One of the hallmarks of the Tim Russert era of Meet the Press was the gotcha video: A politician would be confronted with some archival footage demonstrating that they had, once upon a time, taken a different position than the one they were taking today.
It’s part of what the show was known for; how effective or important these moments were is another matter.
On yesterday’s show (6/2/13), host David Gregory thought he found one:
GREGORY: I am focused, too, on the president and the idea of making no apologies and then appearing to make apologies about all of this. Here was the president middle of last month when he came out– when the seizure of the AP phone records first surfaced. This is what he said:
OBAMA (videotape): Leaks related to national security can put people at risk. They can put men and women in uniform that I’ve sent into the battlefield at risk.
GREGORY: And yet then within a week, he’s changing his tune. This is what he said then.
OBAMA (videotape): I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.
That’s an easy one, right? In the first speech Obama was all about law and order; a week later he was talking about the importance of journalism in holding the government accountable.
Except that the two speeches were not so different.
In those first comments (5/16/13), the part Gregory quoted was followed shortly thereafter by this:
Now, the flip side of it is we also live in a democracy where a free press, free expression, and the open flow of information helps hold me accountable, helps hold our government accountable, and helps our democracy function. And the whole reason I got involved in politics is because I believe so deeply in that democracy and that process.
So NBC used part of his answer, but not the part (“the flip side”) where he raises the balancing concerns about press freedom.
And that second speech, the one Gregory thought could signal some sort of White House apology? Well it also included language about the supposed threats posed by leaks of classified information (see bold)–right before the part Gregory quoted:
As commander-in-chief, I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.
Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law.
So the two comments are not so different. In both cases, Obama is arguing that he’s attempting to balance concerns for journalistic freedom with the government’s need to keep secrets. The Obama administration’s record on this is clear enough–as FAIR put it (5/15/13), the investigations into the Associated Press and Fox News have renewed longstanding concerns about the administration’s overzealous pursuit of whistleblowers, and send a message to government employees:
When government officials talk to journalists about matters of compelling public interest, the Justice Department will go to extreme lengths to find out who they are and prosecute them, even if it this requires the kind of government surveillance of journalism that is incompatible with a free press.
So while Gregory is playing “gotcha” by selectively editing Obama’s speeches, the real story here is that the administration’s record of targeting investigative journalism is all too consistent.
Isn’t it ironic that Dear Misleader’s false balance
Is excised by a member of an institution for which it is a hallmark?
Another example of David Gregory misquoting Obama–in order to advance a Benghazi conspiracy theory:
Gregory: The President’s challenger said plain and simple, the President failed to level with the American people and call this a terrorist attack, because you had to be concerned about another terrorist attack from al Qaeda in the Middle East after the President said that al Qaeda had been defeated.
Obama: The goal that I set — to defeat al Qaeda and deny it a chance to rebuild — is now within our reach. Still, there will be difficult days ahead. The enormous sacrifices of our men and women are not over.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/09/30/931421/nbcs-david-gregory-misquotes-obama-falsely-claims-president-said-al-qaeda-had-been-defeated/
Problem with Obama is that he ALWAYS takes both sides so that you can never pin him down on anything.
Not only that, but when he speaks on some issue, rather than say something to advance the situation, Obama merely explains what the issue is and what is at stake. This is a great trick because everyone knows what the issue is and everyone then agrees with him, but at the end of the speech you don’t know anything more than you did at the begining.
All politicians are slick and glib, but Obama is a genius. Press still has not figured out that Obama essentially says nothing but makes you feel as if he agrees with you. That is why after every Obama speech, press goes fishing for clues as to what exactly Obama’s position is on any one issue. But there is really never anything of substance in those speeches. Obama usually explains your position to you (and the oposing position as well) and you are left feeling as if president agrees with you.
Forget MTP; the REAL “gotcha” journalism, in a good way, is today being practiced by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, night after night.
@ Mirza: Most astute observation on Obama I have seen anywhere. Now if someone could explain to us why he is so determined not to lead the country in any way whatever. What does he expect to gain from it?
@ JN: David Gregory doesn’t just cherry-pick his quotes; he represents the super-rich.
@ DL: What the hell are you talking about?
“All politicians are slick and glib, but Obama is a genius. ”
Obviously, since he got elected and Romney didn’t. Same thing with Bush and Gore; Gore lost, too bad. Shouldn’t take a genius to figure out why.
“”That is why after every Obama speech, press goes fishing for clues as to what exactly Obama’s position is on any one issue.””
