End Of The Affair: Press Breaks Up With Obama

TNR:

Around midnight on July 16, New York Times chief political correspondent Adam Nagourney received a terse e-mail from Barack Obama's press office. The campaign was irked by the Times' latest poll and Nagourney and Megan Thee's accompanying front-page piece titled "Poll Finds Obama Isn't Closing Divide on Race," which was running in the morning's paper. Nagourney answered the query, the substance of which he says was minor, and went to bed, thinking the matter resolved.

But, the next morning, Nagourney awoke to an e-mail from Talking Points Memo writer Greg Sargent asking him to comment on an eight-point rebuttal trashing his piece that the Obama campaign had released to reporters and bloggers like The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder and Politico's Ben Smith. Nagourney had not heard the complaints from the Obama camp and had no idea they were so steamed. "I'm looking at this thing, and I'm like, 'What the hell is this?' " Nagourney recently recalled. "I really flipped out."

Later that afternoon, Nagourney got permission from Times editors to e-mail Sargent a response to the Obama memo. But the episode still grates. "I've never had an experience like this, with this campaign or others," Nagourney tells me. "I thought they crossed the line. If you have a problem with a story I write, call me first. I'm a big boy. I can handle it. But they never called. They attacked me like I'm a political opponent."

Read the whole story: TNR

Comments

[vshdst]

The media has never been a friend of O bama. Every reporter seems to always say that the people do not know O maintaining the image he is an unkown. Everyone knows about O and his background. All of the reporters who claim to support him always seem to insert a negative statement and have a sharp edge in their comments.

[Anonani]

I recall not too long ago HRC complained about media bias for Obama. Suddenly, the winds shifted and Obama could do no good. The media is fickle. Today's darling is tomorrow's pariah. McCain has complained and the gang up is about to start. We've been here before. It is time for all Obama supporters to rally and raise money for his campaign. We will not allow the media to destroy Senator Obama just because McCain is in a snit!

[Daisy1111]

You should click the link and read the entire two page article.

Interesting.

[notthistime]

Actually Daisy1111 - I took you up on your offer and found this post from a blogger that was very insightful. Response is in three parts. here goes

Posted by Brandon
12 of 293 | warn tnr | respond
Instead of just repeating and sticking up for that notorious hack Ad Nags, why not report that TIME's polling director, Jackson Dykman, agreed with the Obama campaign that the article was junk? So the story was that Ad Nags was not fairly treated but not about the substance of a bogus article? Here is what Dykman said about the article so there is no confusion. I too was really struck by the NYT's characterization of its own poll. I read the full poll first and then the story when they posted it last night. I've rarely seen a story so wildly off from the actual data on which it is based. Aside from point C in the Obama response (which is true and basically negates the story), the premise of the story is, well, utter nonsense. Are we really supposed to think that because a black man has become the Democratic nominee in recent weeks that he somehow should have cured (or markedly improved) race relations in this country?

[notthistime]

Part 2
This is just a silly premise, yet the story thrust of the story seems to be shock and surprise that the mere fact of Obama's candidacy hasn't reversed-or obliterated-the slight increase in racial tensions in this country over the past 8 years. I can't decide whether it's the headline or the story that really creates the schism. The hed in the paper is: "Poll finds Obama candidacy isn't closing country's divisions on race." Are you kidding me? The guy just wrapped up the nomination. Racial divisions in the U.S. have a wee bit of a 400-year head start on him. If Obama goes on to win the election, I really hope the Times does this poll again in four years. Whatever the result, THAT would be a story. I'm going to show my age here, but this reminds me a lot of some days I spent reporting in Chicago way back during the Harold Washington/Bernard Epton race for mayor. I did a bunch of man-on-the-street stuff in some white West Side neighborhoods. The most prevalent rumor at the time was that if Washington were elected, he would cut off electricity to white neighborhoods. People believed this. Thinking of that and reading this poll, I gotta think we have made progress.

[notthistime]

Part 3

Two other points. In the poll data, 79% of white voters think an Obama administration would treat both whites and blacks the same. And 82% of white voters think a McCain administration would treat both races the same. Okay, fine. The real story in this question is this-90% of black voters think Obama would treat whites and blacks the same, but only 50% of black voters think McCain would treat both races the same. Yet Obama is the one who's failing to close "the country's divisions on race"? Finally, I looked it up again because I couldn't believe it, but Point E in the Obama response is correct. Why on earth would the story say "there's even racial dissension over Mr. Obama's wife, Michelle: She was viewed favorably by 58% of black voters, compared with 24% of white voters." The numbers for Cindy McCain: 20% favorable among white voters, 9% favorable among black voters (!!!) I've long made the argument that journalists care wildly more about candidates' spouses than readers do, but someone needs to tell me why the racial dissension is "over Michelle Obama."Why not write an article about that?

