Kantor’s response seemed to be leading to a crackling exchange, but host Chris Hayes swooped in and changed the subject.

Upon publication last month, The Obamas dominated the news cycle on the strength of a few anecdotes that captured the media’s imagination, which resulted in some pushback from the White House, and from Mrs. Obama. While Hayes and Salon‘s Joan Walsh each said they had read the book, and that the First Lady comes off sympathetically, the bits that he media focused on painted a picture of dissension between the East and West Wings. The White House line has generally been that these anecdotes have been blown out of proportion, without proper context, and don’t properly represent the truth.

As with previous books about this White House, discussion in the media has often turned to the ways in which authors can polish up the mundane in order to hype book sales, and perhaps justify their time and expense.

This seemed to be on Karen Hunter’s mind when she engaged Kantor. “I haven’t read the book,” she began, adding “No disrespect, don’t plan on reading it, but as the only publisher on this set, I also understand kind of the pressures to produce — you got seven figures for this. You got a lot of money to write this book, which means that you had to deliver certain things that I, quite frankly, don’t think you could have, you know, given the amount of money that you were offered to do this book.”

“What was your motivation,” Hunter continued, “if you didn’t have personal interviews with the President or the First Lady, to produce something called The Obamas, which was an in-depth look at this power couple, what was your motivation for doing it?

Kantor began by explaining that she’s been on the Obama beat for five years, that she had the cooperation of the White House (more on that from Jay Carney here), and that “the entire book was fact checked with its sources and cross-checked with other people in the White House. Nobody has challenged the reporting in the book. Nobody has come forward to say, Michelle Obama didn’t do that, she didn’t have that dispute.”

Hunter interjected, “But there is a tone.”

“Excuse me,” Kantor scolded. “Please let me finish. I think that, first of all, you never do your work as a reporter based on how much you’re being paid for it.”

That statement elicited a laugh from Hunter.

“Whether you’re being paid a lot or a little, you always try to ascertain the same standards of fairness and accuracy.”

She went on to explain that the book explores the arc of the Obamas, as a closer-to-ordinary couple adjusting to life in the White House, in the presidency. “I didn’t have any of the confidential that I learned about Michelle Obama’s initial unhappiness in the White House, and her turnaround about the conflict between the East and the West Wing. The nature is you never know what you’re going to discover along the way.”

Unfortunately, the exchange ended there, as host Chris Hayes swooped in to put the conversation back on the broader track it started on. Hunter was, apparently, not satisfied with Kantor’s response, as she has expanded on the critique on Twitter since then.

I haven’t read The Obamas, either, but Ms. Kantor’s response didn’t really address the substance of Ms. Hunter’s critique. It is entirely possible to get all of your facts straight, yet still get the story wrong, especially in a book. One great illustration of this is the “Secret Halloween Party,” which Kantor got factually right (for the most part), but which she placed in a wholly unfair frame.

However it applies to The Obamas, Hunter’s observation could as easily be applied to the broader media landscape. The political news cycle has become a machine, with huge amounts of time and money devoted to keeping it running 24/7. As a result, there always has to be some huge thing to talk about, so everything that can be hyped most certainly will be hyped. It’s a journalistic Field of Dreams, except here, the mantra is “If you build it, they better come!”

Here’s the clip, from MSNBC:

O’Brien’s main point against Kantor was that she hasn’t interviewed the Obamas since 2009, but still wrote a book about details of their marriage (culled mostly from aides to the First Lady). Kantor defended her research by saying she had credible sources, sharing anecdotes that only these cooperative aides would have known.

“First Lady-hood is a really hard job,” Kantor told O’Brien, in the statement that set off the argument. “If you read the Laura Bush memoir, for example, she talks about feeling very misunderstood as First Lady, she talks about the isolation of living in the residence. You know, the house is practically–”

“But in a way, isn’t that the point?” O’Brien interrupted. “That’s her memoir. So after she leaves the White House as the First Lady — who often people leave their hands off the woman who isn’t elected to the office but is in the White House job to watch the kids… they write a memoir. And it’s her take on her experience in the White House.”

“But Soledad, your argument is that the First Lady shouldn’t be covered in a serious way by journalists? I look forward to reading her memoirs. But a reported book by an outside fair observer is a totally different project.”

“You have not interviewed her. You haven’t interviewed her! You haven’t inter–I don’t even know the First Lady. I interviewed her once, many years ago. Four years ago. You haven’t interviewed her since 2009,” O’Brien countered. “And there are many moments in the book where you talk about things that are internal to her relationship with her husband the President. I’m just saying — I do think you should cover her as a journalist — I’m just saying you can understand how someone would feel having their relationship taken apart in a book, deconstructed in a book, from someone who hasn’t done an interview with the two parties involved.”

Watch a clip of the heated interview below, courtesy of CNN:

UPDATE: Kantor had a similarly frustrating interview Thursday night with Piers Morgan:

Fox News contributor Andrea Tantaros‘ diagnosis: “most reporters” are “lazy and liberal.”

Appearing with Juan Williams, who “balanced” things out by saying Tantaros was “on target,” she went on to say “Juan and I are columnists, so we’ve been in the business. We know these reporters pretty well. A lot of them, Eric, don’t want to do the leg work. They’d rather have stories spoon-fed to them by the White House, by the Senate, or by the House, and then write them up themselves.”

