In satirical payback, Obama camp denies New Yorker writer plane seat

[RamboLiberal]

There's probably no connection whatsoever.

But the New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza, whose long, long article on Barack Obama's early political days in Chicago's ward politics (available here) was the reason for the magazine's controversial cover by Barry Blitt depicting Obama as a Muslim, has been barred from traveling with Obama on his foreign field trip this week.

-----

More than 200 media folks applied to fly in Europe with the freshman senator. But, alas, the Obama campaign said it simply was not able to find a seat for Lizza.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/obama-newyorker.html

[David__77]

1. That's funny.

I think that a humorous response is best.

[SOS]

2. It's not an insult to The New Yorker...

It's a satire of the Republican's assumed response by the Obama campaign.
Funny stuff, indeed.

[highplainsdem]

3. Unfortunately, this just gives more attention to Lizza's story on Obama's Chicago background,

a story which was largely overlooked at the time because of the cover controversy. The stories and blog posts I've seen on this already are all directing people to the Lizza story, guaranteeing it will be read more widely now. It wasn't flattering to Obama, and I've suspected the campaign might have been more upset by Lizza's story than by the cover, which was easily spun to Obama's advantage. This snub seems to confirm that.

[woolldog]

9. I read that article and didn't find the story to be negative.

It portrayed Obama as a realistic, tough politician who doesn't let himself get pushed around. I think it's a good counter-meme to the "liberal wimp" nonsense that's floating around.

[highplainsdem]

13. His Chicago background plays against the meme that he's a different kind of

politician, and I've been expecting the GOP to start exploiting that after the convention. The Lizza story wasn't as negative as some stories about Obama's Chicago background have been, but I don't think most people would read it as flattering to him, and the campaign couldn't have been happy with it. After all, if they'd liked it, they'd've wanted Lizza on the plane, as a thank-you for a favorable article, and a way of showing they were big enough NOT to snub the New Yorker for a cover that ultimately helped Obama because of the outrage over it.

[bunkerbuster1]

29. I've no problem with people reading the article.

It has some hatchet-piece trimmings, but is overall a cold, hard look at a brilliant politician.

I've no problem with the public's perception evolving from him being a "too-nice" kinda guy to a ruthlessly efficient one.

[highplainsdem]

32. I think the article would be read differently by people who aren't already committed to Obama.

I ran across this checking Google News this morning, and while I didn't post a topic about it because it doesn't belong here as a topic, I want to show you this now to show you how that Lizza story will be spun:

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/GuyBenson/2008/07/21/when_obama_attacks

[bunkerbuster1]

38. ooh, townhall!

Ya know, if you get a free trial subscription to their printed version, you get "exclusive commentary from FRED THOMPSON!"

Just raggin' ya.

Obviously those who think Obama's a scary colored america-hatin' liberal are going to use this article as ammo, but any investigation of his political past is going to be used that way.

anyway, thanks for the article link. Gives me (and you) ammo to hit back, by knowing what to expect from the feebs who read this crap.

[highplainsdem]

39. LOL. What do they charge people not to have to hear from Fred Thompson?

[JackORoses]

43. you sound like you aren't already committed on Obama, once again

[highplainsdem]

46. You sound as if you think Democrats can't support Obama and still be aware of how others

are reacting or might react.

Sorry I'm not oblivious enough to the existence of other viewpoints for you. But I've always preferred to live in the reality-based community.

[stray cat]

4. If it is an intentional snub, Obama campaign is acting like Bush in award-based access

[IndyOp]

5. Yep. If intentional, then it was a bad move, IMO. (n/t)

[1Hippiechick]

8. As in keep your friends close, your enemies closer? n/t

[Hutzpa]

18. I don't believe in that BS philosophy

IMO anyone who believes in keeping your enemies closer is a fool and
deserved to get whats coming to them.

[1Hippiechick]

61. Gee, seems like it would be easier to keep an eye on them if they were closer.....n/t

[Jakes Progress]

17. Intentional or not,

it comes off as silly and petty. Those are not attributes we want to be hung on our candidate. He needs better advisors and help.

[Hutzpa]

19. huh.. huh... the Republicans are allowed to

get nasty but Democrats are not, how condescending of you to make
such a statement, I sometimes wonder where some of our thinking
originates from.

