Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Media Fail to See Obama’s Fingerprints on Lack of Press Freedom in Gulf

Watch CBS News Videos Online It’s been more than 50 days since a BP oil rig exploded off the coast of Louisiana, beginning a massive leak of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Miles of beaches have been soiled and birds, turtles and other sea creatures have died. But the most disturbing pictures of the disaster weren’t available to the public for more than 40 days. That was when many people finally witnessed Louisiana’s state bird, the brown pelican, literally covered in thick brown oil. Why so long? Because federal agencies including the Coast Guard and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) were preventing the press from reaching many areas affected by the disaster. CBS, Associated Press, Mother Jones and The Times-Picayune have all complained about local and federal authorities and and British Petroleum contractors inhibiting their reporting. But while many in the news media blame BP, the real culprit may well be the Obama administration. When asked, Obama and other administration spokespeople say the U.S. government is in charge of the oil spill cleanup. The president has openly stated that the federal government is in charge of the oil spill clean up. The Associated Press (AP) reported that “Obama says all steps BP takes to end the huge spill must be approved in advance by the government.” But journalists and the left have blamed BP rather than point fingers up the federal chain of command. Left-wing magazine Mother Jones called it a “corporate blockade at Louisiana’s crude-covered beaches.” Newsweek magazine pointed out the difficulty that photographers encountered when trying to “document the slow-motion disaster in the Gulf.” In its article, Newsweek placed the blame squarely on British Petroleum from the headline: “BP’s Photo Blockade of the Gulf Oil Spill” to the quote from a Louisiana photographer who said the prefix “BP” ought to be attached to “Coast Guard” on all the vessels. “It’s a running joke among the journalists covering the story that the words ‘Coast Guard’ affixed to any vehicle, vessel, or plane should be prefixed with ‘BP,'” Charlie Varley told Newsweek. “It would be funny if it were not so serious.” It’s also not funny that many in the news media and on the left would rather blame BP for controlling federal agencies like the U.S. Coast Guard and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) than recognize the similarities between limited media access in the Gulf and Obama’s previous actions controlling the press. Obama also has a long-standing pattern of handling the press, sometimes to the point of blocking access. So now that many reporters are complaining of a lack of access to the oil spill, it is surprising how little blame has been directed at the administration. During the campaign, he had three reporters from publications that had endorsed John McCain kicked off his plane. Since then he has openly attacked his detractors (including Rush Limbaugh) and was once criticized by a couple reporters (Chip Reid and Helen Thomas) for managing a town hall meeting. As of February, Obama had held fewer solo press conferences than most presidents — only George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon held fewer. And he went nearly a year, from July 22, 2009 until last week, without holding a formal news conference. Despite the failures of regulators at the Minerals Management Service and Obama’s own claim that the feds are in charge, a Media Research Center analysis of the oil spill coverage found 95 percent of stories had no criticism of the Obama administration whatsoever (148 out of 157 stories). Coast Guard, FAA keeps press away from Gulf spill Even though Newsweek, Mother Jones and others have clearly blamed BP for controlling federal agencies, government officials themselves are the ones that have been turning the news media away. So far, reporters and photographers from many outlets, including CBS, the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Mother Jones and AP have publicly complained about being denied access by local governments and law enforcement, the Coast Guard and the FAA. “More than a month into the disaster, a host of anecdotal evidence is emerging from reporters, photographers, and TV crews in which BP and Coast Guard officials explicitly target members of the media, restricting and denying them access to oil-covered beaches, staging areas for clean-up efforts and even flyovers,” Newsweek wrote. CBS released video of a boat of BP contractors and two Coast Guard officials telling their reporters to leave an area on May 20. The video shows one man on the boat saying, “This is BP’s rules, not ours.” As a company, how could they exert authority over the Coast Guard, and why wouldn’t the Obama administration make sure that does not happen?  AP’s Matthew Brown was one of the few to attach some blame to government, not solely BP. Brown wrote that different media organizations were being restricted “though not all have linked the decision to BP. Government officials say restrictions are needed to protect wildlife and ensure safe air traffic.” While there was no mention of Obama in Brown’s story, Brown said the Coast Guard and FAA told him that “BP PLC was not controlling access.” It is the FAA that has imposed air space restrictions on miles of coastline, according to The Times-Picayune. Flights in certain areas cannot descend below 3,000 feet – effectively preventing aerial photography of the spill’s impact. Rhonda Panepinto, owner of Southern Seaplane charter service, told the New Orleans paper her husband was told ” absolutely no media or press on any planes. The press flights are limited to Saturdays only and only in Coast Guard helicopters.” According to The Times-Picayune, the government decides who can fly and who cannot: “the FAA maintains that BP employees or contractors are not calling the shots on who gets to fly into the restricted air space, saying those decisions are made by the FAA and Coast Guard. But agency spokespeople acknowledge that media access is limited, saying they are only allowing flights into the restricted area that are directly related to the disaster response.” A June 9 New York Times story from cited an incident where the Dept. of Homeland Security told Sen. Bill Nelson’s, D-Fla., that no journalists would be allowed to accompany him on a gulf trip on a Coast Guard vessel. Though the Times clearly blamed some government agencies, like DHS, it did not mention the Obama administration at all. Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser condemned the federal response to the oil spill calling for Coast Guard admiral Thad Allen to resign . Nungesser also called on Obama to support Gov. Bobby Jindal’s EPA request for dredging permits to protect Louisiana. On May 28, ABC’s Jake Tapper reported that Nungesser had a private meeting with Obama. Nungesser said Obama “chewed me out” and said “we need to communicate.” “You pick up the phone and call the White House. And, if you can’t get me on the phone, then you can go blast me,” Obama reportedly said to Nungesser. The Coast Guard has defended itself, specifically regarding the CBS incident, by saying that the media do have access: “In fact, media has been actively embedded and allowed to cover response efforts since this response began, with more than 400 embeds aboard boats and aircraft to date.” That wasn’t sufficient for Ralph Ranalli, chief blogger for WGBH’s Beat the Press website. He chalked up the continued access problems up to ” cluelessness ” on the part of the Obama administration, but criticized the lame response from the Coast Guard. Ranalli said that the CBS clip should have “shamed” the Obama administration into making “a rational plan for media access.” “Embeds are fine in a war zone. But for the federal government to say the media should be satisfied with ride-alongs with an oil company under criminal investigation for the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history is insane. It just staggers the imagination,” Ranalli wrote. Newsweek also took issue with such embeds arguing that “even when access is granted it’s done so under the strict oversight of BP and Coast Guard personnel.” Who’s really in charge? Media outlets have been determined to blame BP for the lack of access, despite the local and federal governments’ involvement. Unlike many reporters, one green blogger did call the president out on the Mother Nature Network. Karl Burkart, an architect and blogger about green technology, pointed out that “The Coast Guard, as one of the branches of the U.S. Armed Forces, answers to the commander in chief – President Obama.” Ultimately Burkart said he “believed” Obama was ” aiding and abetting ” BP. But the question remains, is the White House powerless to control federal agencies like the Coast Guard? Or unwilling – because more coverage would mean more potential criticism for Obama? Or are these agencies puppets in the hands of BP? No matter the option, things don’t look good for the administration. Robert Gibbs, WH press secretary, deflected criticism of the administration on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” May 23 saying “There’s no doubt that we have had some problems with BP’s lack of transparency.” But the White House has been careful to claim that they’ve been charge of the clean up operations. Carol Browner, Obama’s energy and climate czar, said on “Meet the Press” May 30, “the government’s been in control from the beginning … don’t make any mistake here, the government is in charge.” ( Watch video ) Obama told AP the same thing, saying that BP had to get permission from Washington for all the clean up. So it stands to reason that the White House wouldn’t have trouble telling BP to allow the media unfettered access to report on the oil spill if it wanted to. But the Obama administration has a history of managing the press. Despite an often-“fawning” news media that helped get him elected , the president rarely holds formal news conferences. According to Byron York, Obama has done fewer brief Q&A sessions than Bush or Clinton. Even at a bill signing for the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act May 18, Obama refused to answer questions from CBS’s Chip Reid. Reid asked, “”Speaking of press freedom, could you answer a couple of questions on BP?” Obama replied, “You’re certainly free to ask them, Chip.” When Reid pressed further asking, “Will you answer them?” Obama said flat-out: “We won’t be answering.” York said that former Bush White House press secretary Dana Perino was astounded by Obama dodging the press. “I think it is astonishing that there isn’t carping about this from the press every day,” Perino said. “Believe me, they would have nailed us to the wall.” Reid, along with liberal Helen Thomas, also challenged Obama for a “tightly controlled” town hall meeting in July 2009. “The concept of a town hall is to have an open public forum, and this sounds like a very tightly controlled audience and list of questions,” Reid said to Gibbs. “Why? Why do it that way?” Later in that White House briefing even liberal journalist Helen Thomas accused the administration of “a pattern of controlling the press.” During his presidential campaign, Obama kicked three reporters off the press airplane –  all from conservative papers. ABC wrote, “the papers are calling foul, claiming they were targeted for their editorial-page positions and kicked off while nonpolitical publications like Glamour and Jet magazines remained on board.” The Washington Times, New York Post and Dallas Morning News were eliminated from the airplane. Since taking office, the Obama White House has hit back hard at critics in the media, including Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and CNBC’s Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer . According to Limbaugh, Obama has simply been following the liberal Saul Alinsky strategy: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Jonathan Martin of Politico agreed, saying on March 4 , all this isn’t coincidence; it is an effort to frame Limbaugh in the Alinsky mode. After Santelli’s rant about bailouts, Gibbs suggested that the CNBC floor reporter didn’t understand Obama’s mortgage plan. Gibbs also criticized Cramer and attempted to discredit him. But each of these actions by Obama, Emanuel or Gibbs has triggered a media-feeding frenzy and ensuing grassroots efforts to capitalize on the media attention and destroy the target. Like this article?  Sign up  for “The Balance Sheet,” BMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter.

