There is a bizarre story out of the New York Times where the newspaper printed an astonishing statement by President Obama that was immediately picked up by journalists and then removed by the newspapers under a claim that it was trimmed for space. The newspaper said that President Obama defended his criticized laid-back response to the Paris and San Bernardino massacred to not watching enough cable television. It was the most newsworthy part of the fairly generic article and yet it quickly disappeared as social media lit up with criticism of the President.
The President was responding to criticism that he seemed passive or disconnected in his early response to the massacres. Reporting on a private meeting with columnists, Obama was reportedly as recognizing the failure and added “In his meeting with the columnists, Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments.” That rationalization was immediately picked up by media, including a leading CNN reporter, as astonishing.
It then disappeared without a trace.
At first, I thought that the New York Times might have simply gotten it wrong or it was decided that the President was just joking in such a bizarre comment. However, the New York Times is not denying the statement was made or suggesting that it was a joke. Instead, D.C. bureau chief Elisabeth Bumiller wrote “There’s nothing unusual here. That paragraph, near the bottom of the story, was trimmed for space in the print paper by a copy editor in New York late last night. But it was in our story on the web all day and read by many thousands of readers. Web stories without length constraints are routinely edited for print.” That last part is certainly true, but that is well known. What does not track is cutting a graph that, while embarrassing to the White House, was the only real news in the piece. That is reflected in the fact that social media lit up immediately from journalists who cited only that part of the story.
Reporters flashed the information on social media while some like Ron Fournier of the National Journal columnist called it “breathtaking.”Likewise, the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto compared the lack of response by some as a telling contrast to such a statement being made by a less favored politician like George W. Bush. CNN’s Brian Stelter declared it the “Quote of the Day” and immediately put it on his Twitter feed.
In fairness to the New York Times, it has hit Obama pretty hard on some stories. However, this removal of such a newsworthy element of the story is itself quite disturbing. A president should not need to watch cable to understand how to respond to massacres of this kind.
Obama can be glib and facetious when speaking to the media. That is what it was. He could have said it more forcefully and sarcastically: “Oh My I missed Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly last night and so I know nothing about birthin babies!” Obama was informed about the incidents at issue.
What is more concerning is the jumping on Obama by the 24 Hour News Junky critics. JT is on that band wagon.
If we had a Commanding Officer in the military run his command the way this CinC has he would be subject to an Article 138 complaint:
Matters appropriate to address under Article 138 include discretionary acts or omissions by a commander that adversely affect the member personally and are:
– In violation of law or regulation
– Beyond the legitimate authority of that commander
– Arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, or
– Clearly unfair (e.g., selective application of standards).
Of course he would find his defenders that like this sort of behavior as long as it is not directed their way.
Olly…interesting too is that every year we see over 20 Naval commanders (admirals, captains and commanders) plus command master chiefs publicly relieved for “loss of confidence.” Wouldn’t go so far as to say the CinC is directly responsible. Point is that CinC does not set an appropriate standard for his subordinates….also true of his Democrat cigar wielding predecessor. (OK…am now waiting for others to weigh in on GWB and GHWB.)
The book biggest purge of the military, at least in recent years, was probably the jihad against anyone connected with the Tailhook Convention. It mushroomed from an initial incident that might have damaged or ended the careers of a few, into a campaign to drum out anyone who might be “guilty by association”.
Rep. Pat Schroeder and others got what they wanted in purging the Navy of some of its most skilled pilots. ” A Tale of Two Paula’s”, partially about Paula Coughlin’s $5,000,000 payday, reviews the Tailhook “investigation”.
Trying to recruit and ” train up” replacements for those disposed of is much more difficult than throwing them out.
Honestly, has Obama ever gotten anything right on foreign or domestic policy? The Eighties wants its foreign policy back? ISIS is a JV team? Hands up don’t shoot? My kid could be Trayvon? The professor and and the cop beer gag? Republicans are at fault for ISIS propaganda?
I think it’s news that the media would trim criticism of a Democrat “for space”, but appears to have acres of space to devote to less than complementary stories about any other party.
I clearly recall how Democrats were out for blood when Pres George W Bush waited for a children’s story to end, while he collected his thoughts, before addressing the nation after 9/11. The delay was perhaps a minute. He had not wanted to frighten the children, and the situation was already being dealt with. For a delay of perhaps a minute, he was pilloried.
