So along comes Jake Tapper, speaking to Bobby “the mouthpiece” Gibbs at a White House Gaggle:
Jake Tapper
Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –
(Crosstalk)
Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.
Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –
Gibbs: ABC –
Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?
Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.
Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?
Gibbs: That’s our opinion.
Right, Bobby.
So, tell us, oh, vaunted master of the news cycle, what the bleep Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman were doing in the room? And tell us, given the activities of they and a few other notable crazies inhabiting that channel, does MSNBC count as a “News Org”? Why?
See, I guess the real question here is this: Is the White House’s definition of what is a news org limited to those who act like they’re the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party?
Tags: ABC, BitsBlog, count, cycle, declaration, Democrat, Gaggle, gibbs, Jake Tapper, keith olberman, Maddow, media organization, MSNBC, news organization, Olberman, opinion, propaganda, rachel maddow
Print This Post
Subscribe to RSS feed
October 21st, 2009 at 15:03
I beg to differ, just a wee bit. It wasn’t that Jake Tapper’s question was no tough. Rather it was that Bobby Gibb’s answer was so inept. If Gibby were competent, he could cited a Fox news program. It would have tougher to offer specifics, but at least Gibby would not sounded like a fool.
October 22nd, 2009 at 17:33
Well, look…
First I consider that any question is a toughie, if you don\’t want to answer it. I suspect Gibbs wold far rather be answering questions about Boxers or Briefs than to address the pointed questions that Tapper was making.
Secondly, Gibbs made a point of mentioning 5 o\’clock… which is when Glenn Beck is on here in the east. And 9, when O\’Reilly, I think, is on.