This is not news to us. Just funny...I would laugh if wasn't so pathetic. Whether you are liberal or conservative our MSM is useless. They are absolutely useless. They remind me of our healthcare reform debate. MSM, insurance companies, and Corporate America in general are out to make a profit on the backs of the American people. They've declared war on the American people..and sometimes it feels like they are winning. Last night John Stewart just put CNN on megablast. He does what he always does....he made it plain and funny. Too bad our country is going to hell. It's really a sad state of affairs when we have to get real news from SNL, the Daily Show, and Colbert report.
John Stewart's basic premise last night was that anchors really do not serve any purpose at all. They do not fact check the guests, correct the records, or ask follow-up questions. You know journalism 101. Oh, and they "leave it there" at the most inopportune moments. Hilarity at it's finest. Go to the Huffington Post to view. Not sure if this embed works!! .
This comment from a Huffington Post commenter sums it up beautifully:
At least the WH is starting to hit back. Hopefully, this is a warning shot to all in the MSM. Anita Dunn did an excellent job on Sunday. For all of you guys out there that missed it here is the clip
For those of you who missed it and can't view here is a transcript.
Here, courtesy of CNN's Reliable Sources, is a transcript of the talk:
ANITA DUNN, WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Howie, thanks for having me.
HOWARD KURTZ: As we heard, President Obama on Friday said that he did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. It wasn't something he sought.
And yet, you have all these conservative commentators saying this is a joke, it's an outrage, it's somehow a bad thing.
What's your reaction to that?
DUNN: Well, you know, a week ago on the previous Friday, many conservative commentators had been rejoicing in the fact, celebrating in the fact that the United States didn't get the Olympics. One week later, they seem to be somewhat bitter at the fact that an American president was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
So, I think people will draw their own conclusions about the reflexive negativity on the part of some commentators, regardless of what happened.
KURTZ: So, these (ph)...
DUNN: I think the bigger point, though...
KURTZ: These (ph) (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
DUNN: And, you know, I think the bigger point is that -- and the president himself said this was -- that he was surprised, as I think most of the press corps was.
He feels that he, you know, didn't really deserve it, as I think, you know, there are many people who feel that this is still, you know, particularly in terms of this presidency, it's the first year.
So, I think that, you know, that those people who are saying, you know, this is really quite unusual, this really does seem to be, you know, a big surprise to everyone...
KURTZ: Yes.
DUNN: You know, that's not out of bounds.
KURTZ: OK.
DUNN: Absolutely not out of bounds.
KURTZ: All right, good.
DUNN: I think -- you know, I think what the president also said, though, today -- on Friday...
KURTZ: Let me stop you, because...
DUNN: Yes.
KURTZ: ... we're short on time. And we'll play what the president said.
DUNN: Yes, (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Yes.
KURTZ: We're talking about conservative commentators, so let's talk about Fox News.
DUNN: Yes.
KURTZ: You were quoted this week in Time Magazine as saying of Fox News, it's opinion journalism masquerading as news.
What do you mean, "masquerading"?
DUNN: Well, you know, Howie, I think if we went back a year ago to the fall of 2008, to the campaign, that, you know, it was a time that this country was in two wars, that we'd had a financial collapse probably more significant than any financial collapse since the Great Depression.
If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest story, the biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and something called Acorn, when the reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.
And it's not ideological. I mean, obviously, there are many commentators who have (ph) conservative, liberal, centrist. And everybody understands that.
What I think is fair to say about Fox, and certainly the way we view it, is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party. That said, but (ph) it's (ph) sad (ph).
KURTZ: Is that the reason -- is that the reason the president did not go on Fox News Sunday a few weeks back when he did all the other Sunday shows? And will President Obama appear on Fox News again, let's say, this year?
DUNN: Well, you know, Howie, President Obama appeared on -- he did THE FACTOR. He did O'REILLY...
KURTZ: Yes. That was during the campaign.
DUNN: ... in the campaign last year.
As president earlier this year, putting (ph) up (ph) with news anchors...
KURTZ: OK. But my question is...
DUNN: ... like (ph) Chris Wallace. And...
KURTZ: ... will he appear on Fox in the next couple of months?
DUNN: You know, you had a two-part question. The first was, is this why he did not appear? And the answer is, yes.
Obviously, he'll go on Fox, because he engages with ideological opponents, and he has done that before. He will do it again. I can't give you a date. But, frankly, I can't give you dates for anybody else right now.
But what I will say is that, when he goes on Fox, he understands he's not going on it really as a news network. It's like he's going on to debate the opposition. And that's fine. He never minds doing that.
But...
KURTZ: OK. Well, on that point...
DUNN: ... it's a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) process (ph).
KURTZ: On that point, I'm going to interrupt you...
DUNN: Yes.
KURTZ: ... because I want to read a statement from Fox senior V.P., Michael Clemente...
DUNN: Yes.
KURTZ: ... who said the following. We'll put it up on the screen.
An increasing number of viewers are relying on Fox News for both news and opinion. And the average news consumer can certainly distinguish between the A section of a newspaper and the editorial page, which is what our programming represents.
So, with all due respect to anyone who might still be confused about the difference between news reporting and vibrant (ph) opinion, my suggestion would be to talk about the stories and the facts rather than attack the messenger, which over time has never worked.
Your response.
