iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

'Professional Left' Saga Says More About Media Than Obama

First Posted: 08/19/10 05:09 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 06:25 PM ET

Gibbs

Last week's feud between White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and the so-called "professional left" did more than just open a window into the fraying relations between the president and his base. It provided one of the sharpest illustrations to date as to how an ever-changing news culture has challenged even the most press-savvy of operations.

There has always been a misleading pretense to the way the White House relates to the Fourth Estate. While Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe famously lampooned Politico and Time magazine's Mark Halperin during the election, behind the scenes aides read those insider outlets religiously. While Gibbs often projects a sense of detachment from cable news chatter, in private administration officials are quite attentive to the news being broadcast.

Indeed, what made Gibbs' comments on the "professional left" noteworthy was not that it chipped away at an image of a White House unaffected by the coverage it receives (that image already had many holes). It's that they suggested a somewhat obsolete view of what kind of coverage they were getting.

Increasingly, press veterans say, the content aired on cable resembles material traditionally found online. No longer is the focus on securing interviews with top officials or reading the day's top stories. Rather, value is found in breaking news and hosting debates that draw an audience.

"Cable has traditionally been talent-driven," explained MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan, a chief purveyor of the new news structure. "Fuck the talent, pardon my language. But if you have the audience you win. I'm not talking about economics even. I'm talking about the soul of the show."

"It is absolutely a totally different environment and agenda," said Tad Devine, a veteran Democratic communications hand. "In the old days, the print reporters were the print reporters. They would go around, write stories ... the TV people would read those stories and decided what went on air that night. It was an orderly process. Now there is no order."

What's resulted from this orderless environment is the type of news coverage that has drawn the White House's ire, whether it consists of horse-race chatter or rumor-mongering. On Thursday, Pew Research produced a poll showing that of the 20 percent of the public who think the president is a Muslim, 60 percent said they learned as much from the media.

"If you are the White House, how do you deal with that?" asked Dee Dee Myers, Bill Clinton's former press secretary.

Even at MSNBC -- a network ostensibly more aligned with the administration on philosophical matters than its two competitors -- the story lines have been difficult for the administration to take. Over the past few weeks, there has been a consistent drumbeat of progressive displeasure over the job the president is doing. The topics and tone tend to reflect the type of copy published on the web and, not surprisingly, it has been an online story that often leads the news.

For the past few weeks, Cenk Uygur has played a pinch-hitter role for MSNBC, guest hosting for anchors and doing panels for daytime programs. Both he and others have described his style as "rants" -- the type of opinionated news reporting and analysis that is meant to entertain or infuriate viewers depending on their disposition. It's an approach that has pushed the envelope editorially. But it's also one that the brass seems comfortable with.

"We are getting great ratings," Uygur explained to the Huffington Post.

Indeed, if nothing else, Uygur has proven he can draw an audience. Starting in 2002, he managed to turn a relatively bare-bones progressive radio show into an Internet behemoth. The Young Turks program currently has a daily audience of 600,000 just through YouTube. Monthly, that figure is 17.8 million.

Under the informal structure of the cable news industry, a platform like The Young Turks is not the ideal perch from which to grab a high-profile job. But the numbers are difficult to ignore. Executives at MSNBC brought him in for formal discussions to fill their 10 p.m. slot -- an opening he didn't get. Ratigan, however, took notice and started slotting him in for guest appearances. Uygur's quick ascendance from there was based on the notion that you don't fix something that's not broken. With some small tinkering, he applied the bombastic "truth-telling" style he honed on the web into a cable news format.

"We don't play by the old media rules," he said. "This is, in some sense, larger than cable news or political news. It is about showing that an online audience is for real."

"Cenk had a unique situation where he was able to really drive, exploit and take advantage of a market for news and opinion in a world that had a huge appetite for information but wasn't being supplied with it," offered Ratigan. "He also understood how information was being consumed and said I'm going to build a product that builds into that."

Part of that product involves deeply rankling the White House. It was Uygur who proposed a panel discussion on whether Obama is worse than Bush on civil liberties. He also hosted the debate about whether the administration was feeble in its push for health care reform.

"I think the fact that we started online and on radio greatly liberated us," he says of those segments. "We didn't have the restrictions of television, we didn't have to worry about access if we were going to have to worry if the administration would be mad at us."

