Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances... Rantburg

Home Front: Politix
Zero Launches 'Profanity-Laced' Tirades Against Press
2014-12-09
According to retired ABC News journalist Ann Compton, Barack Obama has launched into "profanity-laced" tirades against the press in off-the-record meetings with reporters. In a C-SPAN interview, Compton also derided the President for leading "the most opaque" administration of "any I have covered."

The journalist, who retired in August after a 40-year career, revealed to C-SPAN's Brian Lamb: "I have seen in the last year Barack Obama really angry twice. Both were off the record times. One, profanity-laced where he thought the press was making too much of scandals that he did not think were scandals." [MP3 audio here.]
Link


Home Front: Politix
Hillary Clinton Says She's Donated All University Speaking Fees
2014-07-06
"Hillary Clinton continued to justify her high-dollar speaking fees on Friday, telling ABC News' Ann Compton that all of the money she's made from colleges over the past year and a half has been donated to her family's foundation."
...heh...
Link


Home Front: Politix
Pelosi backpedals, offers "real" reason for push-back on Columbia
2008-04-11
ABC's Jennifer Duck reports: The White House responded angrily Wednesday to a suggestion from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA that she might change legislative rules to avoid a required vote the disputed free-trade agreement with Colombia.

According to existing rules, the Congress has 90 days to vote on legislation sent by the White House.

White House spokesperson Dana Perino reacted angrily to Pelosi's suggestion. "Speaker Pelosi today did something unprecedented in the history negotiating trade deals in announcing the democrats would change the rules in the middle of the game," Perino said.

The White House has aggressively pushed Congress to approve the trade deal with Colombia, arguing that supporting an ally in South America is in the best interest of the United States. But Democrats oppose the deal, which has been criticized by many labor groups and human rights organizations. The Democrats want to expand support for American workers displaced from their jobs by foreign trade before making more free trade expansion agreements.

"It is clear that there are many in the Democratic party who would like to kill this bill. and they would like to do it without having their fingerprints on it. They want to do it in a way where they don't have to take a vote," Perino said. "You can bet that President Bush is going to bring this up at 3:00 when he sees the leaders."

The President is scheduled to meet with congressional leaders, including Pelosi, at the White House Wednesday afternoon to discuss the trade deal and other matters.

However Speaker Pelosi explained her move saying she thinks the bill would lose if it were brought to the floor immediately and it would send the wrong message to the world about the U.S. positiosn on trade. "I thought there was a risk (in) the President sending it to the Congress now. If brought to the floor immediately, it would lose. And what message would that send?" Pelosi said earlier today.

She called Pelosi's suggestion "awful precedent" and said it was "terrible" for this administration and all future administrations. Perino said the White House has "worked tirelessly" and they "have bent over backwards to make this happen" adding "it will be interesting to see how the president deals with that today."

Speaking about the Speaker's move Perino said sharply, "The fact that they don't even want to have a vote should maybe tell you something because maybe she's not so confident of the votes they have."

After several minutes of Perino's criticisms of Pelosi, ABC's Ann Compton noted that the Press Secretary seemed "a little angry" about the sequence of events today. Perino responded, "I think we're pretty fired up about it. It is the right thing to do. The Free Trade Agreement with Colombia is the right thing to do and they know it. And that's why they don't want to take a vote on it because their special interests are pressuring them not to let this deal go through."
Link


Home Front: Culture Wars
NYT pulling out of WH Correspondents' Dinner
2007-05-01
New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis confirmed Monday that the newspaper had decided not to participate in the [White House Correspondents' Dinner], but gave no reason for the decision. She said the paper also would not attend future Gridiron Club dinners, while some sources at the paper said the policy could extend to other similar events.

"That is what the decision was," Mathis said, declining to elaborate. "I don't want to go beyond that."

"I don't feel that reporters should be used in presidential publicity stunts," [columnist Frank Rich] told E&P. "This is used by the president of the United States as a political event."
Criticism of journalists hobnobbing with top officials -- accompanied by sometimes insensitive jokes or skits -- has grown recently. Andrew Rosenthal, Times editorial page editor and a former Washington editor for the paper, said he had no involvement in the decision. But he recalled past discussions in the Washington bureau during his time there about possibly pulling out. "I felt at the time that participating in them was an increasingly bad idea," Rosenthal said. "They became about celebrities and reporters and government officials pretending they were friends. There was some resistance at the time on the part of reporters who felt they were useful."

Rosenthal said attending the dinners is not the worst thing D.C. staffers can do, but "it becomes more and more of a problem because it has become more public."

Executive Editor Bill Keller and Washington Bureau Chief Dean Baquet did not immediately return calls for comment.

