skippy the bush kangaroo

Monday, July 21, 2008

we better not piss off obama!

the huffpo reports that revenge is a dish best served on overseas flights: new yorker reporter banned from press plane for overseas trip:

it led with the report that lara logan had scored the first overseas sit-down with barack obama, but here's the most interesting nugget from yesterday's mike allen piece about the trip:

forty journalists, including such leading correspondents as dan balz of the washington post, will be aboard his plane for next week's swing through jordan, israel, germany, france and england.

the campaign received 200 requests for press seats on the plane.

among those for whom there was no room was ryan lizza, washington correspondent of the new yorker. the campaign, which was furious about the magazine's satirical cover this week, cited space constraints in turning him away.
wow. so it's gonna be like that, is it? retribution for unfavorable coverage is a chilling thing to contemplate — literally, as in, it carries with it the very real risk of chilling bold, outspoken coverage. whatever one thinks of the new yorker cover — that it was clear satire that clearly lampooned ridiculous rumors, that it went way overboard, that it was a comedic misfire — a robust press can't operate under threat of reprisal for unwelcome items.
we hate to agree w/huffpo (mainly because arianna has refused our requests to link us on her blogroll and we're petty), but in this instance, right is right.

the last thing we need from the democratic nominee is a repetition of the gop approach to...well, to everything.

reprisals and stiffling of media, no matter how lame and shallow the media is, only makes obama look like a bully boy who can't take a joke, however badly it was executed.

if we wanted another 4 years of awol policies, we'd vote for mclame.

what's next? the idea that the president can never break the law, so anything he does is legal?
posted by skippy at 1:22 PM |

12 Comments:

The Obombers are spinning this as "well, the NYer. Only has a circulation of 1.7 million. I can totally see why they wouldn't get a seat," conveniently forgetting that the NYer informs the coverage of such topics as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, precisely because the MSM won't bother following leads.
commented by Blogger Carl, 1:40 PM PDT  
Hey- the NYT wouldn't even be considered for a press pass on a Dick Chaney flight to Baghdad-
commented by Blogger nanotheater, 4:46 PM PDT  
Would someone mind putting up that photoshopped image of Rove being led away by police with a dark stain on the front of his trousers? I really love it and can't seem to find it right off.

Who gets the credit for that bit of loveliness? They have a special place in my heart.
commented by Anonymous invisible, 5:21 PM PDT  
Well, I found it but I don't know how to post it here for your viewing pleasure.

I am a neo-Luddite, after all. (But still, I'm aware of all the internet traditions.)

So, how do I post a photo(shop)? I can do the simple stuff, I just can't do that. HALP!
commented by Anonymous invisible, 6:00 PM PDT  
More on topic (then I'll shut up):

what's next? the idea that the president can never break the law, so anything he does is legal?

Skippy, is this a bit of snarkishness? Cuz, you know, that's like been the like guiding force of like the Bush administration the whole time, dude.

But you knew that already, didn't you?:-)
commented by Anonymous invisible, 6:19 PM PDT  
(mainly because arianna has refused our requests to link us on her blogroll and we're petty)

So...you do reprisals too.
commented by Blogger Paul, 7:10 PM PDT  
But Paul, you notice that, in spite of the acknowledged pettiness, the story was told.

There were no reprisals.
commented by Anonymous invisible, 7:35 PM PDT  
no reprisals, just unabashed public bitterness.
commented by Blogger skippy, 8:34 PM PDT  
Maybe Obama should book a spot for Don Imus to come with them while he's working on being so magnanimous to those making racist gaffe's?

Are they forbidding The New Yorker from booking their own flight and paying for it out of pocket? Because if those of The NYer were trying to buy business with controversy well, then they can afford to make their own flight arrangements. Forty seats ain't so many that one magazine is guaranteed a slot.
commented by Anonymous sean, 10:06 PM PDT  
I think Obama's got a long way to go before he even begins to resemble Bush in the bully boy department. This is a single unfortunate incident, one which does appear to have "reprisal" written all over it. But even if that's so, The New Yorker isn't in much of a position to complain, not this time anyway. They had to have known that cover was going to generate a lot of negative buzz, legitimate or not, before they published it, and if they didn't know in advance, then they have zero right to complain because they are really friggin' stupid.

Come on, can anyone looking at that cover for the first time be blamed for misconstruing it? The New Yorker may as well have yelled "Fire!" in a crowded theater for all the good it did them. The argument from the freedom of the press doesn't work too well here.

Also, I can understand why Obama wouldn't want to let The New Yorker off the hook. He tried that same approach with Jeremiah Wright. That didn't work too well, either...
commented by Blogger Jim Yeager, 5:48 AM PDT  
One of the reasons the Dems have lost so many important elections in the last 8 yrs is that they are just too nice. I think the Republicans have thrown away the bar with which we measure how we have to treat the 4th estate. Obama is handling this the right way.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 7:09 AM PDT  
I dunno, Jim, Sean, Anon...

Sy Hersh is not someone you want to piss off and while the NYer is well known for infighting amongst its stellar staff of contributors and editors (ask John Updike one day about James Wood), it's political team is cogent and well-coordinated.

Expect a nasty story about Obama in retaliation.
commented by Blogger Carl, 7:20 AM PDT  

Add a comment