But not everyone has celebrated the less restrictive news environment or the anti-administration zeitgeist. Within the progressive community, there is earnest concern that the criticism being leveled at the president -- originating online and making its way through the cable news structure -- is at once unreasonable and unhelpful.

"One of the things that helped President Obama become president was the fact that you had a progressive infrastructure created in the Bush years, from the Center for American Progress to a more heightened counterweight to Fox in MSNBC, to a strong progressive infrastructure on blogs and elsewhere," said Neera Tanden, a senior vice president at the Center for American Progress and a guest on one of Uygur's segments. "Now, if a large chunk of that infrastructure is aiming its fuselage at the White House as opposed to the right, that can ultimately weaken progressive goals. I recognize the need to push the White House and one of the problems we have is the White House demonstrates it needs to be pushed on issues... But when it comes to a personal crusade and more undermining of his leadership I think it can do real damage."

Tanden's point is echoed by White House allies, who argue that the president's achievements simply can't be labeled piecemeal. To do so is to try and convince voters that political utopia is actually possible if you just want it hard enough.

"It becomes an echo chamber," said Dee Dee Myers. "The left is all reading each other's blogs and winding each other up about these things... We can all sit here and doing Monday morning quarterbacking but the fact of the matter is the president has accomplished an awful lot. Look at the polls, he spent his political capital."

For his part, Uygur doesn't pretend to be unconcerned with the political ramifications of his program. He wears his progressive politics on his sleeve, openly pines for certain legislative outcomes and levels criticism with an eye on the subject. When Gibbs complained about the "professional left," Uygur said there was a "five percent chance" that he was the object of the press secretary's anger. And yet, when cautioned about the effect he could be having, he offers what seems to be either defiance or nonchalance.

"I think they are going the wrong direction in 28 different ways. Lets be clear, that doesn't mean Obama is not liberal enough. It doesn't mean he is wrong on every issue or worse than Bush in every way. But just because he is not those things doesn't mean he is A-OK... The reason Gibbs went after those examples is because he is not right on the subject matter."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,717
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (24 total)
09:50 PM on 08/23/2010
As a so-called member of the TYT army, I must say that people are misstating the motivation of the left. They don't want a utopia, nor are they naive enough to think so. Cenk for example probably would want a single payer plan ideally, but knows realistically, the public option is most realistic and fitting of the "american" progressive capitalist mold. Obama, despite wanting single payer, instead went past the public option to a MANDATE, despite not needing any repub or blue dog votes to get the reasonable public option. Currently, the leftist mainstream media is just upset at the Bush impersonation by these democrats who can't fulfill a goal even with all the odds in their favor. Keep in mind, Cenk is no talking head. Check out his resume and his pedigree: a former conservative with more degrees than probably any president in history in related fields, like an MBA and a law degree from Ivy Leagues. Afford him some respect even if you disagree with him. He might know something the rest of us don't with regards to the economy, the law, and politics. It's what he's highly trained in.
06:44 PM on 08/22/2010
TYT ARMY!!!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lynettema
Little old lady
12:16 AM on 08/22/2010
In all seriousness, what do the these people expect the outcome of future elections to be if they continue in this manner? I do not see a good outcome.

"Part of that product involves deeply rankling the White House. It was Uygur who proposed a panel discussion on whether Obama is worse than Bush on civil liberties. He also hosted the debate about whether the administration was feeble in its push for health care reform."
photo
kilthistle
All I know I learned from dogs and Thomas Paine
01:38 AM on 08/22/2010
A panel discussion about civil liberties in the Bush and Obama administration threatens future elections? I would suggest it is not the discussion of the policy that is the problem!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Aerows
02:25 PM on 08/22/2010
I would agree with you. Discussion is not the problem, it is the ACTIONS that have taken place that are the problem. Some of us determine not on what people say, but rather on what they do.

Saying is easy, but doing reveals the truth.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lynettema
Little old lady
04:52 PM on 08/22/2010
I certainly am not opposed to discussion or disagreement if they are one and the same. But I sincerely would like to hear your opinion about what you think the outcome of what I might label bashing will do for the fall elections?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Aerows
02:23 PM on 08/22/2010
Obama signed the extension of the Patriot Act the same way Bush did. "The left" complained about it under Bush, and you are surprised when "the left" complains about it under Obama?