View original post here:
Media Fail to See Obama’s Fingerprints on Lack of Press Freedom in Gulf

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Continues Defense of Obama; Comparisons to Katrina ‘Obscene’

Joe Scarborough continued his open defense of the Obama administration’s response to the BP oil spill, on Wednesday’s “Morning Joe.” Facing off against Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), Scarborough called comparisons of the president’s handling of the current crisis with Bush’s handling of Katrina “obscene.” “Behind the scenes, President Obama from day one was actually very engaged,” Scarborough argued. “[Obama] told his White House staff ‘This is job one,’ ordered all of the agencies to throw the full force of the federal government behind this. I mean…we’ve got the minutes of the meeting from April 22 where he said that.” Rep. King countered that the administration lacked style in its handling of the crisis, and took eight days to declare it a “matter of national significance.” Though Scarborough said that President Obama has done everything of “substance” to respond to the spill, King also asked Scarborough what more President Bush could have done to handle the Katrina crisis. “What could George Bush have done?” Scarborough asked. “A hell of a lot.” “This is one of the most obscene comparisons, between Katrina and BP,” Scarborough spat out. “I was on the ground from day one. I can tell you the federal government was not there. The state government was not there. The local government was not there.” “No, you’re wrong, You’re wrong. That is not FEMA’s job,” Rep. King shot back. “That is the job of the mayor and the governor for the first two or three days.” A transcript of the show’s segment is as follows: MORNING JOE June 9, 2010 8:06a.m.–8:09a.m. JOE SCARBOROUGH: But–but–but Peter, you do understand–you do though understand, Peter, that behind the scenes President Obama from day one was actually very engaged, told his White House staff ‘this is job one,’ and ordered all of the agencies to throw the full force of the federal government behind this. I mean we’ve got that actual–we’ve got the minutes of the meeting from April 22 where he said that. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: It’s actually also in a press release released to the media. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Right. So is this about substance, or is this about style? REP. PETER KING (R-N.Y.): It’s both. It’s about leadership. And the fact is, it did take them–what–eight days to even declare this a matter of national significance. You know, leadership and style–Ronald Reagan had it, Franklin Roosevelt had it, John Kennedy had it, Bill Clinton had it in Oklahoma City. And you have to show–you have to connect with the American people. If you lose the American people on an issue like this, you’re going to hurt your administration, you know, for the next two years. SCARBOROUGH: So Peter, let me ask you, technically, can you name one thing that you would have done if you were running the White House operation technically, that Barack Obama did not do? REP. KING: I would have paid more attention to Gov. Jindal. I think Gov. Jindal is showing leadership, in fact, he wanted those berms off the coast. I think that is something that should have been done, that should have made more attention to him– SCARBOROUGH: But–but–but–but if you put the berms off the coast, that pushes the oil over to Mississippi. That may be great for Louisiana. I don’t think Haley would have liked that a whole hell of a lot. REP. KING: Well…the President should have engaged with Gov. Jindal. He didn’t engage with the Louisiana delegation, didn’t engage with Gov. Jindal, and he stayed away. And again, what more could President Bush have done with Katrina? The fact is, people like you are very critical of him. (Crosstalk) JOE SCARBOROUGH: Let me tell you–I’ll gladly tell you. I went down to Katrina the day after, and I can tell you unlike Florida, the year before, where we had four hurricanes, FEMA wasn’t there on the ground. The National Guard wasn’t there on the ground. (Crosstalk) SCARBOROUGH: This is one of the most obscene comparisons between Katrina and BP. I was on the ground from day one. I can tell you the federal government was not there. The state government was not there. The local government was not there. I saw children walking around in dirty diapers that they had been wearing for three days, four days. I saw kids wandering the streets of Biloxi and across Louisiana without any water, three days into it. What could George Bush have done? A hell of a lot. REP. KING: No, you’re wrong, you’re wrong. That is not FEMA’s job. That is the job of the mayor and the governor for the first two or three days. (Crosstalk) REP. KING: And you’re wrong, you’re wrong. SCARBOROUGH: No I’m not wrong! Peter! I’m in Pensacola, Florida. We have Ivan the year before and they’re flying supply planes in from Washington, D.C. the next day. Come on, Peter. I don’t tell you what’s happening in Long Island Sound. Don’t tell me what’s happening on the Gulf Coast. REP. KING: Joe, I’m telling you that everything that was done could have been done, until– the federal government does not come in until the third or fourth day. There was a failure of leadership by Mayor Nagin, by Governor Blanco, and Haley Barbour did a great job in Mississippi, Bob Riley did a great job in Alabama.     

