Home / Culture and Society / Highly Regarded Time Magazine Blogger, Reporter and Editor Jay Carney Named White House Press Secretary.

Highly Regarded Time Magazine Blogger, Reporter and Editor Jay Carney Named White House Press Secretary.

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It’s a great day for the world’s bloggers, and our global blogging community! Jay Carney will now replace Robert Gibbs as the White House Press Secretary. Until today, for the past two years, Carney was communication director for Vice President Joe Biden. Carney was a key correspondent for Time magazine beginning in 1988. 

The ace reporter covered Time’s Moscow bureau for three years, a period which saw the collapse of the Soviet Union in late 1991.  The Soviet Union crumbled into fifteen separate countries; the collapse was seen as a victory of democracy over totalitarianism, capitalism over socialism. The fall of the Soviet Union is considered to be the end of the Cold War.

Jay Carney also has written extensively about the George W. Bush administration; for his work covering Bush, he won the 2003 Gerald R. Ford Prize for Distinguished Reporting on the Presidency.

Jay Carney is well known to television watchers as a political analyst; he and his wife, ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman often appeared together on ABC’s Sunday Morning News Program, “This Week”. Carney resides in Washington D.C.

Jay Carney was Time’s Washington Deputy Bureau Chief, then Chief, from 2003 until December of 2008. He covered politics in general and domestic political news during the Clinton and Bush administrations. He also worked at CNN, a division of Time Warner as a special correspondent. Time magazine has a blog, a high quality outlet for mainstream journalists, and Carney’s numerous articles there give him the distinction of being one of the first journalists to take up the medium of blogging.

On November 7, 2008, Carney published  a Time blog Barack Obama’s appointment of Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff. He reminds readers that during the campaign for the presidency, Republicans took delight in portraying Obama as “all talk, and no action.” But, Carney writes, the president’s naming of Emanuel shows that “The Democratic President-elect has no intention of letting that charge stick.” Jay Carney writes that while Obama speaks beautifully about hope and change, about bipartisan cooperation and a better America, he still understands that things don’t happen by themselves; you don’t hire a staff which will sit around all day, singing Kumbaya. Carney says “Instead, you bring in a guy like Emanuel, the most hardheaded, no-nonsense, foul-mouthed, smart-as-hell, get-it-done-or-get-out-of-my-way Washington insider of his generation.” Carney concludes his Time blog with “Rahm does not sing ‘Kumbaya’, He barks orders.”… then lastly, “His [Emanuel’s] hometown paper, the Chicago Tribune, calls Emanuel a “brutally effective taskmaster.””

In another posting for Time, Carney discussed Obama’s meeting, following the election of 2008, with the just-defeated Republican candidate, John McCain. Carney wrote that on election night, McCain pledged to do all in his power to help Obama through the many coming challenges. Jay Carney wrote: “There were some who doubted the sincerity of McCain’s pledge, coming so soon after the end of a campaign that featured a series of personal attacks on Obama. But it pays to remember that the self-styled maverick was never very comfortable as the standard bearer of a party that he had opposed so many times on so many issues. And the party long felt the same way.”

On November 12, 2008, in a piece called Why Palin Got Bad Press, Carney says he is appalled that conservatives are “so blind to Governor Palin’s true liabilities.” He says that in her first interview as the GOP vice presidential nominee she revealed herself to be less knowledgeable about national and international affairs then the average congressional intern. Carney says Republicans need to have “honest reckoning” over what went wrong in 2008.

The announcement to the press of Jay Carey’s appointment will be formalized on Friday, January 28. The changes in the White House staff and advisors also include the appointment of William Daley as White House Chief of Staff.

Powered by

About John Lake

John Lake had a long and successful career in legitimate and musical theater. He moved up into work behind the camera at top motion pictures. He has done a smattering of radio, and television John joined the Blogcritics field of writers owing to a passion for the liberal press, himself speaking out about the political front, and liberal issues. Now the retired Mr. Lake has entered the field of motion picture, television, and video game (now a daily gamer!) critique. His writing is always innovative and immensely readable!
  • Baronius

    From Time, ABC’s “This Week”, and CNN to Biden and Obama…is this the part where we say that the MSM isn’t liberal?

  • John Lake

    The Mainstream also contains Rush, et al.

  • Baronius

    Really? If I said that the mainstream media was critical of the State of the Union speech, and cited Limbaugh as proof, you’d have no problem with that?

  • John Lake

    they were critical of the speech. I myself have some urgent questions.

  • Baronius

    Okay, let’s try this another way: would you be surprised if Rush Limbaugh were named to Biden’s staff to replace Carney?

  • John Lake

    As to Carney’s work for Biden: Part of Carney’s assignment was to work to enhance Bidens image. Biden actually has no image – maybe a little ‘loose cannon’. In fact, Joe Biden is an absolute whiz at foreign affairs, foreign relations – it comes naturally to him. He is so danged honest and in ‘service to the truth’, the ‘reality of the situation’ that it turns heads. He probably nauseates some right wing Republicans. So, given that, Carney did nothing, nada, zilch.
    Now Carney is Press Secretary. That’s it.
    As far as this whole Rush Limbaugh thing, I don’t know where you are going. If you have comments about the State of the Union Address, I have naught to do but listen.

