Jake Tapper “defending” Fox News?

bllieddose

Disclaimer:  This is not an argument IN ANY WAY in defense of Fox or Fox News.

Was ABC’s Jake Tapper “defending Fox News” as the Huffington Post reported today after Tapper asked:  “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…?”

jake

My answer is a resounding no. Not AT all.

What Jake was doing was what Jake does.  He  does that a lot … I won’t lie and say he hasn’t infuriated me on a number of occasions when asking certain questions (Sorry, Jake) but, it IS his job to ask these questions.

Consider this:  Major Garrett of Fox News is, in a way, a colleague of all of those who frequent the White House Briefing Room … and, I would assume that most of those attending those meetings are friendly with one another, and generally think that those colleagues ask good questions – Major Garrett (also who infuriates me, in fact so much that I tweeted “F*** YOU MAJOR”  once after he asked what I felt was a particularly vexing question) actually asks quite good questions and he works with Fox News … so does Shep Smith.

So, it should come as no surprise that Jake would ask this question of the White House Press Secretary Mr. Gibbs … considering they BOTH work with Garrett EVERY.SINGLE.DAY.

So, to again answer the question “Was Jake Tapper defending Fox News?”  No.  I think, and I’m probably wrong, but I think Jake was defending a colleague who he respects.  And, I would too.

Postscript:  Of course, I can’t fail to note the many times CNN has been complicit in ridiculousmongering (ie Obama as the Antichrist) and MSNBC in funmaking (ie Teabaggers) – I still say Fox is far more egregious across the board … but that’s a different matter :).

Advertisements

15 Comments

  1. It wasn’t in response to Jake’s questions, but there was a telling quote in the New York Times that bears a little more scrutiny.

    I fleshed it out here: http://idek.net/b9O/s

  2. It’s telling that you have to put a disclaimer at the top of your entry:

    This is not an argument IN ANY WAY in defense of Fox or Fox News.

    What if it was?
    What if in fact you were defending Fox News?
    Aren’t liberals all in favor of diversity?
    So why you felt that you needed to put a disclaimer at the top of your post?
    Haven’t you heard that we’re living in Obama’s America, the era of Hope and Change™?
    George W. (aka “The Devil”) and Dick Cheney are no longer in control, haven’t you heard?

  3. *sigh* (ulisesjorge)

    1. it wasn’t defending fox news, it was defending the concept of news. don’t be thick.
    2. what if I were defending fox news? hmmmmm. i wouldn’t be. but, i might defend individuals who work for fox news.
    3. yes, liberals are in favor of diversity, but not divorced from facts.
    4. i felt the need to add a disclaimer because fox news on the whole is egregiously erroneous almost on a daily basis, with not an iota of correction or apology.
    i didn’t realized that your ‘trademarked’ ‘era of hope and change’ concept of obama’s america included putting blinders on and ignoring facts. if that is your choice, it’s far from what’s at issue with what jake tapper addressed with robert gibbs.
    5. i didn’t call george bush the devil … you and hugo did …. and i resent you assuming i would. moreover i don’t recall bringing bush or cheney up in this post.

    this was a knee jerk response of yours.

    however, it was a pointed and thoughtful defense on my part – towards other progressives who would attack jake tapper with no cause other than being angry with fox news – of jake tapper who was really only questioning why those VALID AND TRUSTWORTHY JOURNALISTS AT THE MOST UNTRUSTWORTHY NEWS SOURCE IN AMERICA would be lumped in with those who would taint their truly honest and guileless hard work.

    perhaps you should ask yourself the same question that i asked myself after hearing jake speak on behalf of all other ACTUAL journalists in the briefing room including those mentioned in the above post.

    until then, whatever you choose to believe my motivation was -aside from what i wrote- is not my problem :).

  4. ike piggot …. interesting.

    i do think it goes a bit further than that…but still was not the point of this particular post.

    tommy, i think, would say that tapper was questioning why one would be singled out over another when others have similar issues, but he also would bring into account the many times the news itself has been rather one-sided on fox – i may be wrong but, you’d have to ask him :).

    i, however, was waxing a little more philosophically about jake tapper’s motivation rather than my issues – which are quite apparent – with fox news itself.

  5. You completely missed my point…
    Why did you felt it was necessary to put a disclaimer so people would know that you were not defending Fox News? What would happen to you if you were to defend Fox News in this blog?

  6. ulises … not a single thing would happen to me if i were to defend fox news ‘in this blog.’

    i choose not to. i don’t respect fox news on the whole and i think they do a disservice to the employees there who are respectful, who work hard, and who tell the truth … which seem to be few and far between.

    what everyone seemes to be forgetting – perhaps you included – is that in general, the personalities on fox news are a player in the game, they are not – on the whole – those who choose the concert of the shows … the producers are.

    so, when we have white house correspondents such as major garret, and we have seemingly hands on anchors (or other sorts) … it really is quite refreshing that it doesn’t seem they got a phone call from some asshat who said, ‘air this or be fired.’

    tough questions are a true journalist’s responsibility – and since jake wasn’t really a player during the bush administration, i can’t be mad at him. but you can bet your ASS i’m mad at david gregory, who was in the front row that tapper now occupies!

    i did not miss YOUR point … you missed mine. of your points, i addressed them one by one. AND, on top of that, here i am criticizing david gregory AN MSNBC questioner who DOESN’T HAVE AN OUNCE OF COURAGE IN HIS LITTLE FINGER, IN MY OPINION, and in no way could have filled tim russert’s shoes, and you haven’t EVEN IN THE SLIGHTEST bit addressed the fact that i admitted to daily disagreeing with jake … who himself is the subject of the post.

    so … i really don’t think i’ve missed your point in the slightest.