Visit link:
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Continues Defense of Obama; Comparisons to Katrina ‘Obscene’

CNN Blames White People For Obama’s Slow Action On Oil Spill

The excuses keep rolling in to explain why President Obama is seemingly detached from the oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico. On Wednesday, CNN.com reached a new low by blatantly playing the race card: President Obama is afraid to look angry in public because white people historically haven’t liked angry black men. This conclusion was reached by four supposed experts (all of whom were sympathetic to Obama), with no one else mentioned to provide any ounce of skepticism. Apparently CNN’s logic goes something like this: Obama grew up being afraid of offending white people, so he developed a natural aversion to public displays of emotion, which means his cool response to the oil spill right now is the final product of white bigotry. Writer John Blake got straight to the point with his headline ” Why Obama Doesn’t Dare Become the Angry Black Man .” It was all downhill from there (h/t NBer Mr. Shy): Here’s proof that President Obama has indeed ushered in a new era in race relations. Who would have ever expected some white Americans to demand that an African-American man show more rage? If you’ve followed the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, you’ve heard the complaints that Obama isn’t showing enough emotion. But scholars say Obama’s critics ignore a lesson from American history: Many white Americans don’t like angry black men. It’s the lesson Obama absorbed from his upbringing, and from an impromptu remark he delivered last summer. Yet it’s a lesson he may now have to jettison, they say, as public outrage spreads. Notice the sleight of hand being used here: President Obama’s election advanced race relations further than even he is enlightened enough to realize, causing him to be puzzled by white Americans suddenly wanting to see emotion. And we know it has to be true because there are scholars who say so! Who are these scholars? Sadly, the answer is all too predictable. Up first was one Saladin Ambar who made an off-putting analogy to Samuel Jackson: “Folks are waiting for a Samuel Jackson ‘Snakes on the Plane’ moment from this president as in: ‘We gotta’ get this $#@!!* oil back in the $#!!* rig!’ But that’s just not who Obama is,” says Saladin Ambar, a political science professor at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. How innocuous that Ambar was simply called a political science professor. Left out of CNN’s coverage was the fact that Ambar has long been a fan of President Obama, and has used his respected position as a professor to glorify Obama’s policies in front of college students. Next came liberal activist William Jelani Cobb who agreed wholeheartedly with Ambar, but this time with a book to sell: Some of the same people crying for Obama to show more emotion would have voted against him if he had displayed anger during his presidential run, says William Jelani Cobb, author of “The Substance of Hope: Barack Obama and the Paradox of Progress.” “It would have fed deeply into a pre-existing set of narratives about the angry black man,” Cobb says. “The anger would have gotten in the way. He would have frightened off white voters who were interested in him because he seemed to be like the black guy they worked with or went to graduate school with — not a black guy who is threatening.” Cobb is one of many university professors obsessed with race whom the media keep on speed dial to help with this very subject. It came as a surprise to exactly no one that he saw racism at work yet again. As to the substance of his commentary – that President Obama could have blown it by getting emotional during the 2008 campaign – CNN was helpful enough to