[Jakes Progress]

21. So it's a good thing

when we act like the stupid, selfish, childish, crybaby republicans? You know, that party with the 24% approval rating. You want us to be like them?

Sometimes, I wonder where some of our thinking originates from.

[Hutzpa]

24. I don't believe in allowing

anyone to come close to defame my character, besides, the campaign
is saying they don't have seat for him at this time and it should be
taken as that instead of us trying to analyze why the Obama campaign
refused him entry.

I do not see that as acting selfish, childish, crybaby as you so
eloquently put it, this has nothing compared to what Republicans
are capable of and YOU should know that.

[Pirate Smile]

54. 200 people applied for 40 seats. It is a fake story. Don't fall for it.

Mayhill Fowler talked about how nice the Obama campaign was to her after she broke the bittergate story.

Lizza didn't even write anything bad. A lot of people actually liked the story. Lizza said a lot of Democrats told him "thank God" because they were worried Obama wasn't tough enough. After reading the story, those Dems weren't concerned.

I read it and liked it.

The only thing the article revealed was that Obama is a politician - just like the 43 men who actually made it to the Presidency.

People need to not fall for BS stories. Were the other 160 reporters who didn't make the campaign plane snubbed? I don't think so.

[TankLV]

79. sometimes a cooincidence is just that...

unlike what has PROVED to be the opposite of bunkerboy and the repukes...

[NewYorkerfromMass]

85. Doesn't matter if intentional or not

it now makes folks second guess a motive, which in the end is bad.
This is an (unfunny) screw up by the Obama campaign.

[Cronus Protagonist]

30. If intentional, GOOD MOVE

Got ta rein in these media whores and show them who's boss. The alternative is to let them fuck you like a convict picking up soap in the shower.

[Radical Activist]

58. Considering how biased the press was in favor of Bush

I don't mind.

[AZBlue]

64. 200 applied wtth only room for 40. Don't believe the PUMA/GOP hype.

[glitch]

82. Agreed, which is why I don't think it was intentional. No matter how much fun it is for the media to

play it that way.

[islandmkl]

6. the New Yorker doesn't get to travel along??

gee...now I won't get that coverage of national and international politics that the New Yorker is so well known for....

i like reading it, but it is not cutting-edge reporting in most cases...

blow-back effect: zero

[high density]

7. Just as funny as the New Yorker's biting satire!

Here comes the next bit of MSM manufactured outrage. Who cares what Obama did on his trip, he didn't let Lizza come so it's 24/7 outrage time!

[DFLforever]

10. What's wrong with the New Yorker - can't they take a joke?

Reward points for the Lizza article need to be filled with the McCain campaign.

[Whisp]

52. heheh. i'm kinda hoping it was intentional.

ya just never know, the campaign is clever as anything.
I'm sure there were tons more applications than seats available so it would be easy to say the NYer just lost like so many others.

heh heh
heh

[ErinBerin84]

11. agree with others that it would be really shitty if this was intentional

that being said, I'm just not sure that it was...I am sensing a lot of jealousy from some other journalists that they weren't allowed along for the ride too (not in this LA Times blog, just certain people on tv...CNN especially).

[Hutzpa]

12. haha!! if its true

<with the words of Scarface and accent to match> "now data I like"

retribution of justice.... what goes around comes around...

FUCKIN POS!!


:evilgrin:

[Captain Hilts]

14. If true, that's petty. 'Bush League', literally and figureatively, however it's spelled. nt

[BeyondGeography]

15. Intentional or not, I like that it makes the New Yorker at least wonder

Fuck with their heads a little bit...they earned it.

[Connie_Corleone]

16. We should know by now to take these "stories" with a grain of salt.

[my3boyz]

20. Good! Now if he would cancel that interview with Charlie Gibson I would be happy.nt

[babylonsister]

22. Looks like 200 journos applied and only 40 got on, so I wouldn't

say Lizza's absence is necessarily intentional:


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008/reportersblog/2008/07/obama_trip_attracting_media_ci.html

Obama Trip Attracting Media Circus, Criticism from McCain Camp
By Talea Miller on July 18, 2008


Sen. Barack Obama’s first overseas trip as a presidential candidate is shaping up to be a mob-scene of press coverage.