Did you expect a different response, because if you did, there is that saying about insanity - do the same thing but expect a different outcome...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheStreamAlwaysWins
09:32 PM on 08/21/2010
Cenk is part of the problem. As are Ed and sometimes Keith. I really think that these guys want to live in Utopia or they care so much about building their careers that they attack Obama just to get ratings, frame their positions along the lines of "wimp", "ineffective" etc. Sounds to me like they are the mirror images of the people who they criticize: the bankers, lobbyists, Fox News etc."Truth and moderation be d@mned. Send me the contract, MSNBC!"
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lynettema
Little old lady
12:18 AM on 08/22/2010
It has been weeks since I have watched any of these programs. I am so over their drivel. They seem to want to see who can out do the other to show they are not in the tank for PO.
photo
kilthistle
All I know I learned from dogs and Thomas Paine
01:26 AM on 08/22/2010
You accuse them of wanting to live in a Utopia, what MONSTERS! Or they attack Obama just to get ratings. It is clear you don't really watch these shows, maybe you should keep your uninformed nonsensical opinions to yourself.

I, on the other hand watch these guys, I am an extreme progressive, or liberal, if you prefer. If any of these professional lefties, attacked President Obama in a way that was unwarranted, I and the rest of their audience would be gone. If we wanted gratuitous Obama bashing, we would watch Fox. Reality is the opposite of your stated opinion.

You wish Cenk, Ed and Keith were the mirror image of the people they criticize (whatever that means) it would make it easier for you to dismiss their evaluations of Obama policy failures. This is a republican tactic, don't deal with the substance of the criticism, demean the persons.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Aerows
05:04 PM on 08/22/2010
Those that are fearful of criticism are actually the problem. Kilthistle, I've already fanned you and I'd do it again if I could for this post.
11:37 AM on 08/21/2010
I reach for the remote whenever Cenk Uygur, Dylan Rattigan, Ed Schultz, (or Alan Grayson) appears on my television screen. I have no interest in listening to anything they have to say not only because of their bombastic, scorched earth style and reasoning - but also because they radiate that insufferable attitude...I KNOW what I'M talking about, and if you don't see that and agree with me, there's something wrong with you.

I like Keith Olbermann but when he gets into that mode, I grab the remote and zap him, too -- especially if he's doing that audible sniff thing he does when he's worked himself into "preachy defcon 4 mode". Same goes for Chris Matthews, when his 'Receive' switch completely malfunctions and he's so firmly in 'Send' mode, it's obvious he didn't hear what his guest said because he was thinking about his next 'Send' while the guest was talking.

But Rachel Maddow is someone special. Her show and her delivery are free of bombast, self-importance, arrogance and rancor. When she disagrees or criticizes, she supports her opinion with facts and often with humor. And she is smart, smart, smart. Commentators like Maddow can reason with viewers and change our minds and attitudes, because they don't have styles that too often turn people away. Unfortunately, she’s an anomaly among the Professional Left.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Libertarian09
Anti War Socialist with a taste for freedom
08:55 PM on 08/21/2010
I disagree with you on Rachel and I find her to be just as bad as the ones you mention and the ones you have not. Lacking the bombast perhaps but more than made up for with a smug condescension which I find offensive even while agreeing with her position.

All of them drive me crazy. I want the news, period! I don't want opinion, I don't want analysis and I don't want "personality". I just want the news and I will decide for myself what it means and what I should think about it. None of them, Rachel included delivers.
10:45 PM on 08/21/2010
Fair enough. But if you just want the news, straight up - no seltzer - no chaser, you might want to stick with the broadcast news channels. Unfortunately, cable news pretty much comes with commentary.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lynettema
Little old lady
12:19 AM on 08/22/2010
Then we need an unbiased journalist on the evening news to get what we want.
photo
alan2a
Actual Progressive
11:34 AM on 08/21/2010
Absolutely. I'm not rooting for a dam football team. I'm rooting for my principles, my values and the policies that reflect those principles and values. If Obama essentially lied to get my support by claiming to adhere to those values and principles but the second he got in office he repudiated them(unnecessary to list the myriad flip flops on terrorism, constitutional law breaking, real health care reform, etc., etc., etc.)then it is just plain stupid to suggest that because the opposition is even more evil that I and others should disregard our values and principles and regardless root for the lesser of the current evils. No way. My values are my values and they're not mutable.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Leigh Hennessy-Robson
08:41 AM on 08/21/2010
I think I hate this Uygur guy. He's ruining my life with his greed over responsibility attitude. He's no different than the bankers who took this country down. Greed first, the right thing last. ... And Dylan Ratigan, too. Creeps.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alex Da Ponte Melo
10:55 AM on 08/21/2010
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MaybeMilo
"You can't fight in here. This is the War room!"
06:38 AM on 08/21/2010
Of course, it doesn't seem to matter that the media are not serving us well - from the invasion of Iraq to the BP oil spill - the right questions are almost never asked until it's too late.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
RMorr2002
09:14 AM on 08/21/2010
Obama is a perfect example of the right questions not being asked until it is too late!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lynettema
Little old lady
12:20 AM on 08/22/2010
Yawn............
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ondori
02:34 AM on 08/21/2010
Great Article! TYT Army mount up! We're coming!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Aerows
06:36 PM on 08/22/2010
Not yet we aren't, but keep mounting like that and we might