find yet another expert to corroborate the claim: Evoking the specter of the angry black man almost cost Obama his shot at the White House, says Paul Street, an author and political activist who worked with Obama in Chicago. Street says videos of Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily condemning America were so dangerous to Obama’s campaign because it hinted that Obama may have been an angry black man behind closed doors. “Rev. Wright almost cost him his run for the presidency because of fears of the angry black man,” says Street, author of the upcoming book “The Empire’s New Clothes: Barack Obama in the Real World of Power.” “What was Rev. Wright but the ultimate symbol of the angry black man who is going to take revenge,” Street says. That symbol is hardwired into American history and popular culture. It’s Nat Turner, the slave who inspired a bloody 19th-century uprising. It’s Malcolm X, the black militant who denounced “blue-eyed devils.” It’s the hip-hop and rap artists who populate contemporary radio. Street’s entire point was that Jeremiah Wright was toxic for all the wrong reasons. Americans weren’t afraid that Obama agreed with a hateful ideology, they were just repulsed by the thought of a black person who sounded angry. According to the article, such superficial racism showed up again in 2009: But Obama has “gone off” before and that didn’t work too well for him, says Ambar. During a news conference last summer, Obama casually said that police acted “stupidly” when they arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis “Skip” Gates in his home for disorderly conduct after a confrontation with a white police officer. Obama’s comments infuriated many white people, and even some black supporters. Obama had to have a Beer Summit to calm the public uproar. “He flashed genuine anger,” says Ambar. “At that moment, when he touched on the issue of race, he spoke frankly and passionately about what he felt and it got him into a big deal of trouble.” Once again, the message being relayed here is all too clear: if you disagreed with Obama’s handling of anything from Jeremiah Wright to Henry Gates, you’re a racist who just doesn’t like anger spouting from black people. Obama had “casually” thrown in a comment about stupidity, but somehow it was a passionate display of “genuine anger” anyway, and thus he got in trouble for being too emotional. But the most shocking observance from an expert was yet to come. The article closed with a quote from John Baick, assistant professor of history at Western New England College, who insisted that the oil spill was just a passing inconvenience in the bigger picture: “Our commander in chief has many burdens, and among them is our history and culture,” Baick says. “Compared to the weight of that, the current BP crisis and the years of environmental damage and cleanup must seem transient.” That’s right, folks. Weeks and weeks of an endless gush of oil, billions of dollars gone, human lives lost, entire species in peril, thousands of jobs hanging in the balance, and the coast of poor states like Louisiana virtually destroyed for what could be many years – all of this is some transient thing compared to Obama’s personal fear of white America. There might be some out there who think President Obama should stop worrying about who he offends and just make the tough choices a leader has to make, but CNN would have none of that. Nothing in the article suggested that maybe, just maybe, Obama supporters were making excuses to cover for an ineffective president. The entire premise was accepted and passed on to readers as plain fact. Four experts tapped to express an unprecedented amount of sympathy for our poor beleaguered president, and no one around to provide balance of any kind. That’s the Most Trusted Name in News hard at work. 