Oh and here I though it was because they wanted to be able to do what they just did, and run a Brietbart Special where “your Opponent” says something so wonderfully stupid it can’t be true; and wasn’t.
“”This is a great trick because everyone knows what the issue is and everyone then agrees with him, but at the end of the speech you don’t know anything more than you did at the begining. “”
Always brings to mind the part in Asimov’s Book “The Foundation Trilogy” where the political analyst’s get back to the computers and analyze the speech down to the “pauses” of the ‘current galactic mayor’ or who ever the elected official was. and find to their chagrin, he had said nothing, even though everyone was sure he agreed with them.
He is a politician. He will play the game, but I think taking only a handful of words and trying to build a mountain out of hamster dropping does everyone a disservice. Because then people stop paying attention, and that allows Washington itself to pull another quick one. They get tired of hearing ‘wolf’ when it’s not; that’s an old story.
@John Q I think Obama want to lead. I think that he wants to leave a legacy of having passed a lot of legislations like some sort of a historic score board. The way he set out to do this was to massively compromise. He would start from the republican proposal (such as health care) and then move to the right. This way he would improve slightly a lot of problems but solve none. Unfortunately republicans want the opposite that it, Republicans want to ruin his legacy as a first Black president at any cost.
Actually, Gore won. That’s just an unpleasant fact. The Supreme Court stopped the recount. By any measure, Gore won. That’s why Tony Scalia and Co. stopped the recount. Just sayin’. Then we had 911, and our long and continuing decent into a police state began, and continues unabated–with our current President determined, it seems, to forward all the nasty freight of the Bush administration. I’m looking forward to the revelations by the Guardian about out of control and unconstitutional spying by the NSA, and the President’s darkly comical attempts to justify it. (“I took can oath to protect the American people . . . ” Really, Mr. President? When did you do that?)
Correct – the 2000 appointment of Bush over the election of Gore was made clear on the morning of 9-11 a year later. The arrangement of Obama over Hilary Clinton is made more clear day by day. The sooner the fake State of Hawai’i is realized and the gut-wrenching injustice done there by the U.S.A. for 120 years is begun to be disclose by indepentent media and honest people the sooner this imperial cowboy superpower will be understood and reconciled for the sake of our planet. You can call me a kook but im telling you that Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate issue is wholly significant in the context of Hawai’i being an illegal occupied territory. He read the oath twice just to be sure his signature would be Law, but the glaring oversight is that he is not born on U.S.A. soil because the State of Hawaii is crooked. U.S.A. journalists must believe the U.S.A. is too big to fail, otherwise Hawai’i would be the key story in foreign affairs, reconciliation and security. If I’m right that erroneous stake is placed over and above law, life and sustainability.
Is there anything new that I somehow overlooked? Isn’t the seizure of the AP’s records covered/permitted by Bush’s Homeland Security Act, which was approved and reauthorized by Congress? What was Congress’ role in this specific case? Since Bush, govt has been able to do just about anything it wants, as long as they connect it with “terrorism”/national security. Since 9/11, the right wing has consistently maintained that Americans must be willing to surrender numerous rights and protections for the sake of security — and much of America agreed.
Mirza, et. al., do you know that, with rare exception, there isn’t much that a president can actually do? Except in emergency situations, the president’s power is quite limited. Presidents can advocate and propose things, but everything must go through Congress. Congress can veto or block anything the president wants. Since there have been no accusations that Obama bypassed Congress, abusing his authority, I assume that Congress must have approved the seizure of the AP’s phone records. There is nothing new about this. It is entirely consistent with Bush’s Homeland Security Act, which was approved and reauthorized by Congress. I can certainly understand the outrage, though I question why Americans have allowed the Patriot Act to continue.
Anyone who engages in the game of trying to unravel Obamas words are gonna find so many direct lies that it is mind blowing GlennBeck did 2 solid hours the other day playing back Obamas words and trying to balance them against reality.He admitted to having over 5 hours of tape in the can.What Obama says at any moment simply bears no resemblance to the outcome.In his world words are used to cajole.Wether or not he means them is a totally different thing.Even Bill Clinton reportedly said “you can’t trust him at his word”.Referring to the deal they Struck for Bill to support BAM…. as BAM would support Hilary.Word is Obama has changed his mind, Infuriating the Clinton’s.Some would say the President always parses his words.Bullshit.he is a damn liar.
I am not sure that the pushover press and the corporate press do anything that is worth defending. My Denver paper is a hot bed of “just print what both sides say with equal time, trust hard and don’t verify.”