:blush:

That was completely uncalled for LOL
photo
OliverTwist
Contrarian advocate for truth and justice
01:41 AM on 08/21/2010
No.
09:58 PM on 08/20/2010
Another great article about the "base" of the Dem Party on daily kos.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/8/20/893868/-Daily-Kos-Demographics:-White.-Over-50.-Well-off.-Male.-UPDATED

MSNBC and HP seem to be made up of the demographics.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:18 AM on 08/21/2010
whoo!

And are they mad over there!

O well.
10:39 AM on 08/21/2010
fanned
They are angry because they have been exposed.
10:25 AM on 08/21/2010
Great link...thanks! And, yeah, they sure are mad over there but although they attacked the diarist, the diarist's motives, the methods by which the demographics of DailyKos were collected, the company that collected the demographics, the conclusions that could be drawn from the demographics, and each other - in the comments I scanned through, I didn't see a single one that disputed the reported demographics of the Kossacks (overwhelmingly white - male - over 50 - with six figure salaries).

I thought it was a perfect metaphor for so many of our political discussions these days...even when it's factually accurate, if you don't like what was said or done, attack - attack - attack!
10:41 AM on 08/21/2010
LOL, I know. Those claiming to be the base seem to have a credibility issue.
07:45 PM on 08/20/2010
DADT seems to be a bit of a tangent, but my two cents on that is that removing it polls pretty well and keeping it wont make anyone any money. Hence, it's not long for this world (and I say 'bout damn time). What I wanted to comment on, though, was the back and forth we all have with regard to backing the president or "fighting/pushing" the president. I'm honestly curious, for those who think we should back Obama to the hilt, do you think his policies are appropriately progressive? If so, I can respect your point of view, but it amazes me. Half a loaf is better than none, but only if the loaf is made of bread. If you just think we should all back him for fear of losing then I wonder what you think winning will look like...
01:26 AM on 08/21/2010
I think the President,is fighting for the rights of all people. He has passed equal rights for equal pay for women. Gay rights protection, he is trying to phrase out don't ask, don't tell Health care, Children can't be denied care for pre-existing conditions,soon no one will be denied. He is constantly getting money passed for education. He is working on getting loans for small businesses passed. So many programs that will benefit so many people. I didn't mention the money he has provided to keep teachers,policemen and firefighters working. He is not a miracle worker, he has to work with congress. And our democratic congress are not given enough credit for the work they are doing . I just wonder what would you do on a new job,that you came to full of ideas, that you wanted to implement but instead, you were confronted with information that the company was about to go out of business and the some of your employees were upset that you got the job and refused to work with you. So knowing that people were depending on you, you and your other employees,got to work and turned the company around and then the people who were dependent on you, turn on you, and told you, that you hadn't done the job right! Winning will be just fine, if we hold on and have faith in the person we chose to lead us. But losing?????????????
02:04 AM on 08/21/2010
I haven't seen Obama fight anyone except the left in the country. If he fought and lost I would be far more interested in backing him. Soon no one will be denied health care? That's odd I don't recall that there are any cost control measures in the insurance reform (it was not health care reform). Telling someone they have to cover you but can charge what they like guarantees nothing, it did make health insurance stock go up though...I don't know if you were following "health reform" at the time, but they scrambled for an excuse, more than once, to deny the public option despite its popularity. The give away to wall street and subsequent toothless reform efforts were even more blatantly corrupt. The person we chose to lead us is the very man I wish would show up right about now.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lynettema
Little old lady
12:35 AM on 08/22/2010
"do you think his policies are appropriately progressive? If so, I can respect your point of view, but it amazes me."
Yes. But I believe PO has accepted that he can't everything he wants, so he is getting everything he can. Quite frankly he has got quite a lot for us and what he has got has benefited the middle class. The progressives seem to want the WH to destroy corporate America when we actually need a balance.
"Half a loaf is better than none, but only if the loaf is made of bread."
I do prefer seeing the glass half full.

