Keeping Anderson Cooper Honest: How CNN and the Media Flubbed Obama's 2nd Swearing In

Billions of people celebrated the live broadcast of President Obama's swearing in on January 20. Yet, the very next evening, CNN's "Just keeping them honest," Anderson Cooper, and White House Correspondent Ed Henry seemed to join the campaign launched by Chris Wallace of Fox Television News, Rush Limbaugh and others to question the authenticity of both the President's first and second "swearing-in." Then, during the Thursday White House Press Briefing, CBS newsman Bill Plante joined the orgy with his aggressive questioning about the second swearing in. This has helped feed a blogosphere frenzy alleging the President's so called "true inauguration," i.e., the untelevised redo, was held in secret and that the book used to swear upon was the Koran. Even Pat Buchanan on MSNBC's Morning Joe dropped this hint Wednesday morning after it was reported that a Bible was not used.

Unfortunately, conservative Chief Justice Roberts flubbed the correct wording of the Oath during the inauguration. The President repeated the words administered by the Chief Justice. In other words, Obama repeated Roberts' error. Yet, the very last thing Anderson Cooper did on his Wednesday night segment without any possibility of rejoinder was to compare Lyndon Johnson's "flubbing" of his Oath of Office as Vice President with President Obama's situation. Anderson Cooper's analogy falsely portrayed President Obama as a "flubber" rather than his simply smoothing over Chief Justice Roberts error.

Cooper, Henry, Mark Whittaker of MSNBC and others have, in essence, portrayed the President as both incompetent and conspiratorial. These representatives of the Forth Estate have raised innuendos that have showered a pall of negativity upon the President simply because they were unable to crowd the private swearing-in session with their cameras. Further compromising their credibility is the fact that they seemed to cast a pall of suspicion on the legitimacy and veracity of print journalists who were witnesses to the so called "private" session. Sadly, these broadcasters, CNN and others have made themselves the news as opposed to focusing attention on all of the policy and transparency actions taken by the President. It is one thing to faithfully carry out one's responsibility as the 4th Estate and honestly cover, frame, and prioritize news stories and issues. In this case, however, even CNN, the so called television news source of record, broke its pledge of "keeping them honest" by exempting itself from its own standard.

CNN's Henry made a special point of juxtaposing Obama's signing of executive orders -- essentially ending under his Presidency the well known "lobbyist loop" (i.e., immediately going from appointed government official to lobbyist and back again), and his opening up Government records to the public -- with his not allowing CNN and other TV broadcasters to cover the hastily organized redo swearing in ceremony. Further, Henry made an issue of the fact that reporters weren't allowed into meetings held between Obama and his internal economic and/or military advisers. The bottom line is that it appears that CNN, Fox and other mainstream news organizations have essentially joined Rush Limbaugh in either framing Obama as untrustworthy and hypocritical because he was not transparent on their self promoting terms, or in fanning the flames of the same paranoia we saw during the election campaign. Shame on them for manufacturing news that stole some of the hope the world has placed on the shoulders of this President during this time of worldwide crisis.

I suppose their veiled mudslinging is supposed to make up for their failure to hold either former President Bush accountable for spying on Americans, including News organizations and journalists, his twisting intelligence to take us to war in Iraq, or Vice President Cheney's secret meetings with the energy industry including a company he held stock in. Even today, this same media that is creating a negative impression of President Obama is saying little or nothing about the outgoing administration's widespread destruction of official government emails and records. Had CNN honestly been reporting and contextualizing the news, it would have juxtaposed Obama's executive orders, actions, and meetings with the Bush/Cheney administration's playing fast and loose with the Constitutional rule of law. Instead, it portrayed Obama's private meetings with internal advisers as if they were the same thing as Vice President Cheney's strategy sessions with Big Oil and thumb nosing of Court orders requiring him to make public what was discussed and who attended.

Wouldn't honest and transparent coverage include giving the benefit of the doubt to the possibility that President Obama did not want to have the hurried redo session eclipse the inaugural swearing in, or be depicted as somehow more official and authentic then what billions of people in the world marveled at? Isn't it obvious that television coverage and subsequent punditry would very likely have fueled this perception? But these plausible considerations and motivations were never even mentioned.

And what about millions of others like me, who came to Washington to witness the swearing in and countless others who watched on T.V.? Should Obama have thrown us under the bus just to avoid the hurt feelings of news broadcasters whose cameras were not invited in to the redo? Rather, the day after Obama called for ALL of us to end the era of recriminations and our childish ways, to "pick ourselves up" and take personal and social responsibility, CNN and others appear to have had a temper tantrum, seemingly more intent on "settling a score" with Obama for being "jilted," while failing its their personal and social responsibility to continue to bring attention to the ongoing damage to the Constitution and our freedoms carried out by the previous Administration, whose political appointees and "true believers" still populate key levels throughout the Government. They also failed to discharge their social responsibility by assuming the worst about this new President first, while un-reflectively helping to fan paranoid fantasies and sow seeds of distrust in Obama before his administration even gets off the ground.

