that is their job. See, I find it amuzing that you think the reporter was overzealous, rude and a bastard for asking a question. This is the type of thing that absolutely baffles me when it comes to Obama supporters; the man can do no wrong. Of course it wasn't Obama who showed irritation it was that damn reporter doing his job...

party42 wrote:

Ohhmama, you never told me what you think Ohbama stands for?

You had originally asked (Ohhmama, what is the truth behind Obama and what he stands for that you speak of?)
I was talking about things associated with Obama that the MSM perty much overlooked since he was the (D) on the ticket. Anyone can go back and do a search about his associates. He's been treated as some sort of god-like person, a celebrity and it's disgusting. The man simply doesn't have the qualifications to be president; Hilary had more qualifications to be the (D) nominee, IMO. Hell, they (MSM) dragged Palin and her family thru the coals. McCain was bashed for his age and being unable to lift his arms because they were broken as a POW. There was never a fair representation of both parties running, just as much personal attacks towards McCain/Palin as possible without actually doing their jobs.

party42 wrote:

Also, it's kinda hard to believe you are willing to give this President a chance when your signature line says what it says.

Of course I'll give the man a chance. My signature is a mockery towards all who thinks the man is all supreme being and can do no wrong- dat's all... If I wasn't going to give him a chance, I'd put up the "not my president" pic, but I won't do that...yet..

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

The vast, vast majority of the media failed miserably in covering the Messiah during the campaign and run-up to this election, with not even a polite, token pretense of objectivity, and so far have continued that willful blindness to anything He may have done that could be considered objectionable.
He may or may not turn out to be a good president, but the way He was pre-packaged and sold by the media was shameful.
2008 has been referred to as "the year the media died." I tend to agree.

The GOP lost. It's pathetic to blame the media every time something doesn't go your way. The Republican party needs to do some soul searching and make some major changes or they will find themselves on the outside looking in for a very long time.

IMHO, the first step is to start taking responsibilty for one's actions. You guys got beat. I know that its easier to blame somebody else, but that's a losing proposition. Once your party realizes that it is out of step with the American people, and makes the adjustments that are necessary to remedy that, then perhaps you will see the party begin to recover.

Believe it or not, I can admit that the GOP may have deserved to lose. That, however, does not absolve the media in the least. They were a continuous running joke throughout this election cycle, from their Palin witchhunt to their Messiah's deification. You, of course, may choose to not acknowledge that 800-pound gorilla.

If there is anything to acknowledge, I would consder it I was presented with some real evidence. All the stories are still out there. If you like, we can start another thread and discuss them. My only stipulation is that coverage begins from the moment Obama declared himself as a candidate for the office, because I noticed a lot of complaining from the GOP about the mass media's failure to cover "issues" that were already addressed ad nauseum during the long, long, long road to the Democratic nomination.

From what I observed, the mass media coverage (which excludes blogs) wasn't substantially different from other elections, other than the acknowledgement of the historic nature of Obama's candidacy. Let me know if you want to discuss it, and we'll start another thread.

Imagine the outrage the Obama supporters would be saying if Bush had done the very same thing

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

The vast, vast majority of the media failed miserably in covering the Messiah during the campaign and run-up to this election, with not even a polite, token pretense of objectivity, and so far have continued that willful blindness to anything He may have done that could be considered objectionable.
He may or may not turn out to be a good president, but the way He was pre-packaged and sold by the media was shameful.
2008 has been referred to as "the year the media died." I tend to agree.

The GOP lost. It's pathetic to blame the media every time something doesn't go your way. The Republican party needs to do some soul searching and make some major changes or they will find themselves on the outside looking in for a very long time.

IMHO, the first step is to start taking responsibilty for one's actions. You guys got beat. I know that its easier to blame somebody else, but that's a losing proposition. Once your party realizes that it is out of step with the American people, and makes the adjustments that are necessary to remedy that, then perhaps you will see the party begin to recover.

