Robert Gibbs defends his boss’s thin skin when it comes to Fox News

October 20, 2009, 2:44 pm · 9 comments

ABC’s Jake Tapper and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs at this morning’s White House press conference:

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.

If only Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly could be more like others on at those hours, like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews. Now those are news programs!

Source: Political Punch

Subscribe, tweet, share, tell a friend!

  • RSS
  • Email

Browse before and after this article

Related Posts

  1. Robert Gibbs talks nonsense, reporters don’t like it
  2. ABC’s Jake Tapper tells Robert Gibbs the President isn’t manly enough
  3. ABC’s Jake Tapper reveals press corps’ secret nickname for press secretary Robert Gibbs
  4. Robert Gibbs threatens to send reporter to bed without her dinner
  5. Now that the press has stopped laughing at Robert Gibbs, when will they begin laughing at Barack Obama?

{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }

Ray October 20, 2009, 4:10 pm at 4:10 pm

Politics is the art of controlling your environment.
—Hunter S. Thompson

Reply to this comment

Lanny October 20, 2009, 4:22 pm at 4:22 pm

Won’t be long before Jake Tapper is declared “not a real news reporter.”

Reply to this comment

Pat from Michigan October 20, 2009, 4:23 pm at 4:23 pm

We can’t decide how, where, why, when or who to fight in Afghanistan, but the tanks are rolling toward Fox News even as you read this.

Reply to this comment

Lanny October 20, 2009, 6:42 pm at 6:42 pm

Wasn’t it just last year we heard that 13% of voters aged 18-25 rely on The Daily Show as their primary news source? But I don’t remember any concern expressed by the Obama crowd. In fact, I recall Obama appearing on that show.

From that, I can only conclude that the “not a news organization” excuse is a smokescreen.

Reply to this comment

IMO October 21, 2009, 11:34 am at 11:34 am

Careful Tapper.. You might get removed from the WH Christmas Card List and get your own personal WH monitor!

Reply to this comment

Thallus October 21, 2009, 12:06 pm at 12:06 pm

This regime has learned well from Joseph Goebbels. Read this excerpt from one of Goebbels’ speeches:

“The newspapers today are filled with congratulations for Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler. The nuances vary, depending on the tone, character, and attitude of the newspaper. All, however, agree on one thing: Hitler is a man of stature who has already accomplished historically important deeds and faces still greater challenges. He is the kind of statesman found only rarely in Germany. During his lifetime, he has the good fortune not only to be appreciated and loved by the overwhelming majority of the German people, but even more importantly to be understood by them. He is the only German politician of the post-war period who understood the situation and drew the necessary hard and firm conclusions. All the newspapers agree on this.”

Now try this version:

“The news media today are filled with congratulations for Barack Obama. The nuances vary, depending on the tone, character, and attitude of the news media. All, however, agree on one thing: Obama is a man of stature who has already accomplished historically important deeds and faces still greater challenges. He is the kind of statesman found only rarely in the U.S. During his lifetime, he has the good fortune not only to be appreciated and loved by the overwhelming majority of the American people, but even more importantly to be understood by them. He is the only American politician of any period who understood the situation and drew the necessary hard and firm conclusions. All the news media except Fox agree on this.”

You can just imagine the latter version came straight from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and most newspapers and magazines.

Lets face it. Anita Dunn would have surely exposed herself for what she is if she said Goebbels was one of her “favorite philosophers”. Even if Goebbels was not, you can bet he is on her short short list.

Reply to this comment

Thallus October 21, 2009, 12:29 pm at 12:29 pm

More from Goebbels speech. Only the names have been changed:

