Veteran Washington journalist Bob Woodward rocked the political and media world Wednesday after he claimed that a senior White House official threatened him over his reporting that President Barack Obama was actually behind the imminent forced federal budget cuts known as sequestration.
Woodward told Politico the exchange occurred in an email after the aide, later reported to be economic adviser Gene Sperling, “yelled at [him] for a half-hour.” The line in question: “You’re focusing on a few specific trees that give a very wrong impression of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. … I think you will regret staking out that claim.”
Woodward “repeated the last sentence, making clear he saw it as a veiled threat. “ ‘You’ll regret.’ Come on,” he said. “I think if Obama himself saw the way they’re dealing with some of this, he would say, ‘Whoa, we don’t tell any reporter ‘you’re going to regret challenging us.’”
Veteran Washington journalist Bob Woodward rocked the political and media world Wednesday after he claimed that a senior White House official threatened him over his reporting that President Barack Obama was actually behind the imminent forced federal budget cuts known as sequestration.
Woodward told Politico the exchange occurred in an email after the aide, later reported to be economic adviser Gene Sperling, “yelled at [him] for a half-hour.” The line in question: “You’re focusing on a few specific trees that give a very wrong impression of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. … I think you will regret staking out that claim.”
Woodward “repeated the last sentence, making clear he saw it as a veiled threat. “ ‘You’ll regret.’ Come on,” he said. “I think if Obama himself saw the way they’re dealing with some of this, he would say, ‘Whoa, we don’t tell any reporter ‘you’re going to regret challenging us.’”
i guess this is what happens these days when someone in the media steps way out of the normal media routine and expresses and independent thought these days.
0
i guess this is what happens these days when someone in the media steps way out of the normal media routine and expresses and independent thought these days.
neevrmind, i retract my statement (other than the part about the media being useless these days). here is the full email. if this guy woodward considers this a thread, he needs to not be such a p*ssy.
neevrmind, i retract my statement (other than the part about the media being useless these days). here is the full email. if this guy woodward considers this a thread, he needs to not be such a p*ssy.
neevrmind, i retract my statement (other than the part about the media being useless these days). here is the full email. if this guy woodward considers this a thread, he needs to not be such a p*ssy.
when you tell someone you will regret something, that infers a consequence of action, which to put simply is the very definition of a threat...seriously why would Woodward regret sharing his opinion?
maybe I'm missing something, but I think the reason Woodward went public is because the statement itself is out of line and not something Team Obama should be saying to any sort of media...
See the big picture of what Woodward is trying to say here...
Team Barry likes to intimidate and doesn't play well with anyone who dare differ in opinion of them..
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
neevrmind, i retract my statement (other than the part about the media being useless these days). here is the full email. if this guy woodward considers this a thread, he needs to not be such a p*ssy.
when you tell someone you will regret something, that infers a consequence of action, which to put simply is the very definition of a threat...seriously why would Woodward regret sharing his opinion?
maybe I'm missing something, but I think the reason Woodward went public is because the statement itself is out of line and not something Team Obama should be saying to any sort of media...
See the big picture of what Woodward is trying to say here...
Team Barry likes to intimidate and doesn't play well with anyone who dare differ in opinion of them..
when you tell someone you will regret something, that infers a consequence of action, which to put simply is the very definition of a threat...seriously why would Woodward regret sharing his opinion?
maybe I'm missing something, but I think the reason Woodward went public is because the statement itself is out of line and not something Team Obama should be saying to any sort of media...
See the big picture of what Woodward is trying to say here...
Team Barry likes to intimidate and doesn't play well with anyone who dare differ in opinion of them..
i agree it was a bad choice of words but reading the entire email, it looked pretty congenial to me, as if they were friends and he was basically telling the guy he was wrong. i may be wrong, but it in the context of the entire email, i didn't read it the way frontrow read it. but i also don't want to give team barry the benefit of the doubt.
0
Quote Originally Posted by TILTOLOGIC:
when you tell someone you will regret something, that infers a consequence of action, which to put simply is the very definition of a threat...seriously why would Woodward regret sharing his opinion?
maybe I'm missing something, but I think the reason Woodward went public is because the statement itself is out of line and not something Team Obama should be saying to any sort of media...
See the big picture of what Woodward is trying to say here...
Team Barry likes to intimidate and doesn't play well with anyone who dare differ in opinion of them..
i agree it was a bad choice of words but reading the entire email, it looked pretty congenial to me, as if they were friends and he was basically telling the guy he was wrong. i may be wrong, but it in the context of the entire email, i didn't read it the way frontrow read it. but i also don't want to give team barry the benefit of the doubt.
i can't decide if i have a lower opinion of the media or our politicians. they may be tied for the worst (along with the third axis of evil i won't mention here).
0
i can't decide if i have a lower opinion of the media or our politicians. they may be tied for the worst (along with the third axis of evil i won't mention here).
i agree it was a bad choice of words but reading the entire email, it looked pretty congenial to me, as if they were friends and he was basically telling the guy he was wrong. i may be wrong, but it in the context of the entire email, i didn't read it the way frontrow read it. but i also don't want to give team barry the benefit of the doubt.
totally overblown for sure, and I'd wager Woodward didn't think his comment would make the headlines it has, who knows i just think he was trying to make a point about the tendency of how this admin works...
and over course the right wing just blows its wad over a comment made by a guy perceived by them to an icon to most liberal journalists...