Obama will be traveling with a plane full of journalists, and at least 200 have applied to come on the trip, though only about 40 will be able to go. The big names will be along for the ride too: top newspaper reporters and network nightly news anchors Brian William, Charles Gibson and Katie Couric.

It’s a stark contrast from Sen. John McCain’s trip to the Middle East in March, which received only modest coverage. McCain did not invite reporters along with him on that trip.

Obama’s campaign has announced visits to Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and England. They have not said publicly whether Obama will go to Iraq and Afghanistan on this trip, but he is expected to.

more...

[Eyes_wide_ open]

35. yep

Takes on a surprising different, kind of non story thing when you put it context doesn't it?

[Pirate Smile]

59. It doesn't make Obama look bad that way.

Why did you have to bring that whole context thing into this? Although I see some people seem to think Lizza should have gotten special treatment and a seat just because ....:shrug:

[seasat]

42. And Ryan Lizza isn't really as much a reporter as an opinion writer

They probably reserved the seats for the traditional reporters and limited seating for magazine opinion writers.

During Lizza's tenure at The New Republic, the magazine was a big proponent of the Iraq war. He's the one that coined the phrase "slow bleed" to describe the Democratic strategy on the Iraq war. I've never liked his pieces as he always goes out of his way to present a negative spin on his subjects no matter how small the negative is. His articles are kind of like reading a mix of standard reporting with National Enquirer type innuendo. I guess he thinks he's fair and balanced that way. Bryan Williams thinks of him as one of the "must read" authors which is an endorsement against him, IMHO.

[high density]

47. Wow, full facts instead of half of the facts

That helps.

[babylonsister]

48. Yes, there's enough out there to be annoyed at w/o fabricating more. nt

[PVnRT]

57. I'm sure the media will do their job and report this important information

:sarcasm:

[babylonsister]

63. That's where I got it from. nt

[JerseygirlCT]

62. Yes, that's giving Lizza more importance than he probably rates

I'm sure the NYT is represented - and that they want to cover the other big markets as well...

[SoCalDem]

65. Yep.. If 200 applied for 200 seats, and only 199 were accepted

If Lizza was the one who did not get accepted and they took off with one left behind, that would be a snub..

[tsuki]

23. With 200 reporters wanting a seat, he should suffer through Lizza.

I don't think so. Kudos to Barack.

[VolcanoJen]

26. Rachel Sklar jumped to the same ridiculous conclusion over at HuffPost.

Poor Rachel and the Poor, Poor New Yorker and their imaginary snub. :-)

[highplainsdem]

25. Rachel Sklar (Huffington Post) on "Obama's Revenge":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/obamas-revenge-emnew-york_n_113969.html

Wow. So it's gonna be like that, is it? Retribution for unfavorable coverage is a chilling thing to contemplate — literally, as in, it carries with it the very real risk of chilling bold, outspoken coverage. Whatever one thinks of the New Yorker cover — that it was clear satire that clearly lampooned ridiculous rumors, that it went way overboard, that it was a comedic misfire — a robust press can't operate under threat of reprisal for unwelcome items.

Yes, I know, it happens every day (and, some would argue, pretty much every day of the last eight years). Even so, it sends a clear — and worrisome — signal from the Obama campaign: If we don't like it, man, will you know it. (And presumably it will hurt, like being excluded from The Trip Of The Century is surely meant to do.) Adulatory Rolling Stone covers beget adulatory Rolling Stone covers — with interviews, and that goes double for Newsweek (that's literally; yesterday on Reliable Sources, Howie Kurtz counted five of them). But otherwise, should the media fear a freeze-out?

(I should note here, too, that the media is not exactly freewheeling in how it covers Obama — early on in the primary campaign I noted that people were more careful when writing/speaking of Obama, and over the ensuing months we saw clearly how quickly the outrage-tripwires were triggered when people misspoke, or "misspoke").

-snip-

The irony is that the person Heismanned here was Lizza, who just wrote a 15,000 word piece about what Obama learned about hardscrabble politics on his upward arc in Chicago. According to a Chicago pol interviewed by Lizza, he earned a reputation that "'you're not going to punk me, you're not going to roll me over, you're not going to jam me.'" That seems to be the message the Obama campaign was sending here.

Or maybe, like Ari Fleischer once warned, they would just like people to watch what they say.

