Steve Kroft’s Sunday night interview with President Obama covered substantive things, like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s bank rescue plan, which was rolled out Monday, and the need for an exit strategy in Afghanistan. But you wouldn’t necessarily know that those substantive moments came from the same 60 Minutes interview during which Our President Laughed.
FOX’s Bret Baier labeled it the interview “in which President Obama laughed about the economy.” The Washington Post interviewed PR gurus to gauge how damaging a TV moment it was for the president. USA Today’s The Oval blog asked, “What do you think of Obama’s laughter?” and noted, “Plug a search for ‘Obama + “punch drunk”’ into Google News this hour and you’ll get nearly 2,000 results. That’s how quickly one exchange from last night’s 60 Minutes interview with the president has captured folks’ attention.” A clip of the show, put up yesterday by Hot Air with the title, “60 Minutes Kroft to Joking Obama, ‘Are you Punch Drunk?’” has garnered 65,000 hits on YouTube. Politico characterized the interview by stating that Obama was “pressed by Steve Kroft for laughing and chuckling several times while discussing the perilous state of the world’s economy.”
Fact: put the words “chuckling” and “perilous state of the world’s economy” together in a sentence, and whoever’s doing the chuckling is going to come off looking like an insensitive bastard. But did the moment merit the hype?
Hardly. Here’s the excerpt from the interview that headlines and pundits honed in on, like bees to honey:
OBAMA: I just want to say that— the only thing less popular than putting money into banks is putting money (LAUGHS) into the auto industry. So—KROFT: 18 percent are in favor.
OBAMA: (LAUGHS) That’s—
KROFT: Seventy-six percent against.
OBAMA: It— it— it’s not a high number.
KROFT: You’re sitting here. And you’re— you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, “I mean, he’s sitting there just making jokes about (LAUGHTER) money—” How do you deal with— I mean, wh— explain -
OBAMA: Well—
KROFT: —the mood and your laughter.
OBAMA: Yeah, I mean, there’s got to be—
KROFT: Are you punch drunk?
OBAMA: No, no. There’s gotta be a little gallows humor to (LAUGHS) get you through the day. You know, sometimes my team— talks about the fact that if— if you had said to us a year ago that— the least of my problems would be Iraq, which is still a pretty serious problem— I don’t think anybody would have believed it. But— but we’ve got a lot on our plate. And— a lot of difficult decisions that we’re going to have to make.
Sure, there’s a developing sense that Obama is losing some points in the communicating-with-the-public game—the leadership quality he’s supposed to have in the bag (cue: foot-in-mouth Special Olympics comment). But it’s completely irrelevant, and more, irresponsible, to use some mid-interview laughs as a sort of sly proof that Obama thinks glibly about the economy and about the people who are most affected by the downturn. The president laughs about the economy! It’s a tempting interpretation (do you hear the whirring of the sound bite machine?), but it’s also a facile one—of a simple behavioral response. And it’s a hatchet job of a next chapter in the troublesomely glossy narrative that has been building around the president’s image—what it was (aloof!), has been (detached!), and what this incident might now prove (out of touch! callously cool!).
This type of narrative building is a problem not because there aren’t true elements to it, but because it looks for proof, thrives on setting up opposites (Obama laughs! Public shocked!), and creates drama where there is none (activity: contemplate the functional wisdom of asking readers the question, “What do you think of Obama’s laughter?”—I drew a blank).
Anyone who watches the entire segment will see that there wasn’t anything loaded about Obama’s laughter. (Most commentators ultimately admitted as much.) And no one in his or her right mind would think, as the administration rolled out its bank rescue plan yesterday, that Obama was making light of the economy, or, really, any aspect of his job—from bailing out the auto industry to talking up the plan for the newly dubbed legacy assets to assuaging public opinion of the beleaguered Geithner. And that’s precisely what makes the spotlight on Obama’s laughter so frustrating. It may have been a politically louche moment, but no one actually thinks it’s consequential. The discrepancy between the headlines and the stories—“punch drunk”-heavy on top, more substantive down below—shows us as much.
And yet, keeping in line with the let’s-make-something-out-of-nothing state of mind, the NYT, prepping its readers for Obama’s primetime press conference tonight, asks, “Will he make any gaffes?” The laughter wasn’t a gaffe. But yes, that’s the way to ramp up for tomorrow’s story. Maybe he’ll even flash his pearly whites.

Funny, I do not EVER recall Steve Krofts or any other interrogator interviewing the Chimp who actually called the drooling, gibbering moron on a single thing he said, a single blatant lie he told, a single lame joke.
Somehow, the game has become presidential gotcha-ism, at its worst.
This was predictable (in the corporate state, corporate media are the state media, and all that). It's just that you'd think they'd try a little harder to disguise it...
#1 Posted by Woody, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 05:44 PM
The problem is that fleeting rises and falls in this or that politician's or party's appeal have come to be seen as highly important events worthy of displacing most other stories. With that mindset, it makes perfect sense to focus on a Presidential "gaffe" that everyone agrees is meaningless, but nevertheless might hurt his image.
Many people, not only in the media, seem to have forgotten that politicians have actual powers. No amount of goofs and gaffes, no matter how embarrassing, will keep Obama from being the most powerful man in the world until 2013 and perhaps longer. What government officials do with their powers matters far more than how much the public likes them.
#2 Posted by D. B., CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 06:25 PM
Jay Rosen explains the underlying agenda behind this latest idiocy from the political press, the Fluff Reporters:
The more the administration ditches the self-obsessed clownish dimwits of the White House Press Corps, the better. The so-called "laughter" and the non-gaffe about his bowling scaore are ginned up as idle entertainment and Drudge linik-whoring by the clownish press, much like Cramer and Santelli, only in politics and not business. They are no less deserving of the pitchforks and tumbrils.
#3 Posted by Tom, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 07:53 PM
These rocket scientists aka pundits also wonder why subscriptions are dropping and 18- to 24-year-olds watch Jon Stewart instead. I'd like to think the effects of their analysis are as irrelevant as the content.
#4 Posted by Ann, CJR on Tue 31 Mar 2009 at 06:13 PM