Twilight Zone politics as I like to say
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
i agree it was a bad choice of words but reading the entire email, it looked pretty congenial to me, as if they were friends and he was basically telling the guy he was wrong. i may be wrong, but it in the context of the entire email, i didn't read it the way frontrow read it. but i also don't want to give team barry the benefit of the doubt.
totally overblown for sure, and I'd wager Woodward didn't think his comment would make the headlines it has, who knows i just think he was trying to make a point about the tendency of how this admin works...
and over course the right wing just blows its wad over a comment made by a guy perceived by them to an icon to most liberal journalists...
in my city, the newspaper is really struggling. i imagine most are. a while back they ran a fairly innocuous article the state attorney pulling some crazy garbage. in response, the state attorney really went off on the paper. that shouldn't be a big deal. it should be part of the job. however, as in most cities, the state attorney, the sheriff and the mayor are all in bed together. and they are all bought by the same big businesses who finance their campaigns. when there is a threat that the paper may lose advertising business, their only lifeline at this point, that makes a huge difference. you don't see articles critical of government anymore unless something really big happens and then it's in the news for a day or two and goes away.
maybe it's because we now have 1000 channels on cable plus a shitload of "news" sites on the internet so the competition is too great and the pressure to get shitty stories out quickly is much greater than it used to be, but journalism is dead. they don't have the time to do the necessary work to really uncover stories. it's not like the stories aren't there. how many interesting stories do you think there are about wall street and government and corruption, etc?
and even if they had the time, they don't have the incentive because media revenue is hard to come by now with so much competition. everything is controlled from the top and they can't afford to piss off the people who control the money.
this garbage happens in a small scale a lot. i imagine it happens with obama's people a lot as well. maybe not directly related to advertising but there's so much material to report with corrupt government but we get almost none of it in the media. you know those fuckers making the decisions are all in bed together.
all that to say, the media is useless and easily controlled.
0
in my city, the newspaper is really struggling. i imagine most are. a while back they ran a fairly innocuous article the state attorney pulling some crazy garbage. in response, the state attorney really went off on the paper. that shouldn't be a big deal. it should be part of the job. however, as in most cities, the state attorney, the sheriff and the mayor are all in bed together. and they are all bought by the same big businesses who finance their campaigns. when there is a threat that the paper may lose advertising business, their only lifeline at this point, that makes a huge difference. you don't see articles critical of government anymore unless something really big happens and then it's in the news for a day or two and goes away.
maybe it's because we now have 1000 channels on cable plus a shitload of "news" sites on the internet so the competition is too great and the pressure to get shitty stories out quickly is much greater than it used to be, but journalism is dead. they don't have the time to do the necessary work to really uncover stories. it's not like the stories aren't there. how many interesting stories do you think there are about wall street and government and corruption, etc?
and even if they had the time, they don't have the incentive because media revenue is hard to come by now with so much competition. everything is controlled from the top and they can't afford to piss off the people who control the money.
this garbage happens in a small scale a lot. i imagine it happens with obama's people a lot as well. maybe not directly related to advertising but there's so much material to report with corrupt government but we get almost none of it in the media. you know those fuckers making the decisions are all in bed together.
all that to say, the media is useless and easily controlled.
“As editor-in-chief of National Journal, I received several e-mails and telephone calls from this White House official filled with vulgarity, abusive language, and virtually the same phrase that Woodward called a veiled threat. . . . I changed the rules of our relationship, first, because it was a waste of my time (and the official’s government-funded salary) to engage in abusive conversations. Second, I didn’t want to condone behavior that might intimidate less-experienced reporters, a reaction I personally witnessed in journalists covering the Obama administration.”
“As editor-in-chief of National Journal, I received several e-mails and telephone calls from this White House official filled with vulgarity, abusive language, and virtually the same phrase that Woodward called a veiled threat. . . . I changed the rules of our relationship, first, because it was a waste of my time (and the official’s government-funded salary) to engage in abusive conversations. Second, I didn’t want to condone behavior that might intimidate less-experienced reporters, a reaction I personally witnessed in journalists covering the Obama administration.”
in my city, the newspaper is really struggling. i imagine most are. a while back they ran a fairly innocuous article the state attorney pulling some crazy garbage. in response, the state attorney really went off on the paper. that shouldn't be a big deal. it should be part of the job. however, as in most cities, the state attorney, the sheriff and the mayor are all in bed together. and they are all bought by the same big businesses who finance their campaigns. when there is a threat that the paper may lose advertising business, their only lifeline at this point, that makes a huge difference. you don't see articles critical of government anymore unless something really big happens and then it's in the news for a day or two and goes away.
maybe it's because we now have 1000 channels on cable plus a shitload of "news" sites on the internet so the competition is too great and the pressure to get shitty stories out quickly is much greater than it used to be, but journalism is dead. they don't have the time to do the necessary work to really uncover stories. it's not like the stories aren't there. how many interesting stories do you think there are about wall street and government and corruption, etc?