As I mentioned in another reply here, I suspect the Obama campaign wasn't at all happy about Lizza's description of Obama's Chicago background, even though it wasn't as negative as some other stories about that background have been. I believe the snub was aimed at Lizza in particular as well as the New Yorker in general. But reactions like Sklar's mean the snub will backfire.

[ErinBerin84]

28. eh, I'm kind of skeptical about this still. It's all speculation that this was "pay back",

, when only a select group of journalists got to attend. And it's not really a big shock to most people who are familiar with Rachel Sklar that she would have this type of reactoin.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

40. Rachel Sklar can take her concern-trolling and shove it up her snooty ass.

With hundreds of reporters from publications all over the world clamoring to get a spot on the plane, the New Yorker simply doesn't merit being given priority, their recent "15 minutes" over the satirical cover notwithstanding.

[Hutzpa]

41. Its amazing how this poster is in some ways

trying to defend the reporter, but watch out now, it might call you delusional.

[highplainsdem]

50. I called you delusional because you asked if I am the reporter.

You're posting some of the most bizarre comments I've ever seen here.

[thewiseguy]

27. And who ASSumed that this was a payback?

They had 40 seats for 200 journalists who applied. Keep in mind that three of 3 of the 40 were anchors.

[brooklynite]

33. This was clearly a satirical riff on the airline industry...

...and the growing uncertainties of commercial air travel. Anyone with an intellectual bent could see that.

[Catherine Vincent]

34. LOL! You don't mess with Obama.

He knows how to lay the snub on you. Ask Hillary Clinton!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

36. Jesus, who needs to read FR when folks on DU do such a great job trashing our candidate!

So what if Ryan Lizza got denied a spot? Maybe there just wasn't room for him. To read some of the responses here, I guess they should have kicked someone else off to accomodate him. Oh yeah, we simply must go out of our way to kiss the asses of journalists who write scathing hit pieces. Wouldn't want to deny them access. :sarcasm:

[Catherine Vincent]

37. Time to redo this toon:

[Marie26]

44. That's just petty.

Bush does stuff like that; we definitely shouldn't.

[Alexander]

45. 200 reporters tried to get seats. 40 made it on board.

It's obvious this was completely unintentional.

[highplainsdem]

49. Even if it was unintentional, the problem is that the timing makes it look intentional.

If the Obama campaign could release some information on other journalists who usually travel with Obama being shut out, it might help prove it wasn't done as a snub, as payback.

[babylonsister]

51. Who's making this an issue? Why is it an issue? I'm sure if Lizza

feels put out, he'll write about it. Why is DU obsessing?

[Alexander]

53. Exactly. Who cares?

[highplainsdem]

55. Comments from Joe Gandelman, editor of The Moderate Voice:

http://themoderatevoice.com/media/freedom-of-the-press/21202/new-yorker-reporter-denied-seat-on-obama-overseas-trip-plane/

If this was mere happenstance, then it’s an example of poor and short-sighted staffing. If this was unintentional, it gives the appearance of payback and shows the kind of sloppy staffwork that can sink campaigns — and that the Obama campaign has notably not shown in the past.

If it was no coincidence, then it shows the Obama campaign is going to throw down the gauntlet to news organizations that run items that create big political problems. That would mean the Obama operation may face a rocky road if Obama wins, since this kind of tactic does not portend smooth press relations. If it was sending the New Yorker a message, editors all over the country will look at it and be determined not to be intimidated if they have something the Obama camp doesn’t like during the campaign or if Obama wins the White House.

But to many, this being coincidental will likely to be seem to be to coincidences as Maliki’s insistence through a spokesman more than 12 hours after the fact and after a call from the Bush administration that Der Speigel misquoted him: it flunks both the smell and the logic tests. And cover story explanations, even those passionately echoed by axe-to-grind partisans, won’t erase the conclusion.

Some partisans will invariably say: “Well, this happens under Bush..”

And then talk about change.

Does that comment from an editor help explain why this is an issue?

[babylonsister]

56. That's someone spouting off with his opinion, which we all have. I'll

wait for Lizza's indignation.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

66. Gandelman can stuff it up his ass too.

Comparing some pretentious asswipe from the New Yorker not getting a seat on Obama's plane to the Bush administration intimidating Prime Minister Maliki is fucking ludicrous. There is no comparison. As a poster pointed out below, Lizza can buy his own ticket.

