Obama's WH Chief of Staff Holds Daily, Secret Calls With Pals in Media

  • Bookmark and Share

Politico reports that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel holds daily chit chat sessions with several Old Media pals every morning to start his day. Apparently Emanuel has for years been involved with daily bull sessions to plan media coverage and ideological strategy with CNN's James Carville and Paul Begala, as well as ABC's George Stephanopoulos, with the occasional participation of pollster Stan Greenberg. But there is one little problem with this daily palling around with mediots these days: Emanuel now works for the White House. [Image credit: politico.com]

As Politico's John Harris notes, "in any given news cycle, it is quite likely that Washington’s prevailing political and media interpretation -- at least on the Democratic side -- is being hatched on these calls." In light of this early morning scheming, one has to wonder where the supposed autonomy of the media is if they are being programed by the Obama White House in off the record, secret and daily conversations? Where is their objectivity if these media mavens are all assisting Emanuel mold and shape the news to further a specific ideological goal?

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Even worse, where are the people that would normally decry a chummy, personal and secretive relationship between Emanuel, a partisan government operative recently called the second most powerful man in Washington, and major members of the Old Media? Where's the outrage that the Obama administration is secretly programing media coverage?

Ed Morrissey of HotAir reminds us of the Old Media outcry that was raised when it was thought that the Pentagon held briefings for analysts that reported on military affairs.

Last April, The New York Times rebuked the Pentagon for offering information to analysts as a sort of breach of the public trust and reported the angry words of Democrat Ike Skelton (D- MO) on the matter.

Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a speech on Thursday that he and many other members of Congress were “very angry” about the issues raised by the article. “The story does not reflect well on the Pentagon, on the military analysts in question, or on the media organizations that employ them,” he said.

As Skelton said in April, the cozy relationship the TV analysts had with the Pentagon called those analyst's veracity into question. If this concept was true last April, then the same absolutely must be said of Carville, Begala and Greenberg, and even more so of ABC's George Stephanopoulos who is supposed to be a "news" man as opposed to an opinionist as Carville and Begala are.

After all, if we were expected to discount the military analysts because of their close relationship with the Pentagon, we absolutely have to view these supposed news guys with the same jaundiced eye since they are in daily, secret conversations with the President's Chief of Staff.

So, we should be expecting CNN and ABC to announce their embarrassment that their purported "news" men are being so co-opted, right? We must be ready at any time to hear people say that Stan Greenburg's work is forever compromised and untrustworthy, right? We must be on the verge of apologies by all four men for allowing their veracity to be called into question because of their cozy relationship with the Obama White House... right?

If not, then why not? Where is the proper level of outrage?

Unless...

Could it be?

Could it maybe be that these "news" agencies don't care if their news men are being co-opted by the White House because it's THIS White House? One run by a Democrat. And a White House run by The One, at that?

Well, I for one, am calling for ABC and CNN to fire Carville, Begala and Stephanopoulos as well as for everyone to stop considering Greenberg's work worthy of attention. Short of firing the three TV newsers, the networks should tell their employees to cease and desist with these secret planning sessions with the White House and issue apologies to the viewers for not informing them of this secret pipeline to power.

How can we believe that Carville, Begala and especially Stephanopoulos will be informing us of what is really going on since we are now aware that they have been daily joining a powerful member of the Democratic Party in ideological strategizing? How can we believe that we are getting anything other than the Party line directly from Barack Obama instead of unbiased news when these three men speak to us from our TVs?

Fire Carville, Begal and Stephanopoulos now. They have sold out to Obama and cannot be trusted to report the news to the viewing public.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Surprised?

In my car this afternoon I was wondering where Begala and Carville were in this picture and voilla'  Rush answered the thought.

This has been going on during this entire election cycle, no surprise for me. 

Wasn't

I wasn't aware Rush had talked of this, but it is a good point regardless.

