Actually, Robert Gibbs Doesn’t Have A Lot Of Bad Things To Say About FNC

video

by Glynnis MacNicol | 4:15 pm, April 18th, 2010

» 21 comments

It’s rarely a good sign when the messenger becomes the story. And that is exactly what has happened to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs in the last week or so. Rumors have been swirling for a while now at the brewing resentment towards Gibbs in the White House press corps. and apparently things were serious enough (not to mention somewhat aggravated by last week’s long WaPo feature on Gibbs) to merit a sit-down this weekend between the Press Corps and Gibbs in order to clear the air. Ed Chen, a White House correspondent for Bloomberg News who is president of the White House Correspondents’ Association told Politico’s Mike Allen that in his “10-plus years at the White House, rarely have I sensed such a level of anger, which is wide and deep, among members over White House practices and attitude toward the press.”

Gibbs followed up this tete-a-tete with a (taped) appearance on Reliable Sources this morning where after a few quick nods to the SCOTUS selection process Howie Kurtz quickly turned the talk to Fox News and the cable news cycle in general. This exchange in particular was rather humorous since I am always interested in how people can dislike strongly something they never watch.

KURTZ: How much cable news does the president watch?
GIBBS: Very little, and…
KURTZ: How does he know how bad it is?
GIBBS: … that makes — well, he watches — you don’t have to watch much of it to watch — to watch the — the world wide wrestling impact of how issues are bantered around.

Some impressive backpedaling there. Meanwhile, is the White House softening in its approach to the ‘wrestling’ that goes on on Fox News? Gibbs’ remarks regarding the news network are bordered on genteel compared to some of the criticism we’ve heard from the administration in the past (and from others outside it today).

KURTZ: Let me ask you about Fox. The — the White House campaign against Fox News. Did that end when Fox’s Bret Baier was invited into the Oval Office who a lot of people have called, “The interrupt-athon interview?”

GIBBS: Well, I’ll let Fox determine whether or not they got out of that interview what they wanted to get out of it based on the fact that — I mean, I think the uniqueness of having an interview with the president is getting a chance to sit as close as we are and getting that insight.

I mean, he could – this is the last interview the president did before something as historic as healthcare passed. I don’t think historians will look back on that interview and think, “Boy we really got a sense of what the president was thinking right before such a historic achievement”…

GIBBS: Howard, I’ll say this. That — that we are, as you said, we — we live in a town in which you have to play the game. And — and we’re happy to put guests on. We’re happy to do interviews. Obviously I take questions from their correspondent each and every day in the briefing. I — I don’t think many people have to watch Fox to understand the — the political slant that they have.

KURTZ: You mean the news coverage as well as the opinion shows?

GIBBS: Here’s a good example. The president signed the START treaty last week. And there was a lot of debate about whether us reducing our nuclear warheads was making this country less safe. And then the anchor disappeared. And for several seconds there was a 1960s video footage of a nuclear test and a mushroom cloud. Now what you didn’t see was — you — you didn’t see in any of that where the last time we are familiar with seeing pictures of START treaties being signed, are that of Ronald Reagan. Or when the president makes a pledge to end nuclear weapons on our planet. Now what you didn’t see was — you — you didn’t see in any of that where the last time we are familiar with seeing pictures of START treaties being signed, are that of Ronald Reagan. Or when the president makes a pledge to end nuclear weapons on our planet.

[...]Well, again, their [Fox News] stature is largely elevated by the people that listen. Again I — I think it’s one of those things where if you’re not — you know, you have in all — I think in a lot of different phases of the media people can make statements that aren’t checked, right? The media in some cases covers the food fight, but doesn’t necessarily check who started it and whether they started it for a reason that was legitimate or not.

Short version: Cable news segments are too short, Fox News coverage has a political slant, the cablers turn everything into a shout fest. Nothing new, or all that terrible here! To that point, it’s probably worth noting that the White House and Fox have been on comparatively good terms for a while now, the Baier interview being more of a recognition of that than a starting point. Actually, perhaps the most interesting part of the segment was what Kurtz didn’t ask Gibbs, namely, how does he feel about all the recent criticism of him from inside the press corps ranks. Video of the segment below.

