This is one of those posts where the primary purpose of it is to (hopefully) inform the reader and then generate discussion. In this instance, it’s about what went down at Netroots Nation on Friday with White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer, primarily with regard to the subsequent media coverage of it.
As Kossack Steve Singiser noted on Saturday: “Dan Pfeiffer appearance at Netroots Nation develops into a big story.”
(Today, we learn it’s “evolved” into an even bigger story.)
On a slightly different level, it’s also a rare, firsthand narrative (at least for Kossacks in Minneapolis on Friday, and to a slightly lesser extent, our entire community) about what happens to a news story when a sitting President’s media machinery gets ahold of it, and it ends up as a lead on the front page of a Sunday edition of the NY Times: “President Obama’s Views on Gay Marriage ‘Evolving’.”
(Despite being known in this community as a staunch critic of the administration’s economic policies, I still intend to vote for the President’s re-electon in 2012. But, perhaps more pertinent to the matter at hand, my actual career experience includes almost three decades in Democratic/political and corporate media, where—up until just a few years ago—I was a willing, “professional” participant, on countless [hundreds, if not more than a thousand] occasions, in ultimately successful efforts, to comprehensively influence MSM news reports and feature stories to the benefit of my clients--to the point where it’s no longer a stretch for me to say that most of the U.S. public, including many in this community, rely upon MSM information which, more often than even some “informed” folks here might realize, has very little to do with reality. [Yeah, you’re shocked, right? /snark])
I wasn’t there in Minneapolis, but the FPers here did a truly exceptional job reporting the story (by Barbara Morrill), IMHO, in terms of most of their content objectively relying upon the source material (transcript) and video, and letting the audience come to its own conclusions.
Kudos to coverage from fellow Kossacks, from DKos Associate Editor Kalli Joy Gray right through to Clarknt67, and everyone in-between!
As you’ll see below, what we’re reading in today’s Times about what occurred on Friday is, notably, somewhat different than what was reported in other outlets over the previous 48+ hours.
Then again, marriage equality is a more timely story in New York, at the moment, due to the fact that it is very likely coming up for a vote in our State Senate over the next few days (again, maybe), and there’s a fairly good chance that it just might pass, too!
Above and beyond damage control regarding Friday’s story, and at least in part as a result of state-related political realities in New York, what we’re reading as a lead “story” in today’s Times only makes secondary (and rather generic) reference to what happened in Minnesota on Friday. (Netroots Nation is referred to as “a group of bloggers.”)
In today’s Times’ coverage the story “evolves,” too. In the opening graphs, we hear of then-Obama senate campaign staffer Kevin Thompson’s take on the President’s sentiments on marriage equality. And, the opening segment of the piece concludes with a comment from him, as follows: “To this day,” he said, “I don’t think Barack Obama has any issue with two people of the same gender getting married.”
President Obama’s Views on Gay Marriage ‘Evolving’
Sheryl Gay Stolberg
New York Times (Page A1)
June 19, 2011
…Now President Obama says his views on same-sex marriage are “evolving,” and as he runs for re-election he is seeking support from gay donors who want to know where he stands.
This week, he will headline a $1,250-a-plate “Gala with the Gay Community” in Manhattan, his first such event as president; on June 29, he will host a Gay Pride reception at the White House. He is doing so at time when the New York Legislature is considering whether to make same-sex marriage legal — a vote that the president will no doubt be asked about while in New York.
The White House would not comment on whether Mr. Obama was ready to endorse same-sex marriage. But one Democratic strategist close to the White House, speaking only on the condition of anonymity, said some senior advisers “are looking at the tactics of how this might be done if the president chose to do it.”
The article makes note of a quote from a Barney Frank interview: “…that a top adviser to Mr. Obama, whom he would not name, asked him this year, ‘What would be the effect if he came out for same-sex marriage?’”
“My own view is that I look at President Obama’s record, he was probably inclined to think that same-sex marriage was legitimate, but as a candidate for president in 2008 that would have been an unwise thing to say,” Mr. Frank said. “And I don’t mean that he’s being hypocritical. I mean that if you live in a democratic society, it is a mix of what you think the voters want and what you think is doable.”
A few paragraphs later, it covers Friday’s event in Minneapolis, in what, IMHO, I would consider to be a clear attempt at damage control.