Who will be appointed to head the new

Ministry of Propaganda. It can't be long in coming.  I wonder what new name will be applied?

Happy Trails...

already have that new name

check out the website: 

msnbc.gov

The money quote in the

The money quote in the Politico article is this:

The calls “are about what’s happening, what the implications are of what’s happening and what’s going on,” said Emanuel. 

From his own mouth: it's a strategy session.

I like Mary Matalin, but she's missing the boat on this one.  Rahm Emanuel  says differently.

 

Norto..........

"This has been going on during this entire election cycle, no surprise for me."

It 's probably been going on since Shrillery came up with the VRWC crap. It was projection, something the dems do in almost everything.

Ironic hypocrisy. And they

Ironic hypocrisy. And they have the balls to say Fox News touts Republican talking points.  Why am I not surprised in the least.However I think the voters should be reminded of this, and often.

"Forget change, I want improvement!"

Fire Carville, Begal and

Fire Carville, Begal and Stephanopoulos now.

And whose firing did you call for when Scot McClellan revealed the Bush White House routinely sent talking points to Fox News?

Jer

Nice to know you support

Nice to know you support their activities, Jer.  No surprise there.

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

There is a difference

There is a difference between sending "Talking Points" to a News Organization and holding a conversation. The "Talking Points" could also be called a news release. It is a one way conversation. The daily early morning calls described are two way conversations. It could also be called a daily planning session. The left always tried to accuse Fox of being in the tank for the administration. Fox had a choice of using the "Talking Points/Press Release" or not. If what has been reported is true this is really disturbing. This completely destroys the notion of an Independent Press. It is much worse than bias. This means that the Government can dictate the message with the press to control the populace. It is George Orwells 1984. If you cannot see this then you have already been co-opted by the "Ministry of Truth".

Agree, Rich. There is a

Agree, Rich.

There is a WORLD of difference between sending out talking points and having a chat in which coverage can be discussed and planned.

And no one should be under any illusion that this wasn't planned from the beginning, when Emanuel was named Chief of Staff.

I wonder if it is a conference call.

This is collusion.  

Who watches the watchers?

I know NB and other bloggers, but once this gets out, they will just get more secretive.

 

 

AND...

And not just A CALL, but a DAILY call!!

As for Jer, the left is

As for Jer, the left is always looking for equivalence (even when it's not there) to justify their abhorant actions.

___________________________________ 

The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech

There is a WORLD of

There is a WORLD of difference between sending out talking points and having a chat in which coverage can be discussed and planned.

There are obvious difference in form, but the substantive differences are more difficult to guage without more information.  How are the talking points framed?  Do they contain straightforward facts, or are they more 'position, opinion, and suggestion' oriented?  On the other hand, what is the nature of the daily "chat"?  Harris' article is largely a compilation of facts, but the one area of sheer speculation is his personal belief that--"political and media interpretation...is quite likely...hatched on these calls."  [My emphasis in bold]

 

And no one should be under any illusion that this wasn't planned from the beginning, when Emanuel was named Chief of Staff.

In other words, you pile one assumption on top of another and then present it as unassailable fact.

 

I wonder if it is a conference call.

I believe the article indicated some of them are.

 

This is collusion.

Who watches the watchers?

I know NB and other bloggers, but once this gets out, they will just get more secretive.

Collusion?  secretive?  These "chats" have been going on with no apparent effort to conceal them for seventeen years.  Furthermore, Stephanopolous is on once a week.  How often are Begala and Carville on CNN?  [I haven't watched in a while, but I don't believe it's daily.] 

I'm not endorsing the chats.  There is at the very least an appearance of impropriety issue.  But--this may come as a shock--both Democrat and Republican administrations have, for generations now, maintained special relationships with favored media outlets, reporters, columnists, etc. and used them as conduits for their message.  Frankly, it sounds like there was not so much of that taking place but rather "guy talk" among Emanuel and friends.  That said, I think Stephanopolous in particular should address this 'revelation' and explain the nature of his participation.