How long was it before Obama addressed a terrorist attack on our own soil in San Berdu? How many days was the final count?
Double standard.
Because it was damaging to The Precious…
I’m not sure what is worse; the fact this is even news anymore or that anyone would defend him. The NYT edited out this part for space and then replaced it with twice the amount it cut. Surely that wasn’t going to go unnoticed.
I do like their crossword puzzles though.
The President’s comment about not watching enough cable news was another backhanded swipe at “media hype”. It is consistent with his previously expressed views that media outlets exaggerate the threat of terrorism, that ISIS was “a JV team”, and that this ” hype” distracts from the “bigger threat” from global warming.
He has also equated dealing with terrorism as similar to the issues “a big city mayor faces dealing with crime”. I have mentioned that Rudy Guiliani is probably best qualified to to explain the distinction between dealing with crime, and dealing with a major terrorist attack.
Obama could get away with downplaying the global terrorism threat as long as that terrorism did not surface in the Paris attacks, or in San Bernardino. As it stands now, he is way out of step with both public opinion, and the positions of most major candidates.
In 2009 Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for strengthening international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples, you can’t expect him to respond to violence and war like other politicians, he’s a peace prize guy.
A president should not need to watch cable to understand how to respond to massacres of this kind.
THIS is the gist of the story and the issue that the Times is trying to hide. No one with a functioning mind, much less the President of the United States should need to watch television to be able to grasp the idea that people are afraid of the terrorism that has been unleashed on the world and on the country.
That a person can be that detached from understanding common human emotions is frightening. Even the worst sociopath can ‘pretend’ to be human. Obama can’t even do that…..or else, he just doesn’t care to pretend anymore.
I’m sorry about the death of President Carter’s grandson
I don’t know which he sucks more at, being president or playing golf, Barkley would clean his clock at golf and he makes Jimmie Carter look like a good president
So, are we suggesting the Times censored themselves or Obama got them to do the censoring? And doesn’t he get briefings, although he has said he doesn’t attend them.
The story here is not primarily about President Obama, although his comment was certainly revealing… The real story is the NY Times selectively editing a news piece probably at the request of the White House.
You can certainly bet a phone call from the White House press office to the NY Times was placed and that small paragraph was purposefully removed…
Coincidence? I think not.
” The real story is the NY Times selectively editing a news piece probably at the request of the White House. ”
That part is right.
It seems to me there are really three stories here. The first has to do with the president’s behavior. The second with the president’s and the administrations explanation for the behavior. In my opinion the third and most important story is the NYT’s handling (editing) of the story once readers began to question the implications of a president can formulate a response only after watching enough cable TV.
Actually I think the presidents hesitation had to do with the difficulty of squaring the magnitude of those events with the administrations position that we are not in a war, and if we are it has nothing to do with Islamic radicals, and even if it does everything is all working out OK because they are inept much like a junior varsity, and even if it is not our ME allies have it all under control, and besides there is nothing going on here except maybe some work place violence.
I have to admit that even for a very smart constitutional scholar, it is challenging to turn all that into a consistent story. Have some sympathy! No wonder the guy is hesitating.
“… a mass shooting/homicide occurring nearly every day”
False.
He responds quickly enough when it suits the agenda.and does not require any source of information for facts that do not matter.
I recently searched for his NPR interview regarding his admiration for Saul Alinsky. I listened to the interview a few years ago, but it seems to have been scrubbed.
He keeps his plate clean, just like his voting record. He is ‘present’ even as President.
This is another example of not only how out of touch Obama is, but that he is only a talking mouth piece for the real president, running this country and that’s Valerie Jarrett.
Or his handlers don’t even brief him on such matters because he doesn’t attend his security briefings because he’s too high on drugs to comprehend the situation. Or more chilling, he doesn’t care.
As I’ve said before, I intend to vote for a president whose a hawk on terrorism because this one is a weeny.
The comments are interesting. Does anyone doubt Obama’s work mommy, Valerie Jarrett, called and told them to delete that quote from the cult leader? Only someone ignorant of the 1st Amendment would not see the significance of this.
BMW – Turn off news, radio, TV, paper & go golfing like Obama…. If you can afford it. Taxpayer funded.
It is bizarre that the President has to watch more television to be in touch with the people. No wonder he refuses to work with Congress.
With a mass shooting/homicide occurring nearly every day so far this year in the USA, how is anybody supposed to react anymore? How much emotional energy is one supposed to have left? Just asking.