Isn’t it amazing how quickly the media reacts when it comes to matters of real import to the administration?
In 1996, as a candidate for the State Senate in Illinois, Mr. Obama responded to a questionnaire from a gay newspaper. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,” Mr. Obama wrote, “and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”
White House officials have said Mr. Obama was really referring to civil unions, which he does support. (On Friday, Mr. Obama’s communications director, Dan Pfieffer, caused a brief kerfuffle by telling a conference of bloggers that Mr. Obama had not filled out the forms himself; the White House later said he was mistaken.)
By the time Mr. Obama ran for the United States Senate in 2004, his position had become more nuanced…
I’m not going to go into the other details of this article in today’s Times. Read it! It’s well worth it, and it’s available via the links provided above. Assess the matter for yourself, and by all means speak out in the comments on this, down below.
I do, however, wish to point out two additional realities I’ve gleaned from the blogosphere while putting this diary together: 1.) the coverage of Pfeiffer’s “brief kerfuffle” in Minneapolis on some of the other MSM blogs (somewhat “different” coverage than what we’re reading in today’s Times); and, 2.) another story about Elizabeth Warren, with a quote from Barney Frank from March, as well as updated information on Ms. Warren’s possible future career plans, as we are just now learning of them from media reports over the past few days.
Here’s the LINK to the Barney Frank quote on “the other story,” as (barely) noted in a piece which ran on March 21st. (Apparently, according to Frank, our President has not been too keen on nominating her to chair the CFPB for quite awhile!)
Then here’s a LINK to another developing story, from this past Thursday, which is telling us that Elizabeth Warren really is thinking about running for the Democratic nomination for Senate in Massachusetts. (Well, if Frank’s commentary from March is accurate, then her choices were limited, weren’t they?)
Of course, there are other factors at play here, such as the reality that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB’s) budget is being eviscerated out of the gate, too. Then again, so are the budgets of two other critical regulatory agencies that are empowered with overseeing much of the implementation of Dodd-Frank: the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
So, apparently, when it comes to putting virtually ANY significant level of government support behind the “sweeping regulatory reform” of Dodd-Frank, which is already heavily diluted in Wall Street’s favor, it appears that our government’s leaders’ sentiments are ”nuanced” as far as those realities are concerned, too!
Meanwhile, below are some links and excerpts (which lead to more links and excerpts) from the MSM blogs’ that appeared prior to the story on the “Pfeiffer kerfuffle” in today’s Times.
What I believe the TRUE takeaway from all of this is that, as it has been noted by media analysts for many decades (and as I have witnessed it, firsthand), one of the greatest powers of the presidency is its ability to DRIVE THE MEDIA NARRATIVE.
So, please, take a look at these pieces, which link to many others about what today’s Times refers to as the “Pfeiffer kerfuffle,” and judge for yourself what I’ve stated herein…
From CNN’s Political Ticker…
Obama boosters receive luke-warm embrace at liberal Netroots conference
By: CNN Political Producer Shannon Travis
CNN Political Ticker
June 17, 2011 5:33PM
Minneapolis (CNN) - Might President Obama and Democrats have a tough time rallying their supporters in the 2012 elections?
If responses from a gathering of progressives in Minneapolis is any indication, the answer may be yes.
On Friday, two of the president's most vocal political cheerleaders tried to rally supporters at the liberal Netroots Nation two-day conference. While the crowd was surely friendly, it was not entirely enthused...
From FireDogLake…
*The President Doesn’t Have As Many Friends As Thinks at NN11
by one outer
FireDogLog
June 17, 2011 11:40AM
This morning at Netroots Nation in Minneapolis White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer was openly and lustily booed at his Q&A session with bloggers and activists. Even Kalli Joy Gray (Angry Mouse) of the Great Orange Satan got in on it by demanding to know why the President lied about his position on gay marriage during the 2008 campaign.
Open hostility toward administration mouthpieces was not something I expected at this conference. Grumbling in private, sure, but I really didn’t expect this kind of hostility.
Gaps in support for the Democratic ticket were apparent last night when most of the speakers leading up to Russ Feingold’s keynote made mention of “angst” or lack of enthusiasm for the president. Howard Dean treated the angst at some length but concluded by saying that of course he was supporting the president (but that’s not the real fight, according to the doctor). Randi Weingarten of AFT also alluded to a lack of energy.