Anderson, Ed, Mark, Chris, Bill, CNN, CBS and the rest of the journalists, reporters, analysts, hosts, and news organizations that make up the 4th Estate, it's still not too late to reread Obama's inaugural address. This time, however, realize that when the President spoke about those who helped bring the country to its current crisis, he was also talking about you. It's time for you to ante up, chip in, and help us get through this crisis, and stop contributing to it. And lastly, next time you get on your holier than thou high horse and innocently proclaim that you're "just keeping them honest" and "transparent," try holding yourself to those same standards before blurting out whatever the producer whispers in your ear.

Comments

[Horus45]

The Oath does not even matter!
According to The Constitution, Obama became President at Noon on January 20, regardless if an Oath was taken or not.

But we all know that The Constitution means NOTHING to Conservatives!

[InofTouch]

A big deal of nothing on both sides

[MaryKathO]

I suspect this whole 'oath crisis' is really a smokescreen for how the MSM is feeling these days about their increasing irrelevance. They always 'learn too late' just how in the tank they are for Republican administrations and then like clockwork, run in circles overcompensating for their so-called 'liberal bias. They are slowly coming to the realization that they are now dealing with a 21rst Century President with a proven means of by-passing the traditional methods of information outreach and that Obama will go outside those traditional means to get his message out there to the public. Print news is dying, networks are in serious financial trouble and the blog-sphere has overtaken the wire services. The MSM are in a panic and any opportunity to stand out in a crowd by yelling "Look over here, people...s­hiny keys, shiny keys!" is the lazy t.v. talking heads way of coping. As our new President proclaimed on the 20th of January, "...it is time to put away childish things."

[GunnyJ]

The only news people I can listen to/watch is Wolf, Katie, Rachel and Keith in no particular order. Everyone else seems to be bucking for "Top Gun" or something. The PEOPLE elected President Obama like it or not. All of these overpaid blow hards are making TV news a waste of time.
What a ridiculous idea to think that a conservative Chief Justice would administer the oath of office using anything else than the Bible and not tell!! Then to report that the Bible was not used for the oath on national TV just to feed the flames of hate and stupidity means that the wedge of the "Dividers" may be larger than I thought. What are they afraid of?.......

[Eveline]

You're kind of generalizing there. Cooper actually didn't even bring up the bible issue, as they'd established the second swearing in to be legally unnecessary on AC360. What he was upset over was not having a camera present, which is somewhat petty. They asserted Obama is legally our president, this is just lawyering to prevent frivolous lawsuits. He was re-taking the oath for a second time. The only reason to do this is to squash down remaining controversy, according to the white house counsel. A minor matter. All on the show. Which does make it silly to not have a camera present, because when you´re only doing this to prevent controversy, as they are, why have the second swearing in with only a small group of reporters picked by white house staff, no cameras? Wouldn't transparency be a key point there? Because this has seemingly only fuelled the rumors, with people saying the first inauguration was indeed false, and the second one was the 'true' one sworn without a bible, blah, blah. This was contradicted by the reporting on the show, but camera's would have made a big difference here, and would have been in both their interests.

[Horus45]

There were photos of the second swearing in, just not video.
There was also audio recordings.

[Melissa]

The press was almost solely responsible for getting Obama elected. I had to stop watching because it was getting ridiculas. Look what they did to Hillary. Now since they are trying to keep their audience they are turning on him. It does not surprise me, we don't have objective reporting from any news source except c-span.

[nomobull]

that's like claiming gas put out the fire. stop repeating bs and do some research on the coverage he recieved and make a comparison then say that with your eyes open betcha can't.

[BruceHNV]

Hogwash.

Obama receive more press than McCain because his campaign was on a larger scale and produced bigger events. But while he received more press than McCain, he also received more NEGATIVE press than McCain and until McCain began acting unstable and erratic in the wake of the meltdown, He received a higher PROPORTION of negative press than McCain.

Further, McCain's actual historic scandals and convicted domestic terrorist connections received essentially NO press while Obama's non-scandals and non-connecttions were obsessed over endlessly as though the known truths about them covered some greater Dark Secret.