Bret Baier, Ed Chen, fox news, howie kurtz, Joe Klein, Mike Allen, Reliable Sources, Robert Gibbs

timzank

I’ve often thought that job (WH Press Secretary) would be a horrendous way to make a living since the primary measurement of job performance is lying with a straight face.
shootfromthehip

Was Gibbs lying about the fact that Ronald Reagan was the first President to begin reducing warheads via START? Was Gibbs wrong about Fox failing to mention that in any of their slanted coverage?

No, Gibbs wasn’t wrong. No, Gibbs didn’t lie.

Fox is agenda television.

Fox is not news.
BR

shootfromthehip: in your opinion who is a real, non-agenda news source? I always hear leftists knock Fox, but they never seem to say why THEY get their news from. So please, do tell.
shootfromthehip

I am forced to get news from a variety of sources. Television news is the worst in this country. CBC in Canada at least provides viewers with the basic facts, something American news used to excel at.

But here are the best of the worst, in order. PBS, BBC America, MSNBC, CNN, Fox.

I watch ALL of those. Usually, you can find truth in the middle.
BR

shoot: thank you for answering. I am not pro or anti Fox. You can keep Hannity, but I think for the most part Oreilly tries to be fair. I put CNN and Fox at about the same level. I thing that we would have to disagree about MSNBC, I put them as worse than CNN and Fox combined. I honestly believe that Olbermann needs to be medicated (and Im not trying to be funny, I really think that he has serious issues) I think that Ms. Maddow is the only one on MSNBC who even comes close to being real, but even she will turn into Olbermann-light a little to often. As for the morning/day shows on either network I cant say. I never have the time to watch.
timzank

shootfromthehip…that’s odd. One would think watching that varied a line-up you’d be a fuzz more open minded.
BR

shoot: i forgot to add. At least you make your opinion by watching. I know many people who base their opinions of Fox on what MSNBC says about them.
shootfromthehip

I actually like O’Reilly an watch him frequently. However, he shoots himself in the foot when he gets caught lying, as he did last week.

These guys just can’t get through their heads that You Tube exists now. Old radio guys are used to lying into the ether and nobody fact checking their lies.

But generally, I think O’Reilly is one of the few thinkers at Fox who does sometimes at least try and be fair and balanced.

Hannity is a joke.

Olbermann can be over the line often, but he at least gets his facts right and does a good job of balancing the news with a bit of humor now and again (see “Oddball” segment).
ImNotBlue

shootfromthehip says:
April 18, 2010 at 8:55 pm

Yes, and what was O’Reilly’s “lie” again? Oh, that’s right… he said that nobody at FOX said you could be jailed for failure to sign up for Obamacare. Of course, he clarified the statement, pointing out that all the alleged statements from FOX personalities had come when that WAS actually in the bill, but since that bill never made it to law (unlike the bill he was talking about), there wasn’t much point in discussing it.

Sure, you could argue a slight victory over O’Reilly on semantics (ignoring the actual purpose and content of the debate). Of course, if you wanted to say he “lied,” you’d need proof that he knew he wasn’t telling the truth. After all, if you’re going to get semantic about it, why shouldn’t I? So on that level, O’Reilly didn’t “lie,” he was simply “incorrect” and should have been “clearer.”

Then again, anyone who thinks Olbermann “tells the truth” or gets his “facts right,” probably has a loose grip on “truth” anyway. Sadly, “facts” are not simply what you believe… and that “fact” alone negates a lot of KO’s claims to truthfulness.
shootfromthehip

“clarified the statement?”

You mean backpedal and weasel your way out of an obvious lie?

Got ya.

;)

O’Reilly should just own up to the fact he got busted. Hell, blame it on a staffer and say that he thought he did his research, but they missed a few instances.

Anything but LYING to get out of the fact that he was cold busted LYING!

My Dad was a cop. Our family knows the basic tells of a liar. And Bill O had tells aplenty, Not a huge deal, I still watch the guy and he is a VERY talented broadcaster.

He just got caught this time, that’s all.
TylerDurden

shootfromthehip-Just take some Hmo-seltzer at night, and in the morning, you will wake-up feeling yourself.
TylerDurden

My Dad was a cop”

I bet he was the union thug cop beating up that college student, shootfromyourass.

