"Gibbs Chides Olbermann, Cable Pundits For Being Out Of Touch" (HuffPost)

[jefferson_dem]

Ha. :popcorn:

Gibbs Chides Olbermann, Cable Pundits For Being Out Of Touch
First Posted: 06-16-10 05:06 PM

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs offered a noticeably snide dig on Wednesday to cable news critics who claim that the president is being too hands-off with the oil crisis -- specifically MSNBC's Keith Olberman, who harshly criticized Obama's Oval Office address the night before.

"I appreciate the hand on the pulse of America by those who live on cable TV," the press secretary said. "I don't actually think that is where all of real America lives."

The comments were made in response to a question about whether Gibbs had seen some of the tougher takes on the president from the "Daily Show"'s Jon Stewart and Olberman -- the latter of whom critiqued Obama for offering mostly platitudes during his Gulf speech. Gibbs, at first, appeared willing to dispense of the issue with a simple 'no comment.' But after giving it a second thought, he weighed in.

"I said this before, I will reiterate it. If the president had decided to run for president based off what the pundits were saying in the December of 2006 and January of 2007, he would be in the Senate," he said, before offering his blunter pushback.

The White House routinely stresses that it simply doesn't care what the pundits have to say about the president's performance. But the somewhat gratuitous shot about living in the real world certainly gets at the larger truth: administration officials are acutely aware of, and affected by, the coverage they receive.

<SNIP>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/16/gibbs-chides-olbermann-ca_n_614897.html

Gibbs is right but Huffpost is obviously trying to stir up shit. Whatever. I think it's funny. Here's a transcript of the actual exchange.

Q And my second question, both -- Jon Stewart last week and this week has been very critical of the President. Keith Olbermann last night really badly trashed the President’s speech. Is the President or the White House concerned at all about losing two such influential allies in the media?

MR. GIBBS: No. No. Ken*.

Q Robert, this is non-BP --

MR. GIBBS: I will say this -- can I say this? I’ve said this before; I’ll reiterate it -- if the President had decided to run for President based on what the pundits were saying in December of 2006 and January of 2007, he’d be in the Senate. No, no, hold on. I appreciate the pulse -- the hand on the pulse of America by those that live on cable TV. I don’t actually think that’s where all of real America lives.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/briefing-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-treasury-secretary-tim-geithner-under-secreta

[Skittles]

1. it is Gibbs and his employer who are out of touch

[vaberella]

14. False. You should have heard the calls into C-SPan.

Majority were positive. And C-SPAN is known for it's racism and Obama HATE!

[Skittles]

15. fine - if they're happy with how things are, YEE HAW

personally, I think they suck, and so does every thinking person I know

[WeekendWarrior]

20. Wait now - Every thinking person you know sucks?

I'm glad you don't know me. :)

You're obviously upset about Obama's speech -- although I'm not quite sure why -- but some of us thought it was fine, and the follow up today (BP's 20 billion+ escrow after meeting with Obama) isn't bad either.

[Skittles]

21. you need to get some critical reading - listening - and thinking skills

[WeekendWarrior]

22. I just read the sentence as you wrote it. I'd suggest an edit to make your point clear.

[Cha]

24. ..

Touche!

[Cha]

17. No it isn't ..it's the cable media who is out of touch..

Jeremy McCarter of newsweek takes names and kicks ass..


"There’s real value in offering people an informed analysis of major presidential addresses. But the way that the analysis gets delivered can be more or less corrosive to the relationship between the government and the governed. When pundits are so clear in their demands, so visceral in their disappointment, so numerous, and so verbose (the 18 minutes that Obama spent delivering his speech was a fraction of the time the cable channels devoted to talking about his speech), it weakens the communication between president and audience that defines theater, political or otherwise.

First the talking heads work themselves and their audience into a fit about what the president must do. A sort of collective narrative takes shape—with heroes and villains, successes and reversals—building as it goes. Thus Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer both referred to onscreen clocks counting down to the speech, like the Super Bowl kickoff. Suzanne Malveaux told CNN viewers, “He’s going to try to convey that he gets it.” John King caviled a little, saying that actions would matter more than words.”Without a doubt,” confirmed Anderson Cooper from a photogenic corner of the gulf. “What the president is going to do tonight is hold BP accountable,” added Gloria Borger.

By the time Obama appeared, CNN and MSNBC had done a thorough job of telling the audience how to judge what he said. (I imagine Fox did the same, but it’s so riddled with its own pathologies I didn’t check.) Did the president “get it”? Well, he studded the speech with the language of war, referring to his “battle plan” and describing the spill as “a siege.” Was BP “held accountable”? He failed to use the head of a BP executive as a paperweight, but he did say in plain terms that the company “will pay for the impact this spill has had on the region.” Characteristically, he seemed most engaged not during the backward-looking stuff about assigning blame, but the forward-looking stuff: offering a big-picture look at a clean-energy initiative. “We cannot consign our children to this future,” he said, neatly evoking a kind of inverted Mad Max scenario, with oil spills everywhere.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/16/pundits-like-that-are-the-only-people-here.html

[Skittles]

18. I don't even WATCH the cable media

and yet I am STILL DISGUSTED

[Cha]

23. I loved the speech..very in touch...

Talking directly to the American people...and I felt he was mostly addressing those affected by the tragedy, to calm their fears, and in the process he calmed mine for them.

[Skittles]

27. oh dear lord

:o

[PassingFair]

38. Right! It's FOX who delivers the news!

Er....what?