  7. You are right, I don’t get it. Yes, “not a single thing would happen” to you… you just felt like putting a disclaimer so that everybody got the point that you were not defending Fox News…oh well… just forget I even asked…

  8. ulises

    now you ARE being dumb. i was a ‘subtle’ as possible, but NOT.A.SINGLE.THING.WILL.HAPPEN.TO.ME.PROFESSIONALLY.PERSONALLY.OR.OTHERWISE.IF.I.CONTINUE.TO.THINK.AND.PUBLISH.THAT.I.THINK.FOX.NEWS.ON.THE.WHOLE.IS.A.BIASED.NEWS.SOURCE.IN.GENERAL.WITH.NOTHING.OF.VALUE.IN.GENERAL.ASIDE.FROM.THOSE.SELECT.FEW.WHO.DO.THE.JOB.THAT.A.JOURNALIST.IS.SUPPOSED.TO.DO.

    DO YOU GET IT NOW?!!

  9. PARDON……IT SNUCK OVER INTO OVERLAP BECAUSE I SEPARATED EVERY SINGLE WORD JUST SO YOU WOULD GET THE POINT
    NO
    I WON’T BE FIRED
    I WONT BE LECTURED
    I WONT BE BLASPHEMED
    I WONT BE CHASTISED FOR ANYTHING I WROTE FOR MY OPINION ON THE MATTER
    GET A GRIP

    FOX NEWS IS NOT WHAT NEWS SHOULD BE IN GENERAL, THEREFORE, MY DEFENSE OF MAJOR GARRET AND SHEP SMITH ARE JUST THAT…DEFENSES OF THOSE WHO SEE BOTH SIDES OF EVERY ISSUE.

    HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN I BE?

  10. Thanks Billie…

    Not to speak for Tommy either, but he’s always struck me as one with an appreciation for the logic underpinning an argument.

    There are more logical ways that the Administration could go about defining the phrase “legitimate news organization,” but that would require explanation.

    You have to wonder if this squabbling with Ailes doesn’t just elevate Fox in the eyes of its audience, further driving the partisan divide.

  11. No, I don’t get it. I get the part that you claim nothing will happen to you, but you felt the need to put in a disclaimer so nobody would think that you were defending Fox News… I mean, is perfectly logical….

    In other news, Fox News the non-government approved news organization reported last Monday:

    H1N1 flu is running rampant throughout the U.S., and the country will have received only 25 percent of the vaccine that was expected by the end of October, Sen. Joe Lieberman told a Senate committee hearing Wednesday.

    The grim news was the focus of a special hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, at which three Cabinet secretaries were called to address the panel: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

    As of last week, there were more than 5,000 cases of flu reported, compared to 7 cases in October of last year. More than 800 people have died from H1N1, including 86 children, according to the latest reports from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Did any of you read about this on MSNBC or CNN, the “real” news organizations? I don’t think so, they got their marching orders from the White House, they should not think of Fox News as a news organizations, so they will simply not follow stories that originate in Fox News… which is precisely the point of this White House offensive against Fox News…

  12. I think Billie’s disclaimer is similar to those I’ve seen Tapper tweet, to clarify that the issue with his question was not a value judgment of Fox News one way or the other, but rather about the principle of a free press in general. This is a liberal blog that often takes issue with Fox, so I appreciate the disclaimer, but it was more to ward off annoying comments.

  13. I might be oversentive here. I come from a family of socialist and I’ve learn to shut my mouth when politics enter the discussion during family reunions, so I may be getting the wrong impression about the need of a disclaimer in this blog.

    To me is like saying “please, don’t jump on me now for what I am about to say, I’m still little old me, ok?” I disagree on principle with 80% of what’s written here, but still I read. When I comment, I’ve never felt the need to apologize for my views… so again, there’s must be something I’m not getting.

  14. O.k… should we be worry now about this H1N1 vaccine shortage that Fox News the “no-a-news-organization” reported last Monday and that the other White House certified as authentic news organizations did not follow…?

    Obama declares swine flu a national emergency:

    By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer – 34 mins ago
    WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency, giving his health chief the power to let hospitals move emergency rooms offsite to speed treatment and protect noninfected patients.

    The declaration, signed Friday night and announced Saturday, comes with the disease more prevalent than ever in the country and production delays undercutting the government’s initial, optimistic estimates that as many as 120 million doses of the vaccine could be available by mid-October.

  15. Tommy, the disclaimer doesn’t really matter because Tapper ends up eating crap from both sides. And he hasn’t deserved an ounce of it.


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s