Robert Gibbs v. The British Press: Another Round

Considering how Obama is reported to feel about some of Biden’s gaffes Gibbs really would do well to avoid becoming the story. Probably should have stopped after “he does.” Hard to see what there was to be gained in having it seem that Obama had to broker peace between the British and the French, even if true.

Mountain? Molehill? Fish wrap.

Is war with the British press really necessary? There are serious problems with the press and governments with accuracy, truth and having too cozy relationships. And let’s not forget where the lying really originates and who enables it to be passed on. The British press does not have the market place all to themselves.

Some perspective folks.
The British press indeed sucks.
Where do we think Rupert Murdoch developed his chops and where do we still refer to the ‘tabloid press’ without thinking about supermarket check-out lines?

At least Gibbs didn’t make any mention of Princess Diana, that would have sent the Mail, Express and the redtops into an exploding chorus of self-righteousness. That said, it’s difficult to imagine Gibbs referring to the WSJ, Union Leader or of course the NYT in such a negative, yet unspecific manner. The British press has a healthy supply of ink, and a limitless talent for portraying it’s targets as vegetables.

Ooops that should be “its” and not “it’s” in the last sentence above. Apologies grammar fanz.

Sometimes Gibbs can take the new “transparentness” a little too far. Still, I’d rather have too much than too little.

Gordon Brown should retaliate by criticizing OUR press. We’re tired of doing it by ouselves.

There is only one problem. The question specifically asked if President Obama thought the Queen should be officially INVITED. Not if she should attend. So Gibbs said yes he thought she should be officially INVITED and he was working with the people to see if she could be officially INVITED.
.
Its only a gaffe if you actually believe the press here or there will give you an accurate picture of what happened and what was said.
.

.
Sorry that its not a short clip but the question is literally right at the end of the video so you can ust fast forward to it. Nothing to see here, keep it moving.

Gibbs should take care. Many members of the British Press combine self-righteousness and vindictiveness to produce awful hit pieces that pass for journalism.

And that is different from our press?

You go, Gibbs! The BritPress is indeed the model for the worst in U.S. “journalism.” Not for nothing are British papers used to wrap fish & chips; the Obama administration won’t be harmed if the tabs throw a hissy.
.
Off topic, and delayed from another thread – KT, you might try Driscoll strawberries. I suspect they may be Frankenberries, but – mmmmm, tasty.

Are we really advising our press secretary to be afraid of the British press? Or is this some sort of backhand way of warning Gibbs not to embarrass any American journalists from the podium? I guess we can call this velvet glove intimidation.

Dee: Our journalists are perfectly capable of embarrassing themselves. Let’s give credit where credit is due.

Some perspective folks.
The British press indeed sucks.
.
Paul Dirks, Part of the problem here is that from outside Britain it’s difficult to distinguish between the reputable papers and the non-reputable papers. The same is of course true of American papers: Britons could contrast Fox and the BBC and conclude that the American media is a complete joke. The Telegraph is not a good paper. The Guardian OTOH is vastly superior to the NY Times or any American paper, and the Times can certainly hold its own with American papers.
.
The correct conclusion to draw is that the Telegraph is a bad paper, worse than the major American MSM papers. That same assessment cannot be applied to the British press in general.
.
BTW, the British press is far more diverse than the American press. There are fewer hegemonic MSM narratives. Personally I think that’s a good thing: The Telegraph’s freedom to (ridiculously) challenge Obama is matched by the Guardian’s freedom to make some very intelligent criticisms of the Obama Administration.
.
The bottom line is that I’d rather have the British press than the American press.

I forgot to add…
.
What’s interesting is that the American press chooses to pursue stories from what is probably the worse British MSM paper. There are a lot of interesting British stories, particularly on the Middle East, that the American press could pursue but instead they would rather have stories from a bad newspaper dominate a few news cycles and then make rather xenophobic remarks about how horrible the British press is and how awesome their own work is.

“It says here”

It says here that the unions will never learn
It says here that the economy is on the upturn
And it says here we should be proud
That we are free
And our free press reflects our democracy
.
Those braying voices on the right of the house
Are echoed down the street of shame
Where politics mix with bingo and tits
In a strictly money and numbers game
.
Where they offer you a feature
On stockings and suspenders
Next to a call for stiffer penalties for sex offenders
.
It says here that this years prince is born
It says here do you ever wish
That you were better informed
And it says here that we can only stop the rot
With a large dose of law and order
And a touch of the short sharp shock
.
If this does not reflect you view you should understand
That those who own the papers also own this land
And theyd rather you believe
In coronation street capers
In the war of circulation, it sells newspapers
Could it be an infringement
Of the freedom of the press
To print pictures of women in states of undress
.
When you wake up to the fact
That you paper is tory
Just remember, there are two sides to every story

.
– Billy Bragg, 1984

Billy Bragg, “It Says Here”

So the British media may seem eager to publicize Gibbs’s “gaffe” – answering truthfully about working to get royal attendance at Normandy – in revenge for making critical comments about the British media, i.e., for speaking truthfully. Good to know that politics isn’t corrupted by a feckless and self-important establishment press only on this side of the pond.

I think British Media, specifically BBC is far better than their U.S counterparts about interviewing their elected officials. The U.S media is too deferential especially with President and other high powered elected Individuals, Whereas the British media is tough, but fair and relentless regarding follow-up questions.

rose:

Fair enough. Would it be reasonably accurate to say those British newspapers most inclined to roil the waters over trivialities are at the “less responsible” end of the spectrum? If so, I’ll repeat what I said – albeit with a narrower brush.

matt, you might have seen this already, but just in case you haven’t go to youtube and search for Paxman Howard.

Would it be reasonably accurate to say those British newspapers most inclined to roil the waters over trivialities are at the “less responsible” end of the spectrum? If so, I’ll repeat what I said – albeit with a narrower brush.
.
FlownOver, That certainly would be accurate. Although maybe we should blame the Australians… They did give us Murdoch.

The British press is indeed awful. It doesn’t matter if it’s the right wing Daily Mail or the left wing Guardian you simply can not find a neutral British paper to read. I actually would have thought the telegraph was one of the better ones which goes to show the sorry state of press there. The Guardian and the Times seem to like to think they’re superior, but the Times is owned by Murdoch (enough said) and the Guardian is unable to control its strong liberal bias, which for me as a young Obama supporter to feel there’s a strong liberal bias is quite bad.