Link:
CNN Blames White People For Obama’s Slow Action On Oil Spill

Unlike With Katrina, Media Stay Away from Gulf Spill Competency Questions

The mainstream media seem to have boiled down the president’s reaction to the Gulf spill to two caricatures: either he has failed to satiate public appetites by feigning outrage, or he is succeeding by acting angry. Whereas journalists rightly expected President Bush to do something about Katrina–and excoriated him when he supposedly didn’t do enough–the media seem content listening to Obama speak. That the president may not be doing everything in his power, like, say, meeting with the CEO of British Petroleum , seems not even to cross their minds. So the only critique of the president that remains is one of style. By focusing on what the president has said–rather than what he has done–and how he has said it, the media have diverted (albeit unintentionally) attention from the administration’s actual response to the spill to its emotional and verbal response. Obama and his predecessor both accepted responsibility for the spill and Hurricane Katrina, respectively. But the mainstream press took the former at his word; they rightfully held him accountable for his administration’s actions. No such accountability is present in the media’s reporting on Obama’s response to the Gulf spill. “I as president am responsible for the problem, and for the solution,” Bush stated. Obama echoed this sentiment late last month, when he said, “I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down.” Now contrast, by way of example, the two New York Times headlines covering the respective admissions of responsibility. “Responding to Spill, Obama Mixes Regret With Resolve,” the Times’s editors wrote on May 27. That tone stands in stark contrast to this headline , from September 16, 2005: “Bush admits Katrina response was inadequate”. The Times captured the spirit of the media’s coverage. In Bush’s case, the concern was with what had and had not been done. But today the same journalists seem more concerned with what the White House is saying about the spill than with what it is doing about it. Some, such as MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell, have even bemoaned how badly the administration feels about the situation. White House staffers are apparently having nightmares in between beer pong games . If Obama hasn’t succeeded at solving a problem, the media narrative goes, it is because the problem cannot be solved, not because he has failed in any way. After all, he caaaares . After the president claimed he was looking for “whose ass to kick” in an interview with Matt Lauer on Monday, the media seized on the statement as a tangible example not just of the president’s new commitment to mitigating the disaster, but even as an example of his hands-on attitude towards the spill. NewsBusters reported Tuesday on network TV journos going gaga over the president’s newfound combativeness. “In a TV interview aired today, the President said if BP’s CEO worked for him, he’d be fired,” stated Katie Couric. So Couric parroted the president saying what he would do in a hypothetical situation with a person with whom he has not actually met in the 50 days since the spill began. Obama’s kick-ass quote or his hypothetical threats against Tony Hayward have been touted as proof that the president is responding to the public demands that he do domething about the spill. But Obama still has not done much of anything. That fact seems lost on the media. So readers are left shaking their heads when the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder says this : The American Prospect’s Adam Serwer notes today, “One of the things I used to like about the president is that he always seemed indifferent to village demands that he acquiesce to whatever empty political gesture they wanted him to make.” Well, Serwer can relax. President Obama did not conjure up the posterior metaphor on his own. He turned Matt Lauer’s “butt” into an “ass,” and his annoyance seemed to be more a consequence of Lauer’s questions than of any effort to appear angry.    Appearing angry and appearing engaged are two different things. The White House understands how anger can be appropriately channeled and employed, but at this point, they are eager for the public to see the president as engaged — as problem solving. If President Obama hadn’t said “ass,” then he’d be accused of not being angry enough. Because he did say “ass,” he’s accused of titrating his response to criticisms that he’s not angry enough about the oil leak. The man cannot win. Well yes, as Ace notes , “he can win — he can do something about the oil slick.” Not just talk about it or “strike the right emotional notes,” but actually do something about it, something tangible, something real, something with real-world impact. That’s how he “wins,” dude. And that, I’m sad to report, is the only way he wins. But for media personalities so used to covering a president whose tongue won him the White House, talking has supplanted action. Obama talking is Obama acting. Hence before the president’s kick-ass moment, the public’s sour mood towards the Gulf spill response was due to Obama’s failure to adequately communicate how well he has been doing. Now that he has succeeded in communicating, the narrative goes, he has simply succeeded. Why anyone would continue to deny him credit accordingly is completely lost on these pundits. Ace hits the nail on the head: So, that’s what we have going on. We are allowed two permissible storylines — Obama’s not emoting enough, or Obama’s emoting just enough — and the MFM won’t entertain other storylines, like, “This has nothing at all to do with emoting, but rather to do with reality and real-world achievements.”

