British reporter responds to Gibbs attack on British press

[Enrique]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/05/29/robert_gibbs_rattled_by_telegraph_story_lashes_out_at_british_press

(...)

Anticipating the question and preparing his attack, Gibbs came up with a plodding (and botched - it's not the Champion's League "Cup") quip about British football (aka soccer):

"I will speak generally about some reports I've witnessed over the past few years in the British media, and in some ways I'm surprised it filtered down. Let's just say if I wanted to look up -- if I wanted to read a write-up today of how Manchester United fared last night in the Champion's League Cup, I might open up a British newspaper. If I was looking for something that bordered on truthful news, I'm not entirely sure it would be the first stack of clips I picked up."

Later on, he said:

"Again, I think if you do an even moderate Google search, you're not going to find many of these newspapers and truth within, say, 25 words of each other."

But notice that when Gibbs was asked a direct question, he obfuscated:

Q: So are you saying that the report is completely false?

MR. GIBBS: I would refer you very closely to the statement that DOD put out that the article is wrong and mischaracterizes the photos that are in question.

Note that at no point does he deny the existence of the photographs. As Alex Massie notes, all this amounts to a classic non-denial denial.

It's funny, but I seem to remember Gibbs and the Obama campaign had no qualms with trumpeting my reporting on Hillary Clinton and her exaggerations about her foreign policy experience in Northern Ireland, or British newspaper coverage of Clinton's First Lady schedules.

(...)

[dionysus]

1. bully for him, i guess

[Divine Discontent]

2. staying true to form for White House press sec.'s ha... eom

[CJCRANE]

3. My take on this is that the Telegraph article refers to *another* set of photos

not the exact set that were going to be released.

[Enrique]

5. it refers to a quote by Gen.Taguba

I believe Taguba said what the paper reported he said.

I don't believe the Pentagon. I believe smear Gibbs applied to the British press is more true about the Pentagon. Rarely found near the truth.

[CJCRANE]

10. I agree. IMO it could be a set-up for a limited hangout.

Release some of the less shocking photos and hold back the worst ones (as described in the Telegraph).

[ClarkUSA]

33. Taguba fessed up. Gibbs and the Pentagon were telling the truth. (link -->)

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8440821

[ClarkUSA]

4. Let's cheer on the wingnut rag reporter! We trust British Tory MSM!

[jefferson_dem]

6. As long as he can serve as a vehicle to bash Obama...that's all that matters.

Boo-yahh...

[Enrique]

7. let's defend the government lying about torture!

let's defend a govt. spokesman smearing an embarrassing story about Americans raping Iraqis! :woohoo:

[ClarkUSA]

8. How do you know that exactly? Proof, quote, source, link? FYI: personal opinions are not facts.

[Enrique]

11. I don't

how do you know the Pentagon's telling the truth?

[ClarkUSA]

13. I didn't think so.

how do you know the Pentagon's telling the truth?

Reread what I posted. You're spinning what I said.

[Enrique]

15. so how do you feel about Gibbs trashing the British press?

[ClarkUSA]

18. When did he do that? I disagree with your UK Telegraph-esque framing of the question.

[Enrique]

20. Gibbs quote

"I will speak generally about some reports I've witnessed over the past few years in the British media, and in some ways I'm surprised it filtered down. Let's just say if I wanted to look up -- if I wanted to read a write-up today of how Manchester United fared last night in the Champion's League Cup, I might open up a British newspaper. If I was looking for something that bordered on truthful news, I'm not entirely sure it would be the first stack of clips I picked up."

[ClarkUSA]

22. You've got to be kidding me. To this New Yorker, that's kid-glove treatment.

Considering how many libel suits the British press is forced to pay out every year, Gibbs is not far off in his estimation.

[Enrique]

26. to this Wisconsinite, it's trashing

in fact, this much milder criticism of Al Jazeera also sounds like trashing to my Wisconsin ears. At least the Pentagon here didn't trash the entire Arab press.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-scahill/al-jazeera-strikes-back-a_b_196947.html

(...)

