Gibbs Losing Laughs During His White House Briefings

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs played the crowd during a recent White House press briefing for writing notes on her hand at last week's Tea Party Convention, with a grocery list and the words change and hope in case he "forgot".

But as Patrick Gavin, Vivyan Tran and Luke Freedman report in POLITICO, the laughter has started to die down:

Back in May, POLITICO analyzed the press briefings and found that the instances of laughter — as indicated by "(Laughter)" being noted in the official transcript — occurred more than 10 times per day during press secretary Robert Gibbs's briefings.

But the laughter has been reduced by half in recent months: In the first six months of the Obama administration, briefings produced an average of 179 laughs per month. Over the past six months, the average has dropped down to 89.

Chalk it up to the close of any administration's initial honeymoon — and the Obama administration's tough second half of 2009, as it wrestled with health care and saw the late Ted Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat filled by a Republican.

"The tone is one reason for less laughter," says American Urban Radio's April Ryan. "There are lots of serious questions begging for serious answers. Those questions do not meld with laughter and light banter."

But there's also some frustration a-brewing among press corps members.

"There definitely aren't a lot of laughs around the briefing room these days," says Washington Examiner White House correspondent Julie Mason. "Robert's little digs and evasions have lost their power to amuse — particularly since we haven't had a presser since July."

Mason also reports frustration in the ranks: "Reporters know how close the press secretary is to the president, and yet the quality of the information we get doesn't often reflect that."

Gibbs to Reporter: You're Acting Like My Child

April Ryan of American Urban Radio asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs on Wednesday a legitimate question about White House social secretary Desiree Rogers' role at the recent state dinner, in which Gibbs not only laughed off the question but compared Ryan to a dealing with his son.

Gibbs' treatment of the reporter got some audible hisses in the press room.

Gibbs: Nobody at Fox Is a Journalist; It's Not a News Organization

White House officials once again advanced its contention that Fox News and its commentators are not journalists, rather a propaganda wing of the Republican Party. During the gaggle, an informal on-the-record but off-camera briefing between the White House press secretary and some members of the media, Robert Gibbs and ABC's Jake Tapper had this conversation:

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

I wonder if Major Garrett, Fox's White House correspondent, was in the room.

Swamppolitics.com reported that Michael Clemente, senior vice president of news at FOX News, replied by saying: "Hundreds of journalists come to work each day at FOX News all deeply committed to their craft. It's disappointing that the White House would be so dismissive of their fine work and continue their vengeful war against a news organization."

Brett Baier of Fox reported on air today that Clemente said: "Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of folk focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about, like jobs, healthcare and two wars. The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues."

Ruth Marcus, who writes for the PostPartisan blog at the Washington Post, had this to say this morning:

Sure, it's legitimate -- and standard practice -- to dispense access and coveted interviews to favored reporters and news outlets. So is subtly doing the opposite: letting a reporter who's filed a tough story know that he or she is in the doghouse by leaking a scoop to a competitor. The Bush administration routinely briefed conservative columnists before a big presidential speech; the Obama White House tends to call in ideological sympathizers. This is the way the game is played.

Where the White House has gone way overboard is in its decision to treat Fox as an outright enemy and to go public with the assault. Imagine the outcry if the Bush administration had pulled a similar hissy fit with MSNBC. "Opinion journalism masquerading as news," White House communications director Anita Dunn declared of Fox. Certainly Fox tends to report its news with a conservative slant -- but has anyone at the White House clicked over to MSNBC recently?

That statement, in turn, brought a quick rebuttal from the left. Eric Boehlert of Media Matters writes:

In a way, Marcus is simply reinforcing the age-old Beltway truism: When Democrats criticize the press it's whiny and petty, but when Republicans do it, it's savvy and brash. (Just ask veterans of the Clinton administration.)