Originally posted here:
Unlike With Katrina, Media Stay Away from Gulf Spill Competency Questions

Jon Stewart Rips Obama’s Oil Spill Response: ‘The Ass Has Been Kicking You’

Jon Stewart Tuesday evening absolutely tore apart Barack Obama’s pathetic response to the Gulf Coast oil spill. Early in the almost ten minute segment of “The Daily Show,” the host chided the President’s comments to NBC’s Matt Lauer Monday, “We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick.” Stewart called Obama’s strategy ” AssQuest 2010 – The Search for Kickable Ass! ” After showing how the President referred to the situation in the Gulf as “complicated,” the “Comedy Central” star then demonstrated to viewers how this is the same excuse Obama has given to solving all the problems facing the nation including the financial crisis and healthcare. This led Stewart to wonder if the President’s favorite movie must be “It’s Complicated” with Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin. In the end, “The Daily Show” host marvelously concluded, “I’m glad that you are looking for an ass to kick, but right now I gotta tell you, the ass has been kicking you” (video follows with commentary, vulgarity warning): The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c Ass Quest 2010 www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party Unfortunately, this segment would be much funnier if it wasn’t so true. As a result, it’s a bit sad given the seriousness of the situation down in the Gulf and the President’s abysmal response. Let’s hope the Administration eventually gets it.

Originally posted here:
Jon Stewart Rips Obama’s Oil Spill Response: ‘The Ass Has Been Kicking You’

Media Hype Obama’s H.S. Commencement Speech — But Ignore That Students Had to Show Papers

In the middle of a typical Full House rerun on Teen Nick this morning, the network ran a 90-second promo for their website Get Schooled.com  promoting Barack Obama, and how students at Kalamazoo Central High School were overjoyed and amazed to meet him. Students hugged and yelled and held their hands out like they’d never touch anything again after meeting Obama.  Greg Pollowitz at NRO’s Media Blog reported there was an overlooked, inconvenient fact in the hoopla over Kalamazoo Central students meeting the president. The Secret Service required each student’s citizenship status : KALAMAZOO — The White House appears to be laying the groundwork for President Barack Obama to shake the hand of each senior at Kalamazoo Central High School’s commencement ceremony next month. Seniors are being asked to provide their birthdates, Social Security numbers and citizen status to the Secret Service so background checks could be performed. Such a check is required for anyone who gets within an arm’s length of the president, students were told at their senior breakfast Friday. Pollowitz asked: “What’s good enough for President Obama should be good enough for Arizona, no?”

View post:
Media Hype Obama’s H.S. Commencement Speech — But Ignore That Students Had to Show Papers

You Can Live in Barack Obama’s Old New York Apartment for $1900/Month [For Rent]

Apartment 3E at 42 West 109th St. is like the opposite of haunted: Barack Obama lived here in 1981. Now it’s on the market, and you can rent it for $1,900 a month. Let’s take a look. More

The Whoompers: New, Paranoid Theories of Barack Obama’s Music Video ‘Cameo’ [Conspiracies]

It’s like someone set the Zapruder film to a Miami bass beat: Speculation over Obama’s “cameo” in the music video for Tag Team ‘s 1993 single “Whoomp (There It Is)” has taken the Internet by storm. It’s even on Wikipedia! More

Was Barack Obama In the 1993 Music Video For ‘Whoomp (There It Is)’? [Conspiracies]

Finally, a Barack Obama conspiracy theory for the rest of us! Everyone from Tea Partiers to hip hop message boards think Obama was an extra in the music video for Tag Team ‘s single ” Whoomp (There It Is) “. More

Obama is "Furious" About the BP Spill. Why Doesnt’ the Media Believe Him? (Video)

Image via ScrapeTV There’s been a lot of (mostly inane) discussion lately about whether Obama’s been mad enough in his reactions to the BP Gulf spill . This topic was deemed important enough to swallow up time in media across the spectrum: cable news shows, columns in the New York Times , and

View original post here:
Obama is "Furious" About the BP Spill. Why Doesnt’ the Media Believe Him? (Video)