Jer

Jer, a couple of points

Frankly, it sounds like there was not so much of that taking place but rather "guy talk" among Emanuel and friends.

Well that's not what Rahm Emanuel said.  He said:

The calls “are about what’s happening, what the implications are of what’s happening and what’s going on,”  (quoted from the Politico article, emphasis added).

To me, that's "collusion."  You call it what you want. And yeah, they will just get more secretive. It certainly hasn't been public knowledge up until now, but maybe I could have left out the "more."

That said, I think Stephanopolous in particular should address this 'revelation' and explain the nature of his participation. 

And once he does, and says it was all very innocent, it should be forgotten, right?

 

 

 

here's my prediction MB

This is how I see it all playing out...

Steph: Politico's explanation is no longer operative.

Emanuel: How dare they expose that! It's mean! I'm getting death threats!

Obama: I fail to see what this has to do with working together to spend more bailout money.

Matthews: Racist Republicans have no compassion for poor people.

Lefties on NB: Republicans have harped on this enough and Obama has already made a statement. It's time to moveon.org

 

Dissent is the truest voice of patriotism, except when it hinders a Democrat.

Jer

That has to be one of the most disingenuous things you've ever said.

So how do you exsplain this?

 And whose firing did you call for when Scot McClellan revealed the Bush White House routinely sent talking points to Fox News?

How about the fact it never happened? Unless of course you think they would had let there 2 biggest stars out of the loop.

McClellan later apologized to Fox News commentator, Bill O'Reilly for not responding to Matthews' suggestion that "Bill" or "Sean" received the talking points; McClellan said he had no personal knowledge that O'Reilly ever received the talking points. Furthermore he pointed out "the way a couple of questions were phrased in that interview along with my response left things open to interpretation and I should not have let that happen".[62]

http://en.wikipedia....

If I were you Jer, I would not site anything from a prooven lier

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

general company...

I know BOR called McClellan on the carpet and slapped him around, but I don't recall McClellan explicitly and thoroughly disavowing his claim that Fox News was frequently sent "talking points" by the Bush administration.  If he has, then I will (humbly) retract my previous statement to the contrary.

Jer

Jer

. .Watch the video of it, then tell me who you believe. Bill made it quite clear to him and his viewers it never happened. The White House also denied it as well.

Bill even told him he was being used by the left, poor Scott all but agreed with him.

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

general company... I

general company...

I actually saw the original airing of the interview, but my attention wasn't riveted.  I recall O'Reilly taking McClellan to task, and the latter sort of [exaggeration alert] stuttering and sweating.  Do you have a link to the video or transcript?  Is your previous quote verbatim?  If so, McClellan's words are susceptible to contradictory inferences. 

However, let me be clear:  Even if the administration did exactly as McClellan originally alleged, it's neither a crime nor unprecedented.

Jer  

Well sorta

 Edit: 

Only between the quotes. The link to the video is located somewhere in your search bar,,,, : ]

 

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

Warner...

That has to be one of the most disingenuous things you've ever said.

Be more specific.  Where exactly does it rank?  I may be in line for some sort of trophy.

Jer

Jer

Did you happen to read McClellan's book? I did, just curious what you thought about it. As for Fox, some of their shows lean right, their opinion shows are to the right, and the basic news is very even. Most people think everyone at Fox is a conservative, and that is just not true! As much as I don't like Shep Smith, he is pretty fair. Chris Wallace is fair, Greta VS is fair, Cavuto is fair. You don't think, or even know, what party they belong to when you watch them. Kind of the way it should be, right??

 

Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke

tbdi... No I haven't. 

tbdi...

No I haven't.  I've got about 6 books lined up now to read but unfortunately lack the discipline and the rapid reading ability which you obviously possess.

I'll give you my thoughts on Fox News later.  No time now.

Take care, Jer

Baaaaaaaaaaaaa

.

