Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 1:24 PM ET, 03/ 4/2011

The New York Times fawns over new Obama team

By Jennifer Rubin

Sometimes you have to marvel at what is deemed "news" by the New York Times. In a piece that gives "fluff" a bad name, we are told:

The new team that Mr. Obama has assembled to run the White House is just starting to make its mark. But together Mr. [William] Daley and Mr. [David] Plouffe are bringing a new order and a different management style for different times, say people within the West Wing and others who deal with them. The White House is more disciplined and less personality-driven, more focused on long-term strategic goals and less consumed by the daily messaging skirmishes with Republicans -- even when that means absorbing hits and pulling punches.

Presumably, the sun is shining brighter and the grass is greener on the White House lawn as well.

And where do these tough-edged insights come from? We don't really know because the reporter doesn't identify anyone but "people within the West Wing and others who deal with them." Well, you can take that to the bank, then.

What we do know is Plouffe "is less available to reporters and party officials and keeps his office television turned off." Some might call that "less transparent" or even "insulated," but not this investigative piece. What is important to know is that the White House is "a happier workplace with clearer lines of authority and less fear of being chided by the often brusque Mr. [Rahm] Emanuel." I feel happy knowing they are all so happy.

But what has all this happiness brought the restaffed White House? President Obama has been widely criticized for lack of leadership on the budget and the Middle East. His poll ratings are on the decline again.

Rather than picking fights with Politico, maybe the Times should look inward and be asking how such suck-uppery gets passed off as news.

By Jennifer Rubin  | March 4, 2011; 1:24 PM ET
Categories:  Media  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: If not in Libya, when would Obama ever intervene?
Next: Tunisia is not Libya, which is not Bahrain, which is not Morocco

Comments

This coming from the woman who wrote what might be termed, a fawning column, about her interview with "kingmaker" Gov. Rick Perry.

Pot meet kettle.

Posted by: mustangs79 | March 4, 2011 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I am unaware of any kings made by Governor Perry. Perhaps, mustang79 can deign to identify at least one.

Posted by: RickCaird | March 4, 2011 2:49 PM | Report abuse

It seems that anything positive said about this White House is seen as a negative. Very odd. Anything good has to be "balanced" by saying something bad, or it can be called "slanted".
Where does it stop???

Posted by: zezezezeze | March 4, 2011 3:02 PM | Report abuse

This coming from the woman who wrote what might be termed, a fawning column, about her interview with "kingmaker" Gov. Rick Perry.

Pot meet kettle.

Posted by: mustangs79
--------------------
I think your equating a post by a blogger whose stated purpose is to "offer some insight into the conservative movement" with the alleged "Newspaper of Record" is more telling than you intended.

Posted by: paco33 | March 4, 2011 3:06 PM | Report abuse

I think your equating a post by a blogger whose stated purpose is to "offer some insight into the conservative movement" with the alleged "Newspaper of Record" is more telling than you intended.
*********************
I'm pointing out that someone who is criticizing the Times for writing what they believe is a fawning article, often writes fawning articles.

If you think Jennifer writing a blog with a conservative perspective means she isn't expected to be objective in her coverage (and therefore we should expect hypocrisy from her), that is probably more telling than anything I could write.

Posted by: mustangs79 | March 4, 2011 3:19 PM | Report abuse

..a blogger whose stated purpose is to "offer some insight into the conservative movement"

Uh, well, she fails. She can nstate what she wants, the proof is in the content of her posts showing that she's not a conservative at all.

It's almost like interviewing "experts" on the ME who just hang out at the AEI and have no idea of ME culture and history. Oh, that's right, that's EXACTLY what she does.

Fake expertise from a fake conservative.

Posted by: mfray | March 4, 2011 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Rubin is not supposed to be objective. The whole point of her blog - any blog - is to present her very subjective views. You are confusing "hypocrisy" with consistency. Hypocrisy is defined as "the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have." In other words, she would be a hypocrite only if she claimed to be writing objectively. In fact, she has been quite direct in describing her intent: to provide the conservative perspective on current issues - something that, from this conservative's perspective, she does exceptionally well and with great consistency.

As for an example of real hypocrisy, that would be a writer or a publication that claims to be objective but in reality is not. You know...like the NY Times.

Posted by: paco33 | March 4, 2011 3:46 PM | Report abuse

paco33, I don't think Ms. Rubin actually offers much insight into the conservative movement.

She certainly offers her views. However, even a left-of-center reader can appreciate there are many more nuances to the conservative movement than Ms. Rubin's willing to cover.

I've gone from reading her daily to scanning a few posts 2-3 times a week. And soon I'll probably stop entirely. Not because of her views, but due to a lack of insight about the broader conservative platform.

Posted by: MsJS | March 4, 2011 3:47 PM | Report abuse

MsJS: You are most certainly entitled to you're opinion. It's just not one I share. My friends think I'm the most conservative person they know. I'm sure there are other conservatives with different backgrounds and priorities and from different areas who would think me not conservative enough. Frankly, I think my friends are far more accurate. Are there "more nuances to the conservative movement than Ms. Rubin's willing to cover"? You betcha. But she hasn't claimed to be providing THE conservative perspective, just hers. Is there a conservative writer that you think provides a more complete view?