Obama and a grassroots effort nearly a hundred million strong got Obama elected. The press just covered it. You would have perceived it as fair only if Obama had a press blackout and McCain's BFFs in the media not only ignored his self-serving and inauspicious history (which they did) but also drooled all over their ties about faux greatness that he had never achieved.

[Subversive]

Chief Justice Roberts flubbed the oath because he tried to memorize it. I watched the administration of the oath and this is clearly what happened. I've been on stage before and seen "the look" many times. Just after finishing Obama's name, Roberts' eyes looked like the proverbial deer in the headlights. However, grandstanding and trying to needlessly impress others is very typical for conservatives who believe that, simply by virtue of being conservative, they are smarter than everyone else, including and especially liberals--and everybody else in the rest of the world. Roberts should have simply done what every other chief justice has done throughout history and used a small card with the oath printed on it. Naturally, the MSm puts the focus on Obama rather than where it should be, with Roberts.

[katielady]

Obama hesitated when Roberts misssaid the oath, as this was videotaped and played over and over, no worries on that fact. Journalists are competing for views attention and, hopefully, advertisers profit. They all are a bunch of 'talking heads'...

my suggestion; turn off AC, as I have, and tune in C-Span... much better.. they simply play the tapes... no comments..­.

Personally I am sick of the constant bickering and infighting­.. this got us where we are and is keeping the economy from recovery.

[Ronald B. Robinson - Huffpost Blogger]

And one of them that needs to be held to account right now is Jonathan Martin of Politico.

[Ronald B. Robinson - Huffpost Blogger]

That's why it's important that we continue to identify news organizations and individuals by name and call them for their behavior and their continuing contribution to the crisis. They need to adopt legitimate 4th Estate responsibilities, not rush to judgment attempts to undermine Obama to make up for their failure to hold Bush and the Republicans to account.

[buzzygirl]

Absolutely. I concur. Every time one of these self-important, so-called journalists fail to cover the serious issue of the day in place of the trivial, call out their names. And get this, these same people that sit on their high perches and profess to know everything, will begin to squirm. They can dish it, but they can't take it. They are so thin skinned.

I welcome a healthy debate. But I only wish these guys would do some research on their own, before running in front of the camera to vomit something somebody else has said.

Mark Whitaker is on my list. He a disgrace to the position once held by Tim Russert. He is clueless. It is no wonder his underlings -- Chuck Todd, David Shuster, et al., just shoot at the mouth without doing their homework.

Sometimes, I think as a black man, he is trying to overcompensate for his criticism of Barack Obama. If he is making a sensible critical analysis, fine by me. But half the time he seems not to know what he's talking about.

We will look to writers like Mr. Robinson and others with a platform, to continue to call out these guys. Please, please. That is the only way we are going to get the people's business done.

Perhaps it will make them think twice before trying to become the news, instead of covering and delivering it correctly to people.

[Ronald B. Robinson - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank You!

[bayside]

If media really wants to keep them honest they will help obama clean up the corruption in congress ,govt. and media and they can start with investigating bushs 109th an 110th congress to flush them out..If not ,I expect we will hear all kinds of noise but citizens are to going to have accountability from our media and govt. ..As of now congress is beholden to special interests groups, whoever gives them enough money, not anymore.

[RI]

Talk about "keeping them honest." Hopefully more articles like this one will counter the MSM misinformation to some degree. keep them coming.

CNN and the rest of the MSM has exhibited breathtaking, disgusting hypocrisy: letting Bush get away with murder (literally), secrecy, and monumental dishonesty. Now, pouncing on any real or imagined short-coming of Obama, who has done a lot of great work in 3 days.

[Ronald B. Robinson - Huffpost Blogger]

I appreciate these comments. It's we that have to keep these people honest. I've submitted a piece that I hope gets posted today on Huffington Post. It's about Politico's Johnathan Martin and his mugging of Obama yesterday. Just to give you a sense of how things can spread like wildfire, Martin used the words "irritated" and "agitated" to describe Obama's interaction with him, making an issue that Obama put his hand on his shoulder and looked at him the eye as if this was back during Segregation times and the President had committed a crime. Yet, Martin's false and stereotypical portrayal got picked up and ran with by the media such that it has become the "truthful account" of record. In other words, Obama was portrayed essentially as easily provoked, physically aggressive, and emotionally not in control etc. There's much more to say about but I'll wait for my post to appear before saying more. The bottom line is, we can't fall asleep thinking this is a done deal. We have to protect what has been won. History has taught us this lesson time and time again. Especially as regards Black folks.

