Bruni's political reporting was a disaster. Blessedly, he is now applying his literary talents to restaurant reviews, where his disquisitions on the charms of pork belly can do no harm - unless, of course, you are sincerely interested in a good meal.

Although I didn't get to watch Obama's presser and can be reasonably confident in assuming it broke no significant news, I was nonetheless struck by the utter vapidity of today's front-page article by Baker and Nagourney. The piece focused entirely on the the reporters' banal observations of the style of the event, with nary a word for substance. Reading it this morning, I was reminded of what my J-School professor, Dick Blood (whom you probably know from your days at NYU) might have commented in response to such a submission: "What did the man say?!?" The article offers nary a clue.

Isn't it possible that the mention of Obama's not calling on the newspapers is not meant to be contemptuous snark but rather a simple acknowledgement of a departure from the norm? Presidents usually call on reporters from the big newspapers, so when Obama doesn't that's an interesting tidbit.

Also, if the argument is that the press is hopelessly focused on trivia at the expense of substance, I think it makes sense to ask just what is a press conference? While perhaps in an ideal world, it would seen as a straightforward explanation of policy positions, in fact it is also political theater. The optics, the style, the approach all matter - or at least are perceived to matter. So given that fact, is it not unreasonable for SOME news stories to focus on style over substance? If that were the only thing being covered, it would be one thing. But the Times and other news outlets covered the substance, such as it was, as well.

You hit the nail on the head. They felt slighted by the President and so write a petulant critique of an outstanding performance. Perhaps it was a misstep not to call on the primma donnas of the NYT and WAPO? I don't know, but it clearly put them in their place and highlights the declining influence of the daily newspapers and I'm sure that didn't help their bruised egos either. I'm glad they're unhappy.

Obama to the Village stenographers:

"you're not as relevant as you seem to think you are."

Wasn't the whole purpose of that press conference to be boring? The goal was to reassure the American people that the economic recovery is on the right track. If you are successfully reassured, then you are bored.

I can't believe Obama didn't call on the big newspapers!!!! Those publications are the last place for real reporters to find work! Like the Washington Post, he really should have called on them, they always ask the most important questions. Not crap like stuff about athletes and steroids.

Oh........wait.

Upset the pecking order; rumble in the chicken coop. The rooster watches. Who says that community organizing is irrelevant to political discourse.

The Washington Press Corps listens to Weird Al's classic "Dare to be Stupid" in lieu of morning prayer or pushups.

I generally think the Times has decent political reporting, but the Baker and Nagourney piece was genuinely pathetic--the kind of stuff that provides great ammo for people who argue that the MSM is worse than useless and that the future of political reporting belongs to the blogs.

I think there are a host of substantive issues that the Times might have challenged the president for not discussing--he avoided providing specifics about the ongoing budget process, he had relatively little to say about Geithner's plan to buy toxic assets, and he effectively endorsed the moderate economic polices advocated by Summers and Geithner. All of this is news as it has far reaching policy implications. Instead, the Times published what was effectively a rather vapid op-ed. or unentertaining Style piece.

The president offered most people exactly what they wanted--thoughtful and confident leadership that demonstrated a serious understanding of the problems facing the country. Ironically the journalists who didn't get this and were most troubled by the president's turn to seriousness were the most elite members of the press corps.

It does seem purposeful but I'm not sure what the purpose is. Wish he would skip FoxNews.

Time for Team Obama to completely bypass the MSM,

He's damned if he does and damned if he don't.

Get CSPAN, or get a grassroots effort to get some control on the media outlets.

The Republicans have dominated the Radio; they seem to have their stooges in FOX, and NBC.

Maybe Obama's team could just put together a list of hard-hitting questions and answer them and to mix in a few folks from the public.

By shaming the MSM reporters, as so shallow as many in America have ascertained. Obama will have gained another landslide consensus,

That WE THE PEOPLE have just overthrown the Press.

Have the press submit it's questions prior to the presser and if there’s a duplication, give the attention to the name ”Fill in the name “ Average citizen. ( but not JOE whatever)

Bypassing the glory-seeking reporters who pat themselves on the back and receives the accolades of their peers, for the gotcha journalism, they pass off as professional reporting.

Average citizen would get 15 minutes of fame, the press would go nuts, and maybe the MSM could reduce some of their cadre of high priced idiots trying to pass as reporters.

Who got whom?

When papers like the New York Times start selling off real estate to try and keep the wolves from the door, they shouldn't be surprised when smaller, less notorious publications begin to get a turn at these major press conferences. If they don't like it, too bad.

So now it's about which news media the President is choosing for question time? How soon we all forget just 60 days ago, we had a president that steered his questions to a fake WH press reporter, (Jeff Gannon) and paid a commentator to write positive stories about the administration (Armstrong Williams). Anyone who listens to the Right, deserves the Wrong done to them!