Posted by: paco33 | March 4, 2011 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Rubin is not supposed to be objective. The whole point of her blog - any blog - is to present her very subjective views. You are confusing "hypocrisy" with consistency. Hypocrisy is defined as "the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have." In other words, she would be a hypocrite only if she claimed to be writing objectively. In fact, she has been quite direct in describing her intent: to provide the conservative perspective on current issues - something that, from this conservative's perspective, she does exceptionally well and with great consistency.
************************
I find it telling you consider someone who says they are offering a "conservative perspective" means they are not objective in their coverage. I would think a person who lacks objectivity when covering a subject has no credibility.

Posted by: mustangs79 | March 4, 2011 4:37 PM | Report abuse

@Posted by: paco33 | March 4, 2011 3:58 PM

Well said, Paco33. I would recognize you as a conservative (and I've always been to the right of any group I was in).

Now this puzzles me: MsJS | March 4, 2011 3:47 PM

who sez: "...even a left-of-center reader can appreciate there are many more nuances to the conservative movement than Ms. Rubin's willing to cover...." Oh you mean, racist, homophobic, misanthropic, militaristic, union-bashing, anti-choice, uhhh.

Well Ms. Rubin doesn't dwell on those facets, 'cuz, frankly, they aren't there. Go read some Adam Smith (both Wealth and Sentiments) MsJS, and some Federalist Papers, and (God forbid, that ancient document) the Constitution, and you might get a sense of the "nuances" Ms. Rubin addresses.

Posted by: jafco | March 4, 2011 9:10 PM | Report abuse

@paco33:
"I think your equating a post by a blogger..."

"MsJS: You are most certainly entitled to you're opinion...."

Ahhh, paco33, always hate (yeah, right) to rain on another's parade, especially one sharing similar political viewpoints, but here are two stark instances of you getting the distinction between "your" and "you're" exactly bass-ackwards.

Just remember: "you're" is a contraction for "you are", unlike "your" which is a possessive, and so *your* (possessive!) first example should take "you're", i.e., "I think you are equating a post by a blogger", or "I think *you're* equating a post by a blogger." The problem is that in spoken English we kind of slur those words "you" and "are" together into what sounds like "your" but is actually the contraction "you're," pronounced just a little different than the possessive "your."

See the difference? *Your* second example, by that rule, would be rewritten as "You are most certainly entitled to *you are* opinion" which obviously does NOT scan (i.e., makes no sense), hence takes "your" instead of "you're" before the word "opinion." But, since it begins with "You are", THAT instance could have been written as "you're", resulting in "MsJS: *You're* most certainly entitled to *your* opinion."

Sorry, but that's standard English. Bless you my son and go and sin no more! :-)

Posted by: aardunza | March 5, 2011 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, paco33, my humblest apologies, but your first instance was CORRECT. My awfully BAD. Sorry, in that context, it WAS possessive, and you are right and I am wrong. But your second instance WAS incorrect; it should have read "your opinion." Excuse me while I pound my fist into my forehead with chagrin. Isn't that "equating" what is known as a gerund in that sentence?

Posted by: aardunza | March 5, 2011 1:03 AM | Report abuse

The comments here are so strange. Everybody talks about whether Jen should or shouldn't write about this or that, or should be more or less conservative, and almost nobody comments on the substance of her post. You people who constantly criticize Jen -- if you think she's wrong (which is pretty hard to do when her only point was that the NY Times is not objective in its reporting on the Obama Administration), why don't you tell us why you think the Times piece was fair and balanced?

Posted by: Larry3435 | March 5, 2011 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Larry, that's because they KNOW the NYT article was the journalistic equivalent of a Monica-but they can't SAY that.

It's like Reagan's old rule "never speak ill of a fellow Republican".

But denying to speak of them don't change the facts.

Posted by: ironchefofmunchies | March 5, 2011 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Thanks jafco for the compliment and aardunza for pointing out my grammatical faux pas. Your absolutely right!
;)


Posted by: paco33 | March 5, 2011 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Larry, that's because they KNOW the NYT article was the journalistic equivalent of a Monica-but they can't SAY that.
******************
Well in a way, Jennifer criticizing someone's reporting for not being critical enough is the functional equivalent of Bill Clinton criticizing someone for infidelity. His message may be correct, but he, as the messenger, makes the entire thing such a joke that his point is lost.

Posted by: mustangs79 | March 5, 2011 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer is way off with her claim that the Whitehouse is now Happyland with this new cast of characters.

Did any of you people actually go to the Times and see the photo at the top of the fluff piece? This crew looks like someone shot their dog, ate it and then threw up on their shoes.

Posted by: dano7 | March 5, 2011 10:27 PM | Report abuse

One woman's fawn is another man's thumper. Heck, even I don't know what it means; he was just my favorite character, that's all. Carry on you carrion campers.

Posted by: aardunza | March 6, 2011 2:12 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company