[BoosMom]

No one seems to have pointed out that doubts about the legitimacy of the original swearing in would also be to doubt the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Both Roberts and Obama were constitutional scholars at Harvard Law...do you think the conservative head of the Supreme Court would stand before the entire world and allow Obama to even enter the White House the first day if he were not the legal President? Or that he would have let the second ceremony proceed if a bible was mandatory, or (and what a laughable thought) if the President had the Quran in his hand? At the very least, isn't Chief Justice Roberts deserving of the same credibility as a notary public bearing witness?

[GodBlessAmerica]

Gee, I considered the "second swearing in" a minor formality, a "just in case" measure, that really wasn't worthy of any major coverage. Was I wrong?

[BruceHNV]

No, you weren't.

[lagumbo]

Anderson Coore and CNN is another Faux Noise. If they would have research they would have known
that there were three other presidents who didn't you a bible.Why didn't they question Bush and his croonies when they lied to us to go to war. They are trying to do everything to fine fault with PRESIDENT OBAMA. They most often just refer to him as Obama, instead of President OBAMA. They didn't refer to Bush as George or BUSH. They are so angry PRESIDENT OBAMA won this election. It shows.

[obamagal]

Let us not forget Chuck Todd. He is becoming a huge disappointment.

[longtalldrink]

hear, hear

[Monn]

Why does HP have so many false attacks on Anderson Cooper and CNN lately? Do you have a deal with MSNBC or something?

Cooper and the rest of the CNN people repeatedly said during and after in the inauguration coverage that the president becomes president at noon according to the constitution so the oath is just a formality anyway. Cooper himself actually drew laughs from other CNN people and panelists by Roberts blaming and mocking several times during and after inauguration coverage "I can't believe Chief Justice Roberts messed that up! He only had one thing to say!". (You can see the truth of how their coverage was here http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=rR-x0RKXdcM ) One 360 mentioned Johnson but did not say Johnson and Obama did the same thing, and only after plenty of talk about how Roberts flubbed.

Henry originally presented his information about the second oath ceremony as something he realized was happening because he overheard a few comments. That made it sound a bit strange at first, and Cooper asked if they would have heard about it otherwise, and Henry was careful to clarify that print journalists had already been assembled for the ceremony so there wasn't any secrecy. Cooper was a bit of a baby about thinking the video media should have as much access as print journalists, but there was no big anti-Obama witch hunt.

Can't HP leave the dirt slinging and lying tactics to the right wing and report honestly?

[Ronald B. Robinson - Huffpost Blogger]

Hi ,
Cooper used "also" to connect Johnson's "flub" to Obama, who was the referent to the analogy, not Roberts. You focus on CNN’s coverage the day before. The tone completely shifted the following day. Henry's portrayal of innocently overhearing a conversation was also complemented by seeming indignation. You also used the term "witch hunt" which is not how I portrayed the circumstances.

There are serious consequences to the innuendos made about Obama, no matter how well suffused with "plausible deniability" – e.g., untrustworthy, hypocritical, deceptive, etc. Perhaps you feel that way too. Perhaps not. Either way, it doesn’t change the effect. Just check out the blogosphere.

As for your insinuating that I engaged in dirt-slinging and lying tactics for making connections you haven't, that seems somewhat self-centered, don't you think? That you posted a link to CNN's previous day's coverage and stated "You can see the truth of how their coverage was here" also seems self/CNN serving.

I hope you’ll be more tolerant of those of us who for too long have had to tolerate what mega corporate media organizations throw at us. They have plenty of resources to make their case with little accountability or with our having recourse to their airwaves. Thanks.

I might not convince you to embrace my analysis or not equate me to the right wing, but that doesn't mean that I therefore sling dirt, use lying tactics or dishonestly present my perspective. Thank you.

[longtalldrink]

and thank YOU again for letting us know just how powerful the media really is. A couple of nights of this "news" and we will have riots in the streets. Just the kind of thing CNN can report on again and again and again.

[Eveline]

But they stated outright in the report that it was Chief Justice Roberts who flubbed, as well as the previous day. The connection to Johnson was then the flubbing of the oath by one of the participants, made clear to be the Chief Justice, not Obama.

Although it might indeed not have been such a bad idea to have a camera in there given the speculation that has resulted from it, they could have been a lot less prissy about not getting their camera in.

However, they did not question the authenticity of the swearing in, they explained the redoing was unnecessary to begin with. The plausible considerations and motivations you say weren´t considered were actually mentioned on the show you're singling out for not doing so. Henry stated it was administered legally according to the white house counsel, but they wanted to nip all lingering controversy in the bud. Toobin stated the oath was irrelevant. Cooper asked whether they didn´t want camera´s in there to just sweep the event under the rug and get it over with as quickly as possible. Which is why they shouldn't have complained about it so much, even though they themselves feel it was a silly move not to, but they did cover it.