If you just think we should all back him for fear of losing then I wonder what you think winning will look like..
Winning will look like we have already made a lot of progress and we will continue down that road and make the new policies even better. We have to start somewhere. But I will tell you that I have seen what losing looks like and I don't want to see it again.
04:48 PM on 08/20/2010
I can understand that some people think terrorist when they see a Muslim. When I see a Catholic I think PEDOPHILE.

Because there really isn't any middle ground there. Either you're protecting and supporting the children or the pedophiles. And the Catholic church supported and protected the pedophiles. And Catholics support the Catholic church.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:33 PM on 08/20/2010
Please tell me you're using sarcasm to make a point
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:38 PM on 08/20/2010
The federal government and many states are allowed to overtly and OPENLY discriminate against the members of LGBT community. How pathetic are we as a country that Mexico, Argentina & Portugal* are ahead of us on this issue?

Now you KNOW it not true that the federal government on the whole OPENLY discriminates against the gay community. Not with all the various civil rights and hate crime legislation enacted. Come on.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:20 PM on 08/20/2010
ruth606
Commented 1 hour ago in Politics
0
0views
“Ahhhh....I see!!!! Maybe this is why I was a little confused about your comments late last night. The link you asked me to visit leads to an essay that is part two of a two part series. Part one addresses different ways that racism manifests itself in conservative goverment, or the "Right." Part two deals with the more liberal style of government and it is addressed to the "Left" Mostly, the focus on each half of the series was institutional racism and politics. So last night, when you were telling me, that the overall message was not so much about politics as it was about social concerns - were you talking about a different article?”

I'm confused also because I completely forgot the article was in two parts. But one thing I'm sure of. As I read the article I thought of the complexities subjectively. And you can see them objectively. So were back to the same familiar perspectives.

You see it as a socio-political issue. Really, I missed that whole perspective. I saw myself AS the issue.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Aerows
03:30 PM on 08/20/2010
Gay Rights. DADT discharges could be ended with an Executive Order.

If you think we forget those sorts of things, we don't - we start evaluating the other side and how much damage they are capable of doing vs. what can be done via the courts.

The Obama administration has not been strong with regards to gay rights, and they are not the only avenue of securing them. Catering to the right on gay rights issues will cost Obama, since he is to busy worrying if the electorate thought he was born in America or is a Christian.

The non-wingnut electorate couldn't care less.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
reveal5
03:34 PM on 08/20/2010
The dissolution of DADT is in progress. A little while longer.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:41 PM on 08/20/2010
That's what I was going to say.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Artemis34
"Women 4 the GOP" is like "Chickens 4 the KFC"
03:37 PM on 08/22/2010
And he could halt the processing of any more discharges while it is being done. There is not need to ruin any more lives, waste any more money or degrade readiness any more.
06:24 PM on 08/20/2010
What President are you comparing that to? I'm fairly sure the President has done more the gay rights than any president in history. DADT will end soon.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Aerows
03:42 PM on 08/22/2010
You aren't gay, are you?
03:10 PM on 08/20/2010
Wow, now I'm really confused.

Ok, I need someone to make a list of, or a roster for the Democrats. That way we (The Average run of the mill, mid-western democrats, like myself) can tell whose team everyone is on (within the Democratic party). You know a list that includes, conservative Blue Dogs, moderates, liberals, progressives, a radical progressive, and far left liberal. Please include examples of each, so I can keep track. I’m sure everyone like myself, would like a football type roster, with definitions for each sub-set. Please give examples (names that reflect an example of each type for clarification). I personally can't keep track of the different types and what they stand for.

I always thought democrats acted in the best interest of the common working person?, maybe everyone should just get back to that.”
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:28 PM on 08/20/2010
It is confusing, literally nobody I know really fits neatly into a box. when people start to disagree on policy, labels an accusations get thrown around. It's frustrating! Last weekend someone called me part of the "privileged, elite left" or something to that effect. I was flabbergasted. I statrted wondering what I was missing...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lynettema
Little old lady
12:38 AM on 08/22/2010
Bravo, Pablo.