Jer, what did your boys say

Jer, what did your boys say about that. I do believe in their hypocritical way they blasted Fox for what they perceived to be a conflict of interest. And they hypocritically stated such on a daily basis.

If I remember correctly both the White House and Fox denied it. It wouldn't surprise that it was McClellan himself that sent talking points to Fox a few times so he could include it in his book. Isn't it ironic that your boys called McCellan stupid (which he is) until he came out with his anti-Bush book. All of a sudden he is a patriot and to this day is used as an expert on everything anti-Bush. McClellan was an idiot then and he is an idiot now. I hope people that he passes on the street greet him with a well deserved finger. Outside of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews he has no one he can call friend.

Did you call the media or Obama on it when they accidentally published Obama's talking points complete with questions to ask during the campaign?   

"Forget change, I want improvement!"

kg... I always thought

kg...

I always thought McClellan was pretty lame, and still do.  As for the veracity of his claim, note my previous response to general company up the thread.

Jer

Jer? Jer? Where are you

Jer? Jer?

Where are you with a snappy come back? 

How can you say there is no difference between President Bush's WH sending out what can be considered a statement and a member of Obama's staff holding what appears to be DAILY strategy sessions with members of the media?

Scuba Dude...

Can't think of a good, smartass retort, Scuba.  [Well,  my response to Warner's rather terse observation may have had a little snap to it.]

Regarding your second question, it depends on what was discussed and with whom.  As I said to motherbelt, I think Stephanopolous in particular should explain his role.

Jer

cmon Jer

I know you're better than that.

 An unpopular staffer leaves Bush's side to write a tell-all book replete with sketchy details and vague accusations...and you're comparing that to a Politico report with specific names.

Then instead of having enough class to respond sensibly, you decide to move the blame onto NB and attack WTH for having some double standard.

 

 

 

This typical white girl will always embrace what's right.

I know you're better than

I know you're better than that

And I say you do not know Jer.  Jer is qa socialist through and through and will not change.  Jer has been around for a long time and has shown his colors.  He may seem tame at times but he is like a tame wild animal and his wildness will show over time. 

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

candance...

I know you're better than that.

I just hate those "are you still beating your wife" type questions/statements.

An unpopular staffer leaves Bush's side to write a tell-all book replete with sketchy details and vague accusations...and you're comparing that to a Politico report with specific names.

Yeah...but I just picked out the vague allegation that really appealed to me.  [Also see my reply to motherbelt re facts vs. speculation.]

Then instead of having enough class to respond sensibly...

Did you note the time of my initial response, candance?  And you expected it to be sensible

Jer

BTW...To really know me, you need to converse with Dan the Man, who has divined my true colors as a "qa socialist".

LOL Jer

There was a reason I didn't respond to Dan's comment.

:-D

 

 

Dissent is the truest voice of patriotism, except when it hinders a Democrat.

There's no bias in the

There's no bias in the media--just propaganda, pure and simple. 

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

Something Is

Something is rotten in DC.

Is Emanuel the reason only highlights of press briefings are offered at whitehouse.gov, the reason the press link was completely removed?

Interesting this and interesting to see how it will be handled.

It's about control

Make no mistake, it's about control of the message. This administration has shown us so far that they will be masters at controlling thier message. The staff at the White House so far has proven to be very astute at controlling the message. I do not believe this will last more than 5 or 6 months. The Press, no matter how much they support this regime, still have thier own agenda. They have to file daily stories. They will not be satisfied with just filing what the White House says. They have to prove thier own individual worth, to both thier editors and thier readers/audience every day.

If however the natural dynamic between the Press and Government is weakened as this story seems to demonstrate, we as a country are in real danger. If the Government bails out various failing Newspapers will they too become an arm of the message dispersal of government? That is why I find the news story of the early morning calls disturbing. Keep a watchfull eye out for small events or stories that indicate government controlling the message entirely. The Fairness Act, Silencing thier criticts, any form of this might be sold as a measure used in these extraordinary times.