But more specifically, Marcus is commenting on a media landscape of which she is completely ignorant. For instance, she claims Fox News operates just like MSNBC did during the Bush years. MSNBC featured Bush bashers Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, and today Fox News boasts Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, so c'mon what's the big deal. I guess the big deal is I don't remember either Olbermann or Maddow comparing MSNBC employees to persecuted Jews during the Holocaust, which was the twisted comparison Beck recently made regarding the Fox News staff.

In other words, I don't recall Olbermann or Maddow going bat shit crazy on national television, scribbling away on a chalkboard as they fantasized about connecting George Bush to every conceivable strain of historical evil. And I don't remember either MSNBC host launching hateful and hollow witch hunts against semi-obscure administration officials, the way Hannity has latched onto the homophobic attacks against Kevin Jennings.

But guess what? The same elite pundits who are telling the White House is chill out over Fox News are the same elite pundits who for weeks have refused to acknowledge the hateful Jennings witch hunt. Which brings me back to my original question: Do journalists like Marcus even watch Fox News? Do they understand what its programming day now looks like? My guess is the answer is no, even though lots of them have taken it upon themselves to speak out as Fox News experts; to lecture the White House about how normal and mainstream the cable outlet is.

Josh Gerstein and Mike Allen of POLITICO write today that the White House effort is to get other journalists to think twice before following Fox’s stories in their own coverage.

"We're doing what we think is important to make sure news is covered as fairly as possible," a White House official told POLITICO, noting how the recent ACORN scandal story started because Fox covered it “breathlessly for weeks on end.”

“And then you had a couple days of breast-beating from The Washington Post and The New York Times about whether or not they were fast enough on the ACORN story,” the official said. “And it's like: Wait a second, guys. Let's make sure that we keep perspective on what are the most important stories, and what's being driven by a network that has a perspective. Being able to make that point has been important.”

That raises a red flag to me. Are journalists supposed to take the White House's lead as to which stories they should cover? Aren't the Post and Times capable of deciding for themselves what stories need to be chased and what is nonsense? This is a judgment call made by assigning editors every day. For instance, the birther stories are rightfully ignored by most journalists because they are blatantly absurd. Sometimes it seems, only Chris Matthews is keeping that one alive. But the ACORN story, even though being instigated by a conservative filmmaker, was news because of the videotapes that could not be ignored.

It's up to journalists to decide what they should cover, and at no point should they take their lead from the White House, whether it is occupied by a Republican or a Democrat. And if White House officials think its their role to determine for the national media what the important stories of the day are, then we are all in a lot of trouble.

And finally, for those who are interested in signing petitions. MoveOn.org has started one urging Democrat members of Congress to stay off the network as long as the president avoids appearing on it.

Gibbs Answers Question on Press Conference Questions

White House Press Secretary Michael Gibbs took time on Friday to answer a reporter's question on who gets called upon during a presidential press conference and how that process works in this administration.

Gibbs in Phone-Gate! Ringing Cell Phones at WH Briefing

A few light moments as cell phones went off during Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' breifing yesterday.

White House Press Corps Gives Gibbs a Mixed Grade for First 100 Days

After 100 days on the job, the White House Press Corps is giving Press Secretary Robert Gibbs a mixed grade, according to Michael Calderone of POLITICO:

Although White House reporters praise some aspects of President Barack Obama's press shop, there’s grumbling about Gibbs' handling of the daily press briefings, where a handful of television correspondents dominate; griping about press management on the president's European trip; and complaints about Gibbs' tendency not to return e-mail messages.

And for a team that rode to Washington on a lot of talk about "transparency," reporters said in interviews with POLITICO this week that the Obama White House has been awfully opaque.

"I guess it depends what your definition of the word 'transparent' is," said Chuck Todd, chief White House correspondent for NBC News.

Adds Wall Street Journal White House reporter Jonathan Weisman: "I think by the press' definition, they have not been transparent at all."

Still, has a reporter ever complained about an administration that's too transparent?

Deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton said that "no reporter would ever in good conscience" admit to getting too much access from the people he covers. That's because, Burton said, "no amount would truly satisfy any good reporter."

By the way, Gibbs gave the press corps an "A".

Gibbs Handles Tough Grilling on AIG With Grace and Wit

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs got a grilling today with AIG questions, but he stood well on the podium and took the beating with a good sense of humor and wit.

Gibbs Responds to Limbaugh Speech

Robert Gibbs reposnds to Rush Limbaugh's speech before a conservative group.

Gibbs Fires at Santelli for Chicago Tea Party Proposal

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, from behind the White House podium, took a personal shot at CNBC reporter Rick Santelli, when a questioned at Friday’s news briefing.

Josh Gerstein of Politico reported Gibbs' statement this way:

“I’ve watched Mr. Santelli on cable the past 24 hours or so. I’m not entirely sure where Mr. Santelli lives or in what house he lives but the American people are struggling every day to meet their mortgages, stay in their jobs, pay their bills, send their kids to school,” Gibbs said. “I think we left a few months ago the adage that if it was good for a derivatives trader that it was good for Main Street. I think the verdict is in on that,” the press secretary said, poking directly at the cable journalist, who reports from the trading floor at the Chicago Board of Trade.

Gibbs insisted Santelli was misinformed when he said Obama’s program would amount to a transfer of money from prudent taxpayers to those who had taken reckless risks.

“Mr. Santelli has argued, I think quite wrongly, that this plan won’t help everyone,” Gibbs said. “This plan helps people who have been playing by the rules. ... I would encouraged him to read the president’s plan. ... I’d be more than happy to have him come here to read it. I’d be happy to buy him a cup of coffee — decaf,” the press secretary said, in a not-so-subtle jab at Santelli’s frantic style.

Gibbs brandished a copy of a fact sheet about Obama’s plan. “Download it, hit print, and begin to read it,” he said. In an unusually personal and direct attack on a specific journalist, Gibbs used Santelli’s name at least five times.

The reason why Santelli drew the wrath of the White House was because he had the audacity to accuse the president of creating a housing bailout that is unfair to the millions who bought their homes in a responsible manner and have been making their mortgage payments.

"Government is promoting bad behavior. Do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages?" he asked on air Thursday. "This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage?

President Obama, are you listening?"

Apparently he was.

Here is Santelli's famous Chicago Tea Party in July cry:

Is the Obama Team Side-Stepping the Media?

David Cay Johnston expressed some frustrations with President Barack Obama's press office today in the Columbia Journalism Review. These are the same concerns I voiced in earlier posts here and here.

It’s 3 p.m. and the phone in the White House press secretary’s office is ringing. It rings and rings and rings. Eventually, a recorded voice asks callers to leave a message — followed by a second voice saying the voicemail box is full.

After a full week of such calls, a human being answers. But Ben Labolt immediately bristles when asked to spell his name, refuses to give his job title, and says he is going “off the record” until I stop him to explain that the reporter grants that privilege, not the other way around — a basic journalistic standard that Labolt seems unaware of. He soon hangs up without even hearing what I called to ask about.

A return call is answered by Priya Singh, who spells her name when asked, but does not know (or will not say) what her job title is and several times describes requests for information about how the Obama administration press office is operating as a “complaint” which she would pass on. She says she is not authorized to comment, though she at one point tells me she is a spokesperson.

This might be the simply the problems of a new administration struggling to cope with a flood of calls and perhaps the complex machinery of the modern office. But it might also indicate that President Obama’s messages about open government have not reached press secretary Robert Gibbs and his staff.

While it is too early to judge just how this will work out, the early signs are troubling. And interviews with a dozen Washington reporters indicate that the Obama press operation tends to embrace friendly questions, while treating skeptical questions as not worth their time or, worse, as coming from an enemy.