WHCA President Steve Scully noted that the Times had skipped at least one dinner in the past for similar reasons, during the Clinton administration. He again defended the event, but said he would respect anyone's decision not to attend. "I am told it will not affect their participation in the associaton," he said, noting that Times photographer Doug Mills is on the nine-person WHCA board. "Everyone has to look at it through their own perspective."

The decision comes just a week after this year's dinner, which most in attendance agreed was not among the most memorable. Noting the Virginia Tech massacre just days before, President Bush declined the usual humorous address, while entertainer Rich Little, sticking to dated material and poor preparation, drew many complaints.

Ann Compton, incoming WHCA president, said she had not seen Rich's column, but said the Times would not be missed at the dinner. "The New York Times has never been a major player in there, they only buy two tables," Compton said of the event, which usually includes some 250 tables with 10 people each. "We had checks in hand that we had to return that would have filled 42 more tables. I hope they will still be members of the association."

Ron Hutcheson, a former WHCA president and current McClatchy White House correspondent, defended the dinner, saying accusations of conflict are largely unfounded. "It is driven by a misperception, largely in the blogosphere, that because we are civil to each other, we forget what our role is, which is ridiculous," Hutcheson said. "Especially in these times, we need civility. The whole reason you get a guest like Karl Rove is to get what you can from Karl Rove."

But Rich, who said in his column that the dinner "illustrates how easily a propaganda-driven White House can enlist the Washington news media....," defended his views again Monday. "I don't feel that reporters should be used in presidential publicity stunts," he told E&P. "This is used by the president of the United States as a political event."

Rich said he had planned mid-week to write his column as part tribute to the late David Halberstam and partly to criticize the dinner, but added in the Times' decision after hearing about it from Rosenthal. He said he sent Rosenthal and others in charge of the editorial pages a note on Wednesday about his column, as he usually does, and later found out from Rosenthal about the policy change. "I put that in, but it did not change the [focus of the] column," he said.

Rich, who has criticized the dinner in the past, said he had played no part in the policy change and had never lobbied editors to stay away from the dinner. "I did not lobby anyone, but I agree with it," he said. "I feel strongly that the Times has to stay clear of things that are potential conflicts of interest."

So far, no other news outlets appear to be making similar decisions. Doyle McManus, D.C. bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, said his staffers are free to go, calling such dinners "largely useless and largely harmless....There is a valid concern about coziness in Washington, but the test of coziness is in the coverage," he added. "I have seen no evidence that these rather dreadful events are affecting coverage."

E&P was one of the few to note before the dinner the potential conflicts of some guests, including embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, brought by USA Today, and Karl Rove as the guest of The Times. When asked about the paper's unusual guest, Columnist Maureen Dowd quickly pleaded innocence, saying during the dinner, "I don't do the inviting anymore."

Times Staffer Jim Rutenberg, also at the table, defended the choice of Rove that night, saying "We cover him, I just asked him." He then joked, "he is telling us everything."
Link


Home Front
Bush-bashers mending their way - for now
2001-09-18
  • Jennifer Harper THE WASHINGTON TIMES
    Many habitual Bush-bashers are mending their ways this week. Journalists and news organizations once eager to pounce upon President Bush now step to the patriotic beat, unfurling banners of approval and applause. Seven days after the attack, print and broadcast outlets are awash in red, white and blue and are showing a healthy preoccupation with the public good. Celebrity journalists wear flag pins on camera, headlines reinforce national unity, news weeklies offer a more manageable dose of endless information.

    In the past few days, outraged viewers railed against ABC's Peter Jennings after he said the president was "hiding behind the CIA" and questioned the legality of Mr. Bush's decision to muster troops, implying the president had not been properly elected. ABC correspondent Ann Compton also infuriated viewers when she said "you can run, but you can't hide" after Air Force One was diverted last Tuesday for security reasons.

    Yesterday, readers' letters in the Los Angeles Times called for the resignation or an apology from TV critic Howard Rosenberg, who took potshots at Mr. Bush in a Sept. 14 column, calling him stiff and boyish, suggesting the president should function as a "national anchorman."

    Last week, Newsweek's Howard Fineman wrote that Mr. Bush "has yet to find a note of eloquence in his own voice." Mr. Fineman changed his tune, noting the president had become the man voters hoped for, and that "Bush passed his first tests, but like the medieval knight, he's only begun his quest -- and ours -- for security and a new architecture to preserve it." Newsweek's cover yesterday proclaimed "God bless America."

    Scripps Howard op-ed writer Dan Thomasson, who also initially criticized the president, came clean all together, writing: "I was wrong. Not only has this young president gotten his legs under him, he has convinced even his harshest critics that he has the stuff to lead the nation."
  • Link



    Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
    -5 More