[Fearless]

26. Or their minds...

[Enrique]

2. it's not that bad

we don't care about the polls, we don't care about the lame-stream media, etc., it's what they always say.

What else are they going to say, Olbermann was right, the speech sucked?

[ErinBerin84]

3. so

Did he ever mention Olbermann, or is it just the editorial that pretends he was "specifically" chiding him? Seems like a pretty general response about pundits (though I realize that the question directly asked about Keith..)...and the press asked him two weeks ago (I think it was Chuckles Todd) if Obama's people had seen a specific episode of Jon Stewart, it's getting pretty old. I was going to say that the White House really doesn't need to be picking fights with Keith, but the Gibbs response is pretty standard...

[jefferson_dem]

5. He was responding to a question that referenced KO. Here's a transcript.

Q And my second question, both -- Jon Stewart last week and this week has been very critical of the President. Keith Olbermann last night really badly trashed the President’s speech. Is the President or the White House concerned at all about losing two such influential allies in the media?

MR. GIBBS: No. No. Ken*.

Q Robert, this is non-BP --

MR. GIBBS: I will say this -- can I say this? I’ve said this before; I’ll reiterate it -- if the President had decided to run for President based on what the pundits were saying in December of 2006 and January of 2007, he’d be in the Senate. No, no, hold on. I appreciate the pulse -- the hand on the pulse of America by those that live on cable TV. I don’t actually think that’s where all of real America lives.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/briefing-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-treasury-secretary-tim-geithner-under-secreta

[ErinBerin84]

9. Thanks

Yeah,that's not really that bad...same thing they've said about the media plenty of times, and like another poster said, what else was he going to say? The question is kinda douchey as well. White House people have said other things about "The Left" that have bugged me, but this is not one of those times.

[jefferson_dem]

11. Thanks for pointing that out.

I've edited the OP to include the transcript.

[Cant trust em]

12. You mean the Huffington Post stirred up some phony controversy?

Heavens, no! That can’t be.

[jefferson_dem]

13. Between their fashion bits on Palin's implants and GaGa's new wig...

they are proving they can "go tabloid" on politics too.

[Cant trust em]

36. Huffington Post has been referred to as some kind of model for new media

If they could actually include news gathering in addition to opinion, then they could really have something.

[tularetom]

4. So he singles Stewart and Olbermann out for criticism

but doesn't say jack shit about the "liberal media" which have been trashing Obama almost from the gitgo.

Sad, just sad.

[FrenchieCat]

7. I don't see anything from Gibbs in quote that discusses specifically

either Stewart or KO....which leads me to believe that Gibbs didn't point them out....
the person writing the article or asking the question did. Gibbs' answer was quite
general and didn't name names.

[Cant trust em]

6. Huffington Post has the sorriest news gathering team out there.

Their opinion pages are valuable, but don’t count on them for much real journalism.

[geek tragedy]

8. Stupid question.

Stewart and Olbermann, for better or worse, are entertainers, as is just about every cable 'news' person not named Rachel Maddow.

[Berry Cool]

39. Wrong. Stewart is an entertainer who manages to get facts into his work,

and Olbermann is a deliverer of facts who manages to get entertainment into his work.

[mmonk]

10. Edited.

Gibb's response wasn't that bad.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Except for Gibbs didn't name names.......

but is being accused of it by the usual suspects; those who are always ready with their
knee jerk negative reaction to everything and are always ready to pounce.

I get tired of those who don't bother to read keeping in mind the agenda
that is one that the media supports.

[mmonk]

19. It was corrected and duly noted.

I just didn't edit my response because I was working on something.

[KansasVoter]

25. Flamebait

[Aramchek]

28. only to those who fluff Olbermann

[KansasVoter]

29. No different than fluffing Obama

[Cha]

33. The hypocrisy of you calling anything flamebait is not amusing.

[depakid]

30. Never a promising development when you have to address those who ought to be your allies like that

Unfortunately, this administration doesn't seem terribly adept at responding to feedback- a characteristic one often sees among insular organizations.

[jefferson_dem]

31. "...ought to be your allies..."

Ergo. :)

[depakid]

32. Ergo the comparison to other administration embroiled in scandals that go after the media

in this case- what ought to be favorable media, giving them the most benefit of the doubt.

The "gold standard" of this sort of insularity and lashing out in the midst of scandal is the Nixon administration during Watergate- and while we're far from that at this point, the catastrophe is still at its early stages.

The consensus seems to be (and I while I didn't expect much different, I agree) that this was yet another in a line of missed opportunities.

[jefferson_dem]

34. You can have your "consensus" among the talking heads on the commercial media.

I'll take results, courtesy of an effective president.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1416392020100617

Leaving aside the stupid question at the press briefing, it would be tough to take issue Gibbs's response. Read it again please.

[depakid]

35. What I've been reading from seasoned commentators thus far seems pretty accurate

and I'm not sure you grasp the fact that we won't be seeing good or effective results here- the magnitude of this catastrophe is overwhelming and hasn't even begun to be revealed. All there is here is mitigation and damage control, the management of which both of which require careful attention to feedback.

[Clio the Leo]

37. lol, NO mention of this exchange on the old Twitter today....

.... just now hearing about it from you after reading 10 hours of Tweets by various and sundry WH correspondents. Guess they were embarassed.

Funny.

People want Obama to show emotion and get angry with BP .... *I* want Robert Gibbs to rip the press corps a new one. We all have our emotional needs. lol

[dembat]

40. Gibbs is right

It is you all who don't know to govern. Gibbs is right to hell
with Keith, Chris, & any other who were asses last night.