This is a troubling sign. There have been indications starting with the campaign that the Obama team views press coverage and questions only to be used as a tool to put out their message in their own way. And it's a philosophy that starts at the top. Obama once told a reporter during the transition to not "waste a question" when asked about a subject that was difficult and not a part of that day's message.

Obama, when touring the White House press room two days after the inauguration, was asked a tough question about the deputy Defense secretary whom Obama has appointed. The appointee had lobbied for Raytheon, but Obama' had just issued new rules against lobbyists coming to work for him. Obama responded: "I came down here to visit. I didn't come down here -- this is what happens.

"I can't end up visiting you guys and shaking hands if I am going to grilled every time I come down here."

Hint to the president ... yes, expect tough questions in the press room at all time.

In addition, Gibbs' relationship with the media has always been a bit cool, as he had limited the access to candidate Obama to only venues that put the senator in a good light. That's a tactic that played out well during a campaign, but may not sell when dealing with the leader of the free world.

There is a difficulty in what had been standard procedures. Transcripts of the gaggle and press briefings are not being released online, only edited snippets. Gibbs at one point did not know that the press wanted the "week ahead", (the president's schedule for the next week), which is traditionally released on Friday.

It's all about managing the message (and the press) for the Obama team right now, spoon-feeding only what it wants to spoon-feed, and not dealing with the difficult day-to-day questions from reporters. But why should it be difficult to spell your name or give your title? Many other reporters have describe similar difficulties in dealing with the press office. The question is whether this these missteps are a matter of getting your feet wet or is it a matter of policy? Could they be acting this way on purpose?

On the podium, Gibbs is also struggling to find his way in the early going. His answers have been evasive, and not very enlightening. Here is an exchange from an earlier press briefing:

... Among the lessons that Gibbs will learn from his predecessors is the necessity of having an answer when the tough questions start coming.

That lesson started unfolding today.

On Pakistan, was Obama consulted before the newest missile strikes or did he consult with Pakistan on that?

"I'm not going to speak about these matters today,'' Gibbs said.

"I was just a little confused because you took the question,'' said a reporter, who had asked a two-parter about this and the economic stimulus bill's job creation and got his jobs answer but not his Pakistan answer.

"I gave you my answer,'' Gibbs said.

"Second question,'' the reporter pressed.

"My answer was I wasn't going to talk about that.''

A little later, a reporter asked: "Other U.S. officials have confirmed these Predator drone airstrikes in Pakistan. What is it about not confirming whether the president was consulted?''

"I'm not going to get into these matters,'' Gibbs said.
"How does that compromise operational... ?''

"I'm not going to get into these matters,'' Gibbs said. "There are many things that you should be justifiably curious about. But I'm not going to get into talking about....''

"If other members of the U.S. government are confirming this, why is it that you can't comment?

"I'm not going to get into these matters,'' Gibbs repeated...

"There was a report today that the president is withdrawing Jim Jones and Larry Summers from the World Economic Forum at Davos,'' another reporter asked later, after a number of questions were answered at length. "Is there a reason for that? Is there some message that's trying to be sent for the fact that the two of them are not going, as originally planned?

"I don't know anything about that, so I don't have anything for you on that,'' Gibbs said. "I apologize. ''

And later, why has the White House asked for the resignation of Mark Dybul, the Global AIDS coordinator in the Bush administration, after first indicating that he might stay on the job.

"I don't have anything on the AIDS office,'' Gibbs said. "I have not read anything on that.''

Johnston's conclusion is right on the nose:

Talking to working reporters is not the only way to communicate with the people. The Obama administration seems to be embracing direct delivery of its messages via the whitehouse.gov website and YouTube. They seem to be saying “We don’t need the press to communicate our messages to the people. We can talk to the people ourselves.”

That’s entirely appropriate. But it doesn’t mean that the press should be cut out of the loop—for one thing, most Americans still get their news via traditional sources. So far the Obama administration appears to be treating its political opponents with more grace, and smarts, than journalists.