For all of those who still have symptoms of BDS, he never made a move to silence or demean those who were critical of him. Think of all the contrary voices. If any measure is taken to completely control what we know we are ALL the worse off for it.

What do dictators do?

What do dictators do? Control the message. Just like Obama did during the elections. Notice that the word "Muslim" was not allowed; nor the word "Hussain". But.....where did he give his first TV interview? To Al-Arabiya. an Arab TV network. And what did he emphasize? -- "I'm a muslim" is what he emphasized. He didn't actually say it -- but he came awfully close when he said "I have Muslim members of my family." On the presidential campaign trail, his ties to the religion were treated as a big liability, with his campaign constantly battling false rumors that Obama is Muslim.

___________________________________ 

The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech

Why can't we question REPORTERS like they question POLITICIANS?

... I don't think I've ever seen a reporter being questioned?  I'm not talking about shows where they question each other about politics.  I'm talking about question like "Why are you meeting with RAHMBO and what are you plotting?"  As good as NewsBusters is as an outlet for news consumers' frustrations, we need people with recorders standing outside the Wasghington COMPOST doors.  How long can they hide behind "UNDISCLOSED SOURCES" nonsense?

April, 2003: CNN admits

April, 2003: CNN admits that knowledge of murder, torture, and planned assassinations were suppressed in order to maintain CNN's Baghdad bureau.

The following question was asked about CNN at that time: In what other regions ruled by terrorist dictators do the media toe the party line so as to remain in good stead?

I think we have our answer: Obama's White House

January, 2009: CNN admits to secret planning sessions with the WH in order to influence Washington, DC policy-making.

___________________________________ 

The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech

How very..ROVIAN..of them.

How very..ROVIAN..of them. *rolling eyes*

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

Hrm...

Is Rahm the new Rove?

Yes, only now, in the

Yes, only now, that's a good  thing!

Because he's their "evil genius."

LOL

 

Obama's Dialectical Conundrum

Obama
and his Liberal supporters, followers, and worshipers are trapped in a
'Dialectical Conundrum' or the struggle of the opposites.

Liberals
struggle at being the victim of paralyzing oppression and the mind
numbing guilt of oppressing others with their policies and solutions.

Obama
and his cadre of Liberal minions must oppress and make 'Victims', to
ensure a steady supply of 'Victims' for their solutions and programs,
or those solutions and programs will fail.

The 'Obama Perfect
Government'
is about rewarding incompetence and punishing success, for
the successful can't be successful unless the failures fail, hence
Obama must boost the failures back up, to bring Obama equality to
America again.

Obama believes failure will be the success of his Administration.

This is more insideous then the Soviet system

At least with the Soviets everybody knew that the government controlled the media, including the population.

This is being done secretly and for no good purpose. It's only to fool the people and to deceive them.

Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!

Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012

Interesting...

 

They have sold out to Obama and cannot be trusted to report the news to the viewing public.

Interesting. Have these "mugs" ever been trustworthy in the first place? Not as far as I'm concerned.

The whole thing stinks of

The whole thing stinks of collusion, but it is worst for Stephanopoulos. 

Carville and Begala are not reporters, but it they do have ample opportunity on different shows to expound the preferred view.

Stephanopoulos, however, is the Chief Washington Correspondent for ABC News....which makes his participation in this completely beyond any semblance of propriety. If ABC News doesn't put an immediate stop to it or fire him, they have completely trashed any claim of being a "news" organization.

 

But seriously, MB

Did anyone ever have a doubt that these guys manipulated their stories and commentary to advance the Democratic agenda?

Did Hillary or Bill stop lying when they left the White House? Did Carville or Begala ever stop spinning? Did Emanuel ever stop playing the game, clean or dirty, as he did when he was in the White House? This is what these guys do. Just because the media stopped paying attention to them didn't mean they stopped doing it.