  • Being danged honest and in service to the truth should be image enough, considering the state of affairs in Washington, D.C. It’s beyond me why this image should need any kind of enhancement, unless of course you’re coming from the proposition that the American people want to be lied to.

    And who gives a shit about right wing Republicans!

  • Ruvy

    If this bum writes for Time Magazine, then like the rest of the trash there, he is anti-Israel. Since I live in Israel, that is all that really matters to me. The rest of Time Magazine can be used to wrap fish in. So nu, there is more anti-Israel garbage at the openly anti-Israel Obama/Soetoro administration.

    Thanks for news that isn’t news, John.

  • John Lake

    And by the way, Ruvy, congratulations on the new bride. God bless.

  • Baronius

    John – The only point I’ve been trying to make on this thread is this: that the ease with which a reporter can move between a Democratic administration and the largest press outlets indicates that the press is sympathetic to the Democrats.

  • John Lake

    There are two basic possibilities. Certain members of the press may take advantage of their visibility to favor liberal or conservative causess because they are in a position to profit financially or politically from so doing, and the second possibility, the educated, knowlegeble press might view the liberal (or the conservative) agenda as being right. consisant with long established American values, and consistent with the individual press persons values of home, family, freedom whatever.
    If the press moves from a profit motive, such as is common in radio for example,that scenario is detrimental to the country. If media and related persons are moved to make sacrifices because they are motivated by a drive to do right, it becomes more difficult too oppose them. The case of Keith Olbermann is a clear example.

  • John Lake

    I was right in the middle of phrasing that comment when it suddenly got posted. I didn’t plan it that way. I must have bumped the wrong button. In any case, the idea is there, somewhere. Sorry for the lack of cohesion.

  • Baronius

    I’d never accuse anyone of that first possibility, John. Actually, I don’t think it works in the long run to pay someone to say something they don’t believe in. That has a way of getting messy.

    That second possibility is more likely. The question is, is it just? Not “is their opinion right”, although I’d hope that they’re not steering stories toward error. But are they not obligated to try to keep their advocacy out of their reporting? That probably requires a second set of possibilities, type 2a for those who conciously advocate based on their convictions and type 2b for those who do so unconciously.

  • John Lake

    Then you feel that those who would place automatic weapons in the hands of urban street gangs are sincere in their speculations?
    And if “Mitt” wants to convince us the world is our enemy, and Americas greatest need is for armaments, missiles, and missile defense systems, so that unscrupulous investors have unlimited opportunity for investment, he actually means it?

  • zingzing

    “Actually, I don’t think it works in the long run to pay someone to say something they don’t believe in. That has a way of getting messy.”

    but you have to admit that it happens all the time, and not just in politics. it’s called advertising in the rest of the world. i doubt that glenn beck believes half the shit that comes out of his mouth. he’d have to be insane. i think it’s more likely that he’s smart, and he’s taking the dumbfucks for a ride all the way to his bank.

    and yes, it does get messy when people get caught. but if you really dumb down your obvious falsehoods to the point where only the truly moronic would believe them, well… the morons aren’t going to suddenly smarten up, are they?

  • Baronius

    Yes, I assume that people are sincere. I’m also aware of the notion of cognitive dissonance, when people realize that they believe contradictory things. You see it often enough on the boards, where people try to shout down their own objections. That’s where it gets messy. But I think if they gnaw at you long enough, most people will actually try to address them honestly(ish).

  • A good, professional journalist will do a good professional job of reporting, whatever his/her personal beliefs and prejudices. It may be harder to find examples of Republican reporters, though there certainly are plenty, but one hopes that they would set that aside to do their jobs. The assumption that Democrats can’t for the life of them perform good, balanced journalism is a false premise.

  • Again, I’m going to argue that the very notion of “good professional journalism” is a chimera – something we in the Western societies have constructed and keep paying homage to under the false altar of objectivity. Taken to its logical conclusion, you may as well have a machine reading from a teleprompter. “Bare facts” say nothing, communicate nothing, mean nothing. There’s always got to be a narrative that puts ’em together so as to make sense out of it all. Which is why the entire discussion is bogus.

    All one can possibly hope for is that the reporter gives adequate consideration to often conflicting points of view and presents his narrative in some such fashion. It is with respect to this that the differences arise, for we’re dealing here with questions of degree.

  • John Lake

    Mitt Romney didn’t call China an “enemy”; in fact he used the word “competitor”.

  • Baronius

    Handy, fair enough. There’s no a priori reason to say that some or all journalists can’t hold back their biases. (Roger might dispute that point, but I’ll grant it.) But it would be worth noting if more journalists held a particular point of view, and more noteworthy if their stories leaned in that direction. At that point, you can have a reasonable theory and evidence which supports it.

  • Baronius

    John – I was hoping this thread might go somewhere. Let me ask you, do you think that people want to get automatic weapons into the hands of gang members on the basis of money? Do you think that most people on the left look at it that way?

    I know how heated the abortion debate can get, with people on either side often thinking of their opponents as evil. Do you think that that kind of characterization is common on other issues when the opponent is perceived as selling out humanity for money? Except for very rare circumstances, I assume that the person I disagree with is sincerely wrong (or I am).

  • John Lake

    These issues require thought and are best dealt with by persons who have in the course of their lives formulated standards and principles.
    Politics is a not a sport for individual players. the strong dictate to the weak.