and even if they had the time, they don't have the incentive because media revenue is hard to come by now with so much competition. everything is controlled from the top and they can't afford to piss off the people who control the money.
this garbage happens in a small scale a lot. i imagine it happens with obama's people a lot as well. maybe not directly related to advertising but there's so much material to report with corrupt government but we get almost none of it in the media. you know those fuckers making the decisions are all in bed together.
all that to say, the media is useless and easily controlled.
good post, at the end of the day its quite frightening, controlling the message in a country full of idiots and mindless drones (see this forum) becomes a whole heck of a lot easier when you have a monopoly on the means of conveying the message
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
in my city, the newspaper is really struggling. i imagine most are. a while back they ran a fairly innocuous article the state attorney pulling some crazy garbage. in response, the state attorney really went off on the paper. that shouldn't be a big deal. it should be part of the job. however, as in most cities, the state attorney, the sheriff and the mayor are all in bed together. and they are all bought by the same big businesses who finance their campaigns. when there is a threat that the paper may lose advertising business, their only lifeline at this point, that makes a huge difference. you don't see articles critical of government anymore unless something really big happens and then it's in the news for a day or two and goes away.
maybe it's because we now have 1000 channels on cable plus a shitload of "news" sites on the internet so the competition is too great and the pressure to get shitty stories out quickly is much greater than it used to be, but journalism is dead. they don't have the time to do the necessary work to really uncover stories. it's not like the stories aren't there. how many interesting stories do you think there are about wall street and government and corruption, etc?
and even if they had the time, they don't have the incentive because media revenue is hard to come by now with so much competition. everything is controlled from the top and they can't afford to piss off the people who control the money.
this garbage happens in a small scale a lot. i imagine it happens with obama's people a lot as well. maybe not directly related to advertising but there's so much material to report with corrupt government but we get almost none of it in the media. you know those fuckers making the decisions are all in bed together.
all that to say, the media is useless and easily controlled.
good post, at the end of the day its quite frightening, controlling the message in a country full of idiots and mindless drones (see this forum) becomes a whole heck of a lot easier when you have a monopoly on the means of conveying the message
here's an example of what i'm talking about. i used to watch the nbc nightly news at 6:30 because that's usually around the time me and the wife sit on the couch and eat. but i had to stop because it was just so fuckin bad. the problem is there wasn't much else on at that time. so, rather than hand the remote over to the wife so she can watch entertainment tonight or the lifetime channel, we've gone back to the nbc news most weeknights.
here's their favorite "news story". weather events. first, it's easy, you don't have to do any actual journalism, you just have to show footage of all the snow or the rain or whatever. and you send a "reporter" out there in the rain and that's the story. maybe you interview some schmuck whose house was flooded or has to shovel 15 inches of snow to get out of his driveway. no work or though required and the average person likes it because the footage of the crazy weather is cool, i guess. the other benefit for nbc is they can cross-promote the weather channel which is also owned by GE. so, they always go to special reporter joe fool wearing his weather channel jacket who is braving the weather.
there are a hundred interesting things going on out there that might help explain why our politicians are garbage and the country has so many problems, but it's much easier, quicker and cheaper to just report the weather.
the government has the same mentality- take the path of least resistance, worry only about their bottom line and hope the people are too dumb to know or care.
0
here's an example of what i'm talking about. i used to watch the nbc nightly news at 6:30 because that's usually around the time me and the wife sit on the couch and eat. but i had to stop because it was just so fuckin bad. the problem is there wasn't much else on at that time. so, rather than hand the remote over to the wife so she can watch entertainment tonight or the lifetime channel, we've gone back to the nbc news most weeknights.
here's their favorite "news story". weather events. first, it's easy, you don't have to do any actual journalism, you just have to show footage of all the snow or the rain or whatever. and you send a "reporter" out there in the rain and that's the story. maybe you interview some schmuck whose house was flooded or has to shovel 15 inches of snow to get out of his driveway. no work or though required and the average person likes it because the footage of the crazy weather is cool, i guess. the other benefit for nbc is they can cross-promote the weather channel which is also owned by GE. so, they always go to special reporter joe fool wearing his weather channel jacket who is braving the weather.
there are a hundred interesting things going on out there that might help explain why our politicians are garbage and the country has so many problems, but it's much easier, quicker and cheaper to just report the weather.
the government has the same mentality- take the path of least resistance, worry only about their bottom line and hope the people are too dumb to know or care.
Lanny Davis (former Clinton Advisor) is claiming his editor was threatened. The editor was told by the Obama admin that if he keeps publishing Davis' columns, his reporters will lose their credentials and access to the WH. Intimidation the Chicago way is what we have in the WH today.
Stay disciplined and manage your bankroll
0
Lanny Davis (former Clinton Advisor) is claiming his editor was threatened. The editor was told by the Obama admin that if he keeps publishing Davis' columns, his reporters will lose their credentials and access to the WH. Intimidation the Chicago way is what we have in the WH today.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