[Skwmom]

71. Does not portend smooth press relations. ROFLMAO. It worked wonders for Bush.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

74. For real. Possibly the dumbest bit of concern trolling I've ever seen. nt

[Whisp]

86. put a fucking sock in it already....

gaaaaaawd!

[TexasObserver]

60. Apparently, the New Yorker doesn't get satire when they're the object of it.

The guy wrote a hit piece. Fuck him. Let him stay at home and read about it, or take a commercial flight on his own.

Fuck him and fuck the New Yorker. It's magazine written by pompous assholes for pompous assholes, and always has been.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

67. LOL!

:rofl:

And I say this as someone with a subscription to the New Yorker! :)

[TexasObserver]

72. It has its moments.

I used to read the New Yorker regularly for years, but its sense of self satisfaction grows weary after a while.

I like Sy Hersh's work, of course, and their cartoons are legendary, but I find that all periodicals get old after a few years. Each one has its way of selling news. With the internets, I no longer subscribe to any periodicals or newspapers. I graze my reading material online, from whatever sources seem worth reading on a particular day.

I was being hyperbolic in my earlier comments, but I really do feel that the New Yorker uses pomposity as a marketing tool. If you want to know who reads any publication, merely look at the advertisements, and you'll see a montage of the things that appeal to the people who read the periodical.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

73. They pride themselves on their insularity

And then pout when it's pointed out that no one outside of a small section of Manhattan gives a shit about them. That's why Lizza didn't get on the plane, not the infamous cartoon. The New Yorker wishes that Lizza was "snubbed".

[TexasObserver]

77. I agree with your conclusion, but the tempest in the teapot is still fun.

They had to pick 40, and there's no reason to try to reach the New Yorker audience. Everyone who reads the New Yorker already knows how they will vote in the presidential election. That's the main reason I found their recent cover art troubling. Among their readership, the joke was just fine. The problem is the secondary coverage and use of the cover. I knew as soon as I saw it that media would make that the focus of the discussion for 2-3 days. So, Obama gives a kick ass speech to the NAACP, and the coverage is about ... the New Yorker cover.

For The New Yorker, the cover art and the clamor were great for their marketing. They got more free publicity than any article could have gotten. They cannot have a huge marketing budget, so that's a real economic benefit to a periodical that hits only a very narrow demographic.

When I was a young professional in Houston years ago, congregating for breakfast at the Buffalo Grille on Sunday morning for pancakes and coffee, while reading the New Yorker and the NYT, was practically mandatory. You'd see us West University types sitting there, so full of our yuppie selves. West U. is a bedroom community, a separate city in the middle of Houston, where people run around with T shirts that say "005," which refers to the 77005 zip code.

[TheDonkey]

78. lol, agreed

[Cha]

68. I don't believe anything written about Obama

until I hear it from them.

[LVjinx]

84. So you think the New Yorker DID get on the plane?

[Occam Bandage]

69. 200 applied, 40 got seats. What, he should have gone out of his way to seat him as a reward?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

76. Of course!

Ryan Lizza should be given top priority, over the hundreds of other journos from publications all over the world. A magazine full of satirical essays aimed at self-satisfied Manhattanites wields such HUGE influence, you know. :sarcasm:

[silverweb]

70. 40 seats.

Okay, so if I were picking who got those 40 seats, my main criteria would be which publications represented would give the best and the widest coverage of this particular trip.

No matter how you look at it, The New Yorker is not a widely read magazine. Its total circulation was less than 1.1 million in 2006, and I doubt it's risen all that much since then. (By comparison, Obama's campaign has hit 2 million individual donors.)

The New Yorker's readership also tends to be educated people with a certain cultural sophistication -- not particularly the people Obama needs to reach most.

So I think The New Yorker not getting one of those 40 seats had nothing to do with any article, mag cover, or any petty "payback." I'm betting it had to do solely with the magazine's circulation and readership.

[Pisces]

75. there are only 40 seats. THe New Yorker doesn't rank. I have no problem with that.

[w4rma]

80. Yellow journalism for the gullible. You got conned. 200 applicants, but only 40 seats. (nt)

[gateley]

81. I don't like it if it IS payback --

It smacks of the Clinton reputation of holding grudges.

[KingFlorez]

83. Good