If God gave the Earth an enema, he would put it down your lying libby throat.
TylerDurden

Our family knows the basic tells of a liar”

Just look in the mirror, blooter.
Averreauxii

The WH especially the communication guys (including Gibbs and Burton) watch FoxNews. They just don’t want to admit it since they elevate it’s stature. That being said, it’s the press secretary’s job to spin and obfuscate. Dana Perino went a whole year refusing to acknowledge the onset of the recession. Everyone knew it too. It’s not exactly something you can hide.
ImNotBlue

shootfromthehip says:
April 18, 2010 at 9:26 pm

Prove to me it was a lie. Prove to me he knew he was incorrect BEFORE he said it on the air.

Of course, as I said before, if this is what you want to hang your hat on… semantics… good for you. O’Reilly’s point that Coburn was wrong, is still correct.

But perhaps this little episode is just like a nickel out in the sun… it’s something shiny, and you’ve gotten distracted. Too bad… it’s just a nickel.
shootfromthehip

All of the statements on Fox regarding jail time were made after the Senate Finance Committee passed its version of the health reform legislation, which specifically prohibited imprisoning people for refusing to pay the tax penalty levied on those without insurance.

Here are the dates:

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/04/14/jail-time-for-insurance-evaders-yes-said-fox-news/
Averreauxii

ImNotBlue, I watched that video probably 5X. O’reilly clearly said that no one on FNC had said that not getting health insurance would lead to imprisonment. That’s precisely what he said. He didn’t qualify his statement. It was simply a lie that was debunked. Even Neil Cavuto, a fellow FNC anchor admitted this to Coburn. The following day, he (BOR) dodged and tried to clarify what he meant. That is moving the goal post and saying the shot you kicked yesterday that was 5ft wide is now a scored goal. O’reilly does this all the time. He never corrects false information he purveys as truth. A good example is the TPM he did saying the New England journal of medicine or whatever it was had done a poll/study showing that doctors (almost 1/2) would leave the profession if health care legislation became law. New England JOM never initiated such a study and BOR never corrected that on the air. He’s an egomaniac and never wants to admit mistakes. He does this with polls too.
shootfromthehip

“That is moving the goal post and saying the shot you kicked yesterday that was 5ft wide is now a scored goal. O’reilly does this all the time. He never corrects false information he purveys as truth.”

Exactly right.
ImNotBlue

shootfromthehip says:
April 18, 2010 at 10:30 pm

You realize that if you read all the way down, the article doesn’t actually prove what you think it does? You got that, right?

Averreauxii says:
April 18, 2010 at 10:33 pm

O’reilly does this all the time. He never corrects false information he purveys as truth.

Liiiike?

“A good example is the TPM he did saying the New England journal…”

Turns out that the New England Journal of Medicine didn’t publish or conduct this study… HOWEVER:

“It was a survey conducted by the Medicus Firm, a physicians recruiting service, and initially reported in January 2010. The firm wrote an article about the survey results, which was first published on the firm’s Web site. The article was later reprinted in Recruiting Physicians Today, an advertising newsletter put out on the NEJM’s Career Center Web site. The Medicus Firm neither paid to have the article published, nor was it paid for the article.

It was never published in the actual New England Journal of Medicine.

But it’s easy to see how someone might have been confused. Although the small print explains that the survey was done by the Medicus Firm, the article prominently states at the top, “From the publishers of the New England Journal of Medicine” and carries the NEJM seal.”

PolitiFact

So it was a widely published and talked about mistake, based upon an (apparently) confusing website publication. Hardly the “horror” you seem to describe.

He does this with polls too.

Liiiike?

He’s an egomaniac and never wants to admit mistakes.

Oooh, so you’ve met him and know this personally! I didn’t understand that… wait, you don’t know him? You’re just making it up based on what some folks have told you? Oooh… okay, well that sounds reasonable.
Rogue-Comic

Well, it would seem Robert Gibbs got punked by Bill O’Reilly in these here comments about an article centered on Gibbs. O’Reilly, host of an opinion editorial show, who’s views trump Gibbs,’ the press secretary of the White House? Nice.

Oh well, Fox and MSNBC are both bias, but at least Fox allows dissent from left leaning pundits and show hosts where my index and middle finger can count the conservative viewpoint at MSNBC. Sh!t, even Hannity has ole Bob to offer a counter-argument to good ole boy Shawn’s conservative talking points.
jimkerosh

I hear leftists always knock Fox, but does not seem to say why get their news from. Here is the best of the worst, in the system. PBS, and BBC America, CNN, CNN, and Fox. You can keep Hannity, But I think for the most part trying to be fair Arieli.
memory card reader