“The mysterious magic that he exerts on all who come in contact with him cannot alone explain his historic personality. There is more that makes us love and esteem him. Through all the ups and downs of Obama’s career, from the beginning of his political activity to the crowning of his career as he seized power, he has always remained the same: a person among people, a friend to his comrades, an eager supporter of every ability and talent. He is a pathfinder for those who devoted themselves to his idea, a man who conquered the hearts of his comrades in the midst of battle and never released them.
It seems to me that one thing has to be said in the midst of the profusion of feelings. Only a few know Obama well. Most of the millions who look to him with faithful trust do so from a distance. He has become to them a symbol of their faith in the future. Normally the great men that we admire from a distance lose their magic when one knows them well. With Obama the opposite is true. The longer one knows him, the more one admires him, and the more one is ready to give oneself fully to his cause.
We will let others blow the trumpets. His friends and comrades gather round him to shake his hand and thank him for everything that he is to us, and that he has given to us. Let me say it once more: We love this man, and we know that he has earned all of our love and support. Never was a man more unjustly accused by the hate and slanders of his ill-wishers of other parties. Remember what they said about him! A mishmash of contradictory accusations! They did not fail to accuse him of every sin, to deny him every virtue. When he nonetheless overcame in the end the flood of lies, triumphing over his enemies and raising the Socialist Democrat flag over America, fate showed its favor toward him to the entire world. It raised him from the mass of people and put him in the place he deserved because of his brilliant gifts and his pure and flawless humanity.”

Eerily familiar, istn’t it?

Reply to this comment

Marilyn Stern December 5, 2009, 8:25 am at 8:25 am

Too eerily familiar for comfort. Keep an eye on Michelle Obama. She is a great “behind the scenes” manipulator. “Culture of Corruption” by Michelle Malkin (that other Michelle) should be on everyones reading list.

Reply to this comment

call me Roy March 14, 2010, 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm

My hat is off to Thallus, he is exactly right. Why?
A question for all the “Progressives” in America who apparently need to read some history books. What do you think the sons of the American Revolution would have said or done if the british would have demanded the guns in america be licensed or counted? Why do we need any more treaties or gun-control laws when we don’t (because we cannot) enforce the ones on the books? The only thing gun-control laws acomplish is to disarm law-abiding citizens leaving them at the mercy of the criminals and/or tyrants. Guns are not the problem. Criminals are. Instead of more gun-control, we should be concentrating on criminal control. A brief look into history should enlighten the liberals in our fair land. In the early 1900’s there are several historical instances of leaders that insisted on the disarmament of their people. Their names should be familiar to you: Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler. All of these men enforced disarmament on their people. All of them are known as some of the most sinister men in history. Notably, Hitler could never have achieved as much as he did without civilian disarmament. He disarmed his people, used the Hitler Youth program to brainwash the young, and “cleansed” his nation, as well as conquered territories of the “undesirables,” whom he referred to as “untermensch” or subhuman. The unarmed civilians were an easy target for his armies, and the SS was used to intimidate and control other Germans and prevent dissension. In retrospect, people lament the atrocities that happened under Hitler, but the German people then never saw it coming. They had been seduced by a charismatic leader, who convinced (and when necessary coerced) them to give up their weapons. The Nazi reign of terror began with false news reports on the Jews, Bohemians and Gypsies who were said to be arming themselves to overthrow the “New World Order” and Hitler demanded that all good people register their guns so that they wouldn’t fall into the hands of “terrorists and madmen”. Right wing fanatics of the “Old Order” who protested firearms registration were arrested by the S.S. and put in jail for “fomenting hatred against the Government of the German people”. Then the Reichstag (government building) was blown up and Hitler ram-rodded an “Emergency Anti-Terrorist Act” through Parliament that gave the Gestapo extraordinary powers. The leader then declared that for the well-being of the German people, all private firearms were to be confiscated by the Gestapo and the Wermotten (federal law enforcement and military). When several local ministers spoke out against these atrocities, they were imprisoned and never seen again. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. What is this Administration doing?
H.R. 2159, the Disarming American Citizens Act allowing anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder to revoke the Second Amendment rights of ANY American he chooses based on pure “suspicion”;
A new so-called “Assault Weapons” Ban, targeting ALL semi-automatic rifles and shotguns — which, unlike the Clinton ban, will NEVER expire;
H.R. 45, the “Catch-All” Obama Gun Control Bill, which would create a national gun registry, require a two-day waiting period, hike taxes on gun sales, federally ban ALL private firearms sales, and FORCE you to take a written exam just to prove you’re “fit” to own a firearm;
The U.N.’s so-called “Small Arms Treaty,” which would confiscate and destroy ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms and set the stage for INTERNATIONAL gun confiscation.

Reply to this comment

Leave a Comment

No registration is required to comment. However, Registering and/or Logging In before posting comments saves you time in future comments posting.


make custom gifts at Zazzle