Hours after Al Jazeera first broadcast a video showing US soldiers in Afghanistan being instructed by the military's top chaplain in the country to "hunt people for Jesus" as they spread Christianity to the overwhelmingly Muslim population, the Pentagon shot back. It charged that Al Jazeera had "grossly misrepresent the truth." Col. Greg Julian, told Al Jazeera: "Most of this is taken out of context ... this is irresponsible and inappropriate journalism."

Now, Al Jazeera and the man who filmed the controversial material are striking back. The network has just released unedited and unaltered footage (see below) of US soldiers in 'bible study' in Afghanistan. Jazeera describes it as "Extended footage shot by Brian Hughes, a US documentary maker and former member of the US military who spent several days in Bagram near Kabul."

In Al Jazeera's original report, Hughes addressed the fact that soldiers had imported bibles translated into Pashto and Dari. " weren't talking about learning how to speak Dari or Pashto, by reading the Bible and using that as the tool for language lessons," Hughes told Al Jazeera. "The only reason they would have these documents there was to distribute them to the Afghan people. And I knew it was wrong, and I knew that filming it ... documenting it would be important."

Regarding allegations that the sermon of the military's top chaplain in Afghanistan, Lieutenant-Colonel Gary Hensley, where he instructs soldiers to "hunt people for Jesus" was taken out of context, Hughes said in a statment, "Any contention by the military that his words are purposefully taken out of context to alter the tone or meaning of his sermon is absolutely false."

(...)

[ClarkUSA]

29. Go cry me a river. Or send a disapproving note to Gibbs on his etiquette lapse via whitehouse.gov.

[Moochy]

36. That's real helpful

"Cry me a river"

eerily similar to "If you have a problem send a PM to the admins"

[Jennicut]

31. Usually the mostly suck except for the BBC

[ClarkUSA]

32. And even the BBC has had its own credibility problems lately.

[CJCRANE]

12. Gen.Taguba is the source nt

[ClarkUSA]

16. Gen. Taguba did not say "the government" was "lying about torture".

And why should we believe him, anyway? It's not as if Iraqi officers are not immune to being bribed. They aren't noted for being paragons of virtue. What's his proof? I am not about to take his word on anything.

[CJCRANE]

21. I never said he did. He merely described some photos that he was tasked with investigating nt

[ClarkUSA]

24. I was asking for proof of what the OP was claiming. You jumped in with an unrelated statement.

The OP admits he has no proof for his statement. End of story.

And why should we believe this "source" anyway? It's not as if Iraqi officers are not immune to being bribed. They certainly aren't noted for being paragons of virtue. What's his proof? I am not about to take an Iraqi officer's word on anything.

[ClarkUSA]

34. You are wrong: Gibbs and the Pentagon were telling the truth. (link -->)

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8440821

[CJCRANE]

9. Both Gibbs and the reporter could be right.

The photos that the Telegraph mention do exist...but they are not the ones that were going to be released. The ones that were going to be released are obviously less shocking.

[CJCRANE]

14. What if within the the 2000 photos there are two sets of photos...

1) one set which they can release and are similar to the previous Abu Ghraib photos but not as bad - these are the ones Gibbs is talking about

2) another set which are worse but can't be released for legal reasons (child pornography etc.) - these are the ones Gen. Taguba is talking about...

...?

:shrug:

[Enrique]

17. Gibbs doesn't say anything about the photos

set 1, set 2, set whatever.

He trashes the entire British press, and then when pressed on the issue he refers us to the Pentagon.

[CJCRANE]

19. Gibbs: "I would refer you very closely

to the statement that DOD put out that the article is wrong and mischaracterizes the photos that are in question."

He calls them "the photos that are in question". He is referring to the photos that were going to be released under the FOIA request. We need to clarify if they are the same photos that Taguba is referring to. Taguba may be referring to a different set of photos.

[Enrique]

23. and what does any of it have to do with Manchester United?

[asphalt.jungle]

25. if he wants to read about English football he would go to the British press

other than that they are useless to him. Man United loss to Barcelona the previous day in the Champions League final so that was the most recent football game.

