Obama vs. the press

If it comes down to a question of whether our Readers Who Comment are angrier with President Obama or the press, the answer seems to be the press, based on the extraordinary response to Dana Milbank's column this morning complaining that the White House effectively shut the news media out of the nuclear summit.

More than 1,300 comments have been filed at the hour this is written. Many of them complain that if the press had been doing its job Obama would not have been elected. Many of them suggest that discussions about nuclear security issues are legitimately off the record. Some are offended by Milbank's comparison of the security at the summit to Soviet-era Moscow.

As Milbank wrote, "In the middle of it all was Obama -- occupant of an office once informally known as "leader of the free world" -- putting on a clinic for some of the world's greatest dictators in how to circumvent a free press."

We'll start with vklip1, who asked, "Did the press really expect to observe meetings between heads of state about nuclear issues? Just how much serious negotiation could take place under the glaring lights of TV cameras? Does the press really expect that there would not be high level omnipresent security with the heads or top representatives of 47 nations in D.C.? If those were the media's expectations, those expectations were unrealistic and, as another commenter said, stupid. Sorry, Dana, you got this one wrong - way wrong."

rongordo said, "Now the press gets a slight feel of how the nation at large feels: No questions, you're dismissed. Enjoy."

EricHansmeier wrote, "Okay, Dana, we get it. The prima donnas of the Washington press corps feel like a jilted lover... I think you raise some good points about access, although it is also arguable that world leaders have a right to and need some time away from the press to promote honest exchange and tough negotiaions. For me, though, any good points you made were completely obscured by the ridiculous Soviet Union comparison."

Lang20001 said, "The press needs someone to tell them their place. President Obama knows all they want is cover yelling and screaming not substance. Way to go Mr. President!"

To which lbataille55 replied, "Yeah, who needs the press anyway? Let them cover sports and entertainment. Long as we have the White House and MSNBC telling us what the exalted one wants us to know, we should be A-OK."

sutmls wrote, "The Washington Post helped to put Obama into power with its pandering and now it is whining about his power mongering in shutting out the press. Why don't you read your recent world history? Left wing social progressives like Obama are arrogant autocrats. It has been obvious since before he got the nomination of the Democratic Party that Obama was one of them."

biwah said, "This huffy, petty hit piece on Obama shows how irrelevant and biased the WaPo has begun. In other news, an actual nuclear summit took place on the heels of the most significant nuclear treaty in a generation. But leave that to other news organizations. You (and Rush) can print your vindictive whining comparing the Obama administration to the Chinese communists."

mrhonda wrote, "And the Sovietization of America by this President continues. At least we only have a little more than 2 1/2 years of Obama's Presidency."

Jimmyv2222 said, "Had teh press reported on this guy accurately during the election they wouldnt be where they are today. Obama better be careful though. The press has been his ally and propaganda machine for the last 3 years, if they turn on him, then he has no one to conceal his Socialist agenda, and no one to cover up his lies. I dont feel to sorry for the press corp though, they are now seeing what we were trying to tell you all along, this man is dangerous to our freedoms"

victorponelis wrote, "Perhaps if the vaunted American press took its 1st Amendment responsibilities more seriously, and didn't just play horse-race-gotcha journalism, I'd have some sympathy...."

Umberto3000 said, "Oh Dana, GROW UP! Cover the substance of what is an historic gathering and quite whining about how tough the security makes it for poor little reporterkins. What do you expect trying to host 46 world leaders in the post-9/11 era. If the Obama Administration went all casual and PC about security, you'd no doubt be wringing your hands about that - with a lot more justification..."

mm14 wrote, "Wow Dana, I'll have to disagree with you for once. These are high-stakes, extremely sensitive negotations that are best conducted behind closed doors. Adding global media will only devolve a substantive set of intense diplomatic discussions into political theater (see climate change conference). Obama, as always, is in a catch-22. Open the event to the press, and the media will label it political theater (as even you dubbed the healthcare debate). You asked what can be substantively accomplished with cameras rolling, and you were exactly right. Close the sensitive discussions to the press, and you call him an autocrat. You can't have it both ways, buddy. Anything nuclear needs to be behind closed doors, no press."

Curly4 said, "What did you expect form the self appointed world savior? Even after the press followed him like a little puppy trying to get has masters attention. He dose not want the free press to know what he is doing. If he did want the press and people to know the health care and bailout bills would not have been so secretive. When is the press going to wake up and smell the coffee and see what he is up to?"

porchfan wrote, "Being educated by the best Marxists in America does come in handy within these venues now doesn't it? Baffled why this a surprise to all the comrades at the Wash Post?"

losthorizon10 said, "Since the lapdog media sat on its fat rear end during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, as we got lied into a war, they only worried about being on the right party lists, and maintaining "access" to Bush administration liars... Ever sinc then, American doesn't trust the mainstream media, and we don't care if you were kicked out of the summit... Now go get a quote from some lying has-been like Newt Gingrich, or some insane conspiracy-theory-loving trailer trash nitwit like Sarah Palin."

We'll close with SmithinChicago, who wrote, "You should know some error occurred. A Washington Times snit got posted online as a Washington Post piece. Please fix."

All comments on this article are here.