As I write this I am sitting on the floor, against a wall, at a panel run by Jeremy Bird, the energetic, skinny, fast talking and delusional Field Director that is running the Obama 2012 field operation. Just a few minutes ago someone openly asked him what reasons the campaign will be giving people to vote for them again.
…
*Assuming the President thinks that he even has friends here in the first place, or knows that the convention exists. After all, we’re just a bunch of fucking retarded DFH’s.
And, here’s how it played out over at the [Atlantic (Monthly) blog, from National Journal White House staff writer Rebecca Kaplan.
Director Grilled At Netroots Nation
By Rebecca Kaplan
Jun 17 2011 1:19 PM
Dan Pfeiffer was subjected to some tough questioning by liberal online activists in Minneapolis
It's not every day that a member of the Obama administration has to submit to sustained, unrelenting, and, more importantly, public questioning, and when someone does, it's not hard to see why they avoid it. When White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer sat down with Daily Kos Associate Editor Kaili Joy Gray at Netroots Nation, an annual gathering of progressive activists, he got hammered.
The so-called "professional left" that former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs once maligned had a bone to pick with the president. They feel he's let them down on myriad issues, from gay marriage to passing immigration reform and climate change bills to closing Guantanamo Bay.
…
Perhaps it was this admission that led Gray to make one of her own later when asking about why progressives should support Obama in 2012. "They're all going to vote Democrat," she said of the group. But it came with a threat, one Obama cannot afford: low turnout and little desire to help knock on doors and help win over other unhappy voters.
"I promise you, [Obama] is the same person I remember from the campaign trail, someone that cares passionately about all of the progressive ideals that we talked about today, and he has fought for them the best he could to the bottom of his heart," Pfeiffer told the group as he wrapped up. "We need to continue to have a conversation with this group of people."
Here’s ABC’s Matthew Jaffe…
Top White House Official Acknowledges "Tough Exchange" With Progressives, But Wants Them To "Keep Pushing"
ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe (@jaffematt)
via the Note blog
June 17, 2011 12:59 PM
After taking the hot seat at the Netroots Nation conference in Minneapolis for a tense hour-long Q&A today, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer acknowledged that the conversation in front of a frustrated progressive audience had been “tough,” but said that’s how it should be.
“I knew this would be a tough exchange. It’s the kind of exchange we should have,” Pfeiffer told ABC News in an interview afterwards. “These are – in attendance today are a lot of core supporters who care passionately about the president, care passionately about the things that he cares about, and are frustrated by the pace of change. And I came here today expecting a conversation like that. As I said in the opening, I wanted to have an open, honest conversation about the decisions we’ve made, the things we’ve tried to do, the things we haven’t been able to do. I think it was a good conversation. It wasn’t an easy conversation. It shouldn’t be an easy conversation.”
“What’s important to understand is in a lot of the issues that people in this room are frustrated about, the president is frustrated. He would like to get them done too,” Pfeiffer continued. “There are things that are preventing it from happening. It could be obstruction from Congress. It could be just the effect the economy is having. All those things – he would like to do them, too. It’s why he’s running for re-election. It’s why he’s going to continue to push them. The hope is to continue a conversation with the people in this room and engage them in the battles we’re going to have going forward."
“Just because someone like myself someone from Washington says it’s not possible today doesn’t mean they should all pack up their stuff and go home,” he added. “They should keep pushing and that’s the right thing to do.”
…
…Arshad Hasan, executive director of Democracy for America, stated that he “really respected” the fact that Pfeiffer appeared at the conference, but emphasized that the demands and complaints of progressives were “perfectly legitimate.”
“I think the president’s hand is stronger when he has strong, bold progressive ideas and legislation and right now I think that we still have to be asking for that,” Hasan said.
My contention is this: When a sitting President of the United States (and the staff that supports that person) wants to (or does NOT want to) drive the media narrative a certain way, the truth is they have tremendous resources at their fingertips to do exactly that.
For more on this, again, read THIS: “President Obama’s Views on Gay Marriage ‘Evolving’.”
We may discuss the reality that our corporatocracy controls the media; but, make no mistake about it, the Presidency is still a powerful force to be reckoned with when it comes to that reality, too.
I welcome your own analysis of these matters in the comments, below. Go for it…