Believe it or not, I can admit that the GOP may have deserved to lose. That, however, does not absolve the media in the least. They were a continuous running joke throughout this election cycle, from their Palin witchhunt to their Messiah's deification. You, of course, may choose to not acknowledge that 800-pound gorilla.

If there is anything to acknowledge, I would consder it I was presented with some real evidence. All the stories are still out there. If you like, we can start another thread and discuss them. My only stipulation is that coverage begins from the moment Obama declared himself as a candidate for the office, because I noticed a lot of complaining from the GOP about the mass media's failure to cover "issues" that were already addressed ad nauseum during the long, long, long road to the Democratic nomination.

From what I observed, the mass media coverage (which excludes blogs) wasn't substantially different from other elections, other than the acknowledgement of the historic nature of Obama's candidacy. Let me know if you want to discuss it, and we'll start another thread.

“If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.”
Louis Armstrong

I guess I'll just have to place you in the above category, because if you weren't able to recognize the bias during the campaign, there's not a whole lot I can do to convince you otherwise.




http://www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/006958.html
In response to assertions by commenters under Justin's post "All The Difference from D to R" that no bias exists in the press, below are two studies conducted just before the election which demonstrate otherwise.
An MSNBC article of October 31 cites the Center for Media and Public Affairs.
Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected positively on Obama in 65 percent of cases, compared to in 31 percent of cases with regards to McCain
And a October 22 article at Journalism.org references a study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism.
The media coverage of the race for president has not so much cast Barack Obama in a favorable light as it has portrayed John McCain in a substantially negative one, according to a new study of the media since the two national political conventions ended.
Press treatment of Obama has been somewhat more positive than negative, but not markedly so.
But coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable—and has become more so over time. In the six weeks following the conventions through the final debate, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by a factor of more than three to one—the most unfavorable of all four candidates—according to the study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism.







http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/16/AR2008111602374.html?sid=ST2008111602457&s_pos=
A Giddy Sense of Boosterism
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 17, 2008; Page C01
Perhaps it was the announcement that NBC News is coming out with a DVD titled "Yes We Can: The Barack Obama Story." Or that ABC and USA Today are rushing out a book on the election. Or that HBO has snapped up a documentary on Obama's campaign.
Perhaps it was the Newsweek commemorative issue -- "Obama's American Dream" -- filled with so many iconic images and such stirring prose that it could have been campaign literature. Or the Time cover depicting Obama as FDR, complete with jaunty cigarette holder.
Are the media capable of merchandizing the moment, packaging a president-elect for profit? Yes, they are.
What's troubling here goes beyond the clanging of cash registers. Media outlets have always tried to make a few bucks off the next big thing. The endless campaign is over, and there's nothing wrong with the country pulling together, however briefly, behind its new leader. But we seem to have crossed a cultural line into mythmaking.
"The Obamas' New Life!" blares People's cover, with a shot of the family. "New home, new friends, new puppy!" Us Weekly goes with a Barack quote: "I Think I'm a Pretty Cool Dad." The Chicago Tribune trumpets that Michelle "is poised to be the new Oprah and the next Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis -- combined!" for the fashion world.
Whew! Are journalists fostering the notion that Obama is invincible, the leader of what the New York Times dubbed "Generation O"?
Each writer, each publication, seems to reach for more eye-popping superlatives. "OBAMAISM -- It's a Kind of Religion," says New York magazine. "Those of us too young to have known JFK's Camelot are going to have our own giddy Camelot II to enrapture and entertain us," Kurt Andersen writes. The New York Post has already christened it "BAM-A-LOT."
"Here we are," writes Salon's Rebecca Traister, "oohing and aahing over what they'll be wearing, and what they'll be eating, what kind of dog they'll be getting, what bedrooms they'll be living in, and what schools they'll be attending. It feels better than good to sniff and snurfle through the Obamas' tastes and habits. . . . Who knew we had in us the capacity to fall for this kind of idealized Americana again?"

But aren't media people supposed to resist this kind of hyperventilating?