And here's the key - they're not going to change. Clintonistas work for Clinton ... forever. When Obama picked Hillary and Emanuel, there's only two ways to look at those appointments. Either Obama wanted them to continue doing their thing, or he naively thought they would be doing it on his behalf.

So how do you think that The Most Beloved, Lord Barack Obama, reacted when he realized that his chief of staff was part of the Clinton Roundtable? And let's not kid each other. In this Clinton/Obama relationship: who's the puppet, who's pulling the strings? Is the Clinton gang taking orders from Barack, or are they giving the orders?

A few days ago I asked the

A few days ago I asked the question about liberal talking points and where do they come from. At the time it was the issue of "books." Matthews' comments about Sarah Palin; some Lib Congresswoman said something intangible about Republicans and books; and some other ridiculous comment was written, all on this same "book" subject. At the time I asked who disseminates this stuff and if they were hiring. I think I've got my answer.

My newest questions are: What does Snuffy, that troll Carville, and those two other Hitler Youth do with the information discussed with Rahm the Enforcer? Do they just keep it to themselves and try to break new stories, or do they tell two friends and so on? Who calls Fox News with this information? One of these guys must be calling the NYT or they'd be screaming bloody murder for being left out and not part of the decision-making process.

You know, for a brand new administration elected partly on bold promises of openiness, making direct comparisons to the previous administration of which so many were outraged at the secretness and consolidation of powers, this is turning out to be dictorial compared to that. Look, I understand the desire to have your party in power; I wanted McCain even though I thought he was less than qualified to represent Conservatives- but this looks like the equivilent of electing Vladimir Putin! Can anybody say the Dems may have cut off their nose to spite their face?

Oh... and what do you bet

Oh... and what do you bet the only outrage from the MSM about this will be from those like NBC and CBS who'll complain that they were left out of the the 'secret news policy, public opinion-shaping bull sessions'... Not that they shouldn't occur, only that they should have been part of it...

And if BOR is still looking out for the folks, he should be all over this... 

This is nothing new

In the 19th century presidential administrations regularly had their own newspapers to put out the party line and each political party had newspapers in all of the major cities around the country.

The only difference between that and today is that back then the owners were not ashamed to say that they were a mouthpiece of a particular administration, the Dems or the Whigs or whoever and everybody understood what was going on.

Today, however, the owners of these newspapers and networks say, with a straight face, that they are non-partisan and expect people to believe them. 

The tragedy of course is that a lot of people do.

I have to admit

This doesnt suprize me in the least, most of these morons are not even smart enough to think of the hypocrocy they spew. They do need to be fired, not just the 3 named here either. Some of these cheering sections of the so called media should have their privledges taken away. But that wont happen either. The Dems will continue to ride this pony no matter how the public feels about it. 

Democrat=lier, without the lies they have nothing to say

 

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

What;s the big deal

PRAVDA did it this way...

Double Standards

Begala and Carville get a pass, because their position as democratic party spokesmen and partisans is well known. Stephanopopolis and his employer however have been passing him off as an objective newsman and given him his own shows.

Imagine if Karl Rove was giving secret briefings to Brit Hume and Chris Wallace every day during President Bush's administration and that news got out. It would lead to an official Congressional Preening, probably led by the halfwit Conyers.

Well, I, for one, am

Well, I, for one, am shocked.  Shocked, I tell you. :-)

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill

ahh..

well how they all stay on message so well is much more clear.

shocked? nothing about this administration shocks me. 

"part of what I'm hoping to introduce as the next president is a new ethic of [government enforced] responsibility" - B. Obama

Treasonous, Sir

Mr. Spetanaphglous: resign, sir. This will not stand.

ABC MUST require that

ABC MUST require that Stephnopoulos post a 'full disclosure' banner everytime he is on-air.  Anything less is cheating their viewers.  I am shocked that the ABC sponsors/advertisers are not making a fuss!