[asphalt.jungle]

27. that blog entry is tame compared to this other wingnut asshat at that "paper"

good old James Delingpole of the Torygraph. He even looks like a BNP member:


He's hitting on all the faux news/wingnut radio talking points.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/james_delingpole/blog/2009/05/29/memo_to_obama_attack_dog_robert_gibbs_stop_pooping_on_our_lawn

Memo to US Press secetary Robert Gibbs

1. Congratulations. Your presidential regime has managed to secure the most supine, slobbering, spineless, unquestioning media coverage since Enver Hoxha's Albania. A report last month by the Center for Media and Public Affairs said Obama has received more coverage than his two predecessors combined. On ABC, CBS and NBC news the majority of evaluations - 58 per cent - have been favourable. (Compare GW Bush - 33 per cent; Bill Clinton 44 per cent - in first 50 days of office). More importantly, you have Pravda. Yes, no less than 73 per cent of all evaluative comments in your chief propaganda organ - aka The New York Times - have been favourable to Obama.

2. Sure your congenitally libtard Mainstream Media were probably biased that way anyway, but you have played your part. Your combative style - which led you to dismiss the entire British print media just now in one glib, sneering phrase - has earned you the nickname "The Enforcer." You have a reputation for coming down hard on any media outlet which doesn't follow your approved version of reality. "I work the referee a little bit," as you once put it. (A reference, perhaps, to when you played goalkeeper for your college football team).

3. If you are going to make clever-sounding football references displaying your rich understanding of the British press, try to get your terminology right. We call it the "Champions League." Not the "Champions League cup."

4. That's only the beginning of your problems, matey. Your treatment not just of the British media but of Britain generally smacks of a risible ineptitude. First, you let President Obama send back the Winston Churchill bust. Then, you insult our visiting prime minister with a dismally low-key reception (worthy of a minor African head of state, not your closest and most loyal ally) and shoddy gifts (those DVDs). Then you compound the insult by having one of your monkeys declare, Chicago-politics-style, ""There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment." OK so we know Obama's not much interested in foreign affairs and has a special loathing for Britain because it roughed up his Kenyan granddad during the Mau Mau insurrection. But don't you realise, that one of your jobs as his press secretary is to make out like he loves us so much even his underpants have a union flag on them?

5. Insulting the British print media. Big mistake. We know we're not angels. We know we can go over the top sometimes. But unfortunately that's a much bigger problem for you than it is for us. You see, while a lot of your mainstream media will hold fire on stories which they think may reflect poorly on your wondrous Obamamessiah - what his half-brother has been up to, say - we have fewer qualms about telling it like it is. So far, you've had a pretty easy ride. The Obama Kool Aid has proved almost as popular beverage in Britain as it is in the US. But just you wait till we start showing our teeth.

6. A lot of Americans know this. They appreciate our irreverence. They enjoy our frank criticisms of all the myriad areas where Obama is getting it so badly wrong - everything from his disastrous cap and trade measures, to his brutal treatment of Chrysler dealerships which didn't support him, to his pork barrelling, to his failure to do anything that looks remotely like rescuing the US economy. That's why they come to read us online: because they can and there's nothing you can do to stop them.

7. We had a guy just like you over here once. Guy named Alastair Campbell. Did for our now heavily discredited prime minister Tony Blair what you do for Obama: a little light press bullying; professional turd polishing; that kind of thing. We hated Alastair Campbell, really loathed him. But he got away with bullying us because in those days we didn't know any better. We were still going through this sort of dumb-cattle phase where we still had some vestigial respect for politicians and trust that they knew what they were doing.

8. But we don't respect politicians any more. Not our politicians, and not yours either. Imagine how this new strain of irreverence bordering on utter contempt is going to affect our reporting of political affairs. Actually, you've no need to imagine. Just read some of our Telegraph blogs.

yes I'm sure President Obama is shaking in his boots because the right wing British press will continue to try and dig up dirt on his half siblings in Kenya.

[CJCRANE]

28. This has turned into a partisan squabble - RW British press against Gibbs...

the more interesting story - are they talking about the same photos? - will disappear.

[ClarkUSA]

35. Taguba fessed up: he wasn't talking about the same set of photos. Gibbs & the Pentagon were right.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8440821

[redqueen]

30. Gibbs handled that extremely poorly.

He needs to drop the comedy routine and start thinking before he speaks.