[Daisy1111]

BO seeks to control the press. Nice.

They liked when the BO camp sent O l b e r ma n n's rant against H R C before it aired on TV.

No need to wonder how they got the pre-show video.

They liked when the press worked for them like a personal PR firm. But when the press dares to write something they didn;t approve - oh boy.

This is not a new kind of politics.

This is the worse kind of politics. Reminiscent of the G W B camp.

[Krikkit]

The newest MSM catchphrase for Obama is "presumptu­ous." Read: "uppity." I spent one day watching the cable news shows (ugh) just to catch up on the tripe,and I lost count of the times this word was used to describe him on all the channels.

Of course, they didn't call him that outright -- they just asked the question of each other: "Do you think it is/was presumptuous of Obama to..."

They truly are despicable.

[Krikkit]

Can anyone seriously fault the Obama campaign for trying to control the message, given the havoc journalsist can and do cause? MSM is broken.

[rosal]

The Media is so used to their smears and not being called on, they get upset when somebody don't want to play their little games. I pray for new cable networks and new newspapers that will report with honesty and integrity. Probably not on this lifetime.

[caldarone]

the media never had a love affair with OBAMA.. they do not like democrats , it own by corporatio­ns.. so this little article makes no sense. THE PEOPLE WILL ELECT OUR NEXT PRESIDENT.­. NOT THE MEDIA. the people are fed up with the division and propaganda the media promotes just to sell news.

[ann1]

I agree

[jeffmorgan]

That's what you get when you integrate Hillary staffers.

zing!

[Beka13]

The press was only there because they hoped that he messed up....When he blew it out of the park they had to stay fair and balanced by finding a way to trash him.....Th­e media is owned by the corporatio­ns....MOST of them do not like Democrats.­...Or Barack Obama....I­f you believe anything of the contrary then you fell for their tricks.

[alieninvader]

They have a love affair with ratings...­truth be damned.

[debwarot]

Exactly!

[tel8034]

Of course the TEMPORARY love affair it's over ..........­...... Obama gave them nothing to exploit.

Most of them were happy to be invited on the Obama '08 World Tour, so that they would be in a position to catch a series of Obama gaffes which they had planned to run on a 24/7 loop......­..........­. But there were none.

Now that they are upset that they had no dirt about Obama to report on, they have resorted to words like PRESUMPTOUS, COCKY, TOO PRESIDENTIAL LOOKING, PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD WANNABE, IT'S A PITY THAT OBAMA WAS TREATED AS IF HE WERE ALREADY PRESIDENT.

McCain should now be happy ..........­......... HIS MOST IMPORTANT SUPPORTER BASE, IS NOW BACK ON US SOIL. ..........­.... Welcome home Andrea Mitchell and friends.

[notthistime]

100% right

[LillianB]

Press loved Obama during the primaries, giving him a lot more favorable coverage than Hillary Rodham Clinton. Two possible reasons:
A: He was young, fresh and the outsider - and the press always love the underdog.
B: Press leaned Republican, and would do their best to destroy the primaries for Hillary, seeing her as the candidate most likely to win in November. (Figuring O would be easier to fight down.)

Now he is the frontrunner (though not so clearly as we would want him to be). And moods have shifted. McCain gets away with everything, all the gaffes there are, while everything O says or does is scrutinized. Everything anyone says about him, too. Three possible reasons:
A. Obama is no longer the outsider/McC is the underdog - and the press always love the underdog.
B. Press lean Republican and does not want O to win (be it for political reasons or for more dangerous, hidden, prejudiced reasons).
C. Close elections make better tv and more exciting news than a clear lead and a sure winner. Better tv means higher ratings, more exciting news mean higher newspaper & ad sales.

Take your pick.

[debwarot]

Anyone who thinks the press loved Obama during the primaries must have been in a coma during the period we were treated to select Reverend Wright clips on a daily basis until every man, woman and child could quote them verbatim.

[Nolewoman]

After what CBS did for McSame, how dare the "MSM" complain about anything. I hold them all responsible for this debacle. They should all be calling for sanctions, or whatever, against CBS because it is a blackeye on all of them. It is unbelievable. Thank goodness for Keith Olbermann or we would never know how our "news" is altered and slanted. I would expect faux to do this but thought CBS was more reputable. Guess not. ABC and now CBS are off my watching list. Both are shills for this administration and by association, mcsame.

[nellie]

The love affair has always been over. Good coverage when O bama is the underdog. Bad coverage when he's pulling out ahead. Got to keep that horse race too close to call. It's all about the ratings, Lebowski.

[AnnieinOR]

exactly! they want to control this election.