DUNN: Yes. Well, I think that there have been numerous independent analyses that have looked at the difference between, say, CNN, ABC, NBC and ABC, and Fox, and have seen that there is a very different story selection. There's a very different -- even down to the tie (ph) run
(ph) they run below stories. That, you know, this isn't us making it up, Howie. You study the media. You know that...
KURTZ: Well...
DUNN: ... it's not just their opinions, though.
KURTZ: Take Major Garrett. He's the White House correspondent for Fox News.
DUNN: Right.
KURTZ: Do you think he's fair? Do you think he's masquerading as a newsman?
DUNN: I will say -- and I have done this in my interviews -- I have differentiated. No, I have not said that I've differentiated between Major Garrett, who we (ph) view (ph) as a very good correspondent, and his network. And Major knows this.
Major tends (ph) to (ph) cost (ph) me when we didn't include Chris in the...
KURTZ: Chris Wallace, of course.
DUNN: ... roundup Sunday shows.
KURTZ: Chris Wallace, yes.
DUNN: Chris Wallace from the Sunday shows.
And I told Major quite honestly that we had told Chris Wallace that having fact-checked an administration guest on his show -- something I've never seen a Sunday show do. And, Howie, you can show me examples of where Sunday shows have fact-checked previous weeks' guests, and I'd be happy to see those.
We asked Chris, for an example, where he had done that to anybody besides somebody from the administration in the year 2009. And we're still waiting to hear from him.
KURTZ: All right.
DUNN: When they want to treat us like they treat everyone else.
But let's be realistic here, Howie. You know, they are -- they're widely viewed as, you know, part of the Republican Party. Take their talking points, put them on the air. Take their opposition research, put them on the air and that's fine.
But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is.
KURTZ: And you are making a distinction, just before I move on, between the opinion guys -- O'Reilly, Hannity, Glenn Beck -- and people like Major Garrett.
DUNN: Yes. I'm not talking about people like Major Garrett. I'm talking about the overall programming.
KURTZ: OK.
DUNN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). The "New York Times" had a front page story about Nevada senator, John Ensign, and the fact that he had gotten his former chief of staff a job as a lobbyist, then helped those clients
-- his former chief of staff's wife with somebody Ensign had had an affair with...
KURTZ: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in court.
DUNN: Right.
Now, the D.C. coverage of that on Fox News -- I'm not talking Glenn Beck. I'm not talking Sean, not talking THE FACTOR. I'm talking about Fox news.
KURTZ: I will have to check on that. I assume you know the answer.
Let me ask you about the mainstream media in general. You and your colleagues at the White House seem to believe that journalists have fallen down on the job when it comes to allowing or spreading or repeating misinformation.
Is that the problem? Or is the problem that sometimes they're reporting information that's not to the administration's liking?
DUNN: Oh, listen. There's never been an administration, starting with George Washington, who thought that they were covered the way they should be.
We make mistakes. We have problems. We expect those to get covered. We expect to take our hits, and we do.
KURTZ: But are you...
DUNN: As (UNINTELLIGIBLE) concern...
KURTZ: Are you leading a kind of an effort, almost like a war room effort, to combat statements that are made as part of the 24 news hour news cycle the president openly (ph) deplores?
DUNN: When the statements are untrue, when they mischaracterize, when they are using opposition research as (ph) (UNINTELLIGIBLE). When people are just not being honest, absolutely. We're going to go out there and we're going to correct those facts.
We learned over the summer that the mainstream media often will start covering these total inaccuracies as a controversy. And that's the way it gets into the pressroom. It's the way it gets on the front page of the "New York Times."
We're not going to let that happen, stand by and let people go characterize the president's policy in ways that are simply not true.
KURTZ: Well, the media did...
DUNN: They do, though. Nobody has a question...
KURTZ: The media did blow the whistle on the so-called "death panel," and they said that they were completely bogus.
Go ahead and make your point.
DUNN: Well, my point is very simple, was that the Republican member of Congress, who delivered the response to the president's address to the Joint Session of Congress on health care in September, was one of the early sponsors of the so-called "death panel" legislation, which I don't believe you know, do you.
KURTZ: I'm happy to be educated.
Let me ask you a last question before we go.
To some extent, poll numbers being down, problems piling up, things are not going as well as you probably would like for the administration. I'm wondering whether the people who (ph) line (ph) up
(ph) are just a little shell-shocked, because Barack Obama got such good coverage during the campaign and now he's getting pretty typical presidential coverage, which is to say, pretty rough coverage.
DUNN: Oh, you know the reality is we -- you know, one of the great strengths of President Obama as a candidate and as president, is his ability to take the long view, understand there are going to be good times, there are going to be bad times.
Certainly, in the course of his two-year campaign, Howie -- and I don't think we would disagree -- there were some times that were quite rough for us, in particular around the Pennsylvania primary, and certainly...
KURTZ: Every (ph) right (ph)...
DUNN: ... in the general election as well. Absolutely. And we understand that.
And he understands better than anyone. You know, you're going be up; you're going to be down.
What is true, though, is that you do not have to be a passive bystander when your opponents are seeking not to have a debate on the issues, but simply to tear down the president and his presidency. And that's what we're not going to do. We will push back.
KURTZ: All right. The White House is not going to be passive.
Anita Dunn, thank you very much for joining us from the lawn (ph).
DUNN: Thank you, Howie.