She went on to accuse White House reporters of being “buddies” with this administration, and of dereliction in service of increased access.

I’m assuming she’s not talking about my friend Ed Henry, but her “lazy and liberal” descriptor doesn’t fit any of my White House colleagues. The reason we didn’t “expose” the Secret Halloween Party is that we did. There was a pool report about it. All of the drool over that story is over the fact that the White House made that event about military families, not the two (notoriously publicity-shy) Hollywood celebrities who helped make the event special for them.

As for tension between the East Wing and the West Wing, there has been some (at the staff level), but my impression is that it’s no more or less than what there has been in other White Houses. What tension there is, though, has been reported.

More broadly, the notion that Andrea Tantaros would smear White House reporters as “lazy and liberal” is just offensive. She claims to “know these reporters pretty well,” but her analysis relies on well-worn cliches spun by outsiders. Superficially, the beat does lend itself to stenography, which is what makes the beat so challenging. That’s the whole job, to get something out of this White House that they don’t want to give you. If Tantaros knew even one White House reporter, she’d know that.

The press corps is also decidedly not liberal, with the exception of the clearly-labeled “Professional Left” wing, and openly conservative reporters like CNS News’ Fred Lucas or Human Events’ John Gizzi. Take a quick gander at a website like Crooks and Liars to see how the mainstream White House reporters measure up to the liberal label. To conservatives, the absence of a conservative bias equals a liberal one.

But even those who are liberal still do their jobs. Speaking for myself, I’ve spent the better part of three years pressing this administration on issues like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the awful Pharma deal, the health care reform public option, and even the White House’s treatment of the Tea Party. Liberal? Yes. Lazy? No.

The thing that casual observers don’t get about the White House beat is that it doesn’t matter what we report, or what we ask at those daily briefings, if it doesn’t get consumed. Readers, viewers, and news editors shape the perception of what we do, so we can ask 20 or 30 questions a day on serious policy matters, but if Secret Halloween Party wins, what can we do?

Here’s the clip, from Fox News:

Oh my God. Eric Bolling and Tommy Christopher agree about something. We have reached the End Times.

RELATED: Jay Carney Responds To ‘Secret’ Johnny Depp Halloween Party Scandal

On Fox News, Bolling just couldn’t muster up any energy for the topic. Whereas Greg Gutfeld was merely using the time to get in some of his trademark “Hollywood is dumb” jokes, Bolling just shrugged his shoulders.

“I’m about as nitpicky on the Right as you can possibly be,” Bolling pointed out. “And for this, I just don’t see the story here.”

This is a guy who was still doing daily Solyndra updates until even his co-hosts seemed bored by the subject. If you can’t get him excited about an Obama scandal, it’s time to go back to the drawing board.

Watch the clip from Fox News below:

The allegation in the book is that the “lavish” party, designed by Tim Burton and attended by Alice In Wonderland star Johnny Depp (and the aforementioned Wookie), was kept under wraps for fear of incurring Tea Party-stoked ire over such a celebration during a recession.

However, the event was on the White House schedule, and was covered by the press pool. The sticking point appears to be that the White House billed this as a “Halloween reception for military families,” rather than “The Depp-Burton-Wookie Show (plus some other people). Bastards!

Asked by Ann Compton about the party, Carney explained, “This is a perfect example — it goes right to my first point about how these books — books like these take these things out of context. A couple of outlets that I won’t name, you know, reported a secret party — well, if it was secret, why did we invite the press in, why was there a pool report and contemporaneous photographs?”

“There was a story about Johnny Depp being there?” Compton asked.

“There wasn’t a publicity event for the outside, Carney replied. “It was a military event for their children and their families inside the White House where the press came, photographs were taken. It was contemporaneously known who was here. If that’s — if we’re trying to hide something by bringing in the press, we’re not very good at it.”

“For the record, there’s not one statement from this White House –” Compton stated.

“But, again, the purpose wasn’t for — we do a lot of these things july 4th, other events here, including other events that are geared towards military families and their kids where the purpose isn’t to publicize them externally for you guys but to have a nice event for them here, which is different from trying to hide anything.”

Carney is correct here. A few months ago, I even remarked about how some events with celebrity attendees were inexplicably closed to the press, while others were not. There are a host of considerations that go into those decisions. Additionally, the White House could easily have requested guests not take photos, or otherwise publicize certain events (I’ve seen such requests made in the past), but they made no such request. They weren’t seeking publicity for Chewie and co., but they certainly weren’t avoiding it.

By the same token, I covered a very lavish event during the heart of Tea Party angst in 2009  (a Father’s Day barbecue cooked by Bobby Flay, and attended by a host of celebrities, including DMC!!1!) that was completely open to the press. As it happens, the Halloween party was listed as “Pool spray at the top,” which means there’s a photo op at the beginning of the event, and then the press leaves.

This attack might make some sense if this event had been for administration staff, or donors, but the focus was on military families. Why would the White House think the American people, Tea Party or not, would begrudge them anything?

Fox’s Ed Henry also followed up on the party, pointing out that the press pool was not allowed access to the whole party. Carney replied that there were pictures of Depp and others that were made public, pretty much in real time. Depp’s appearance was reported on his fan club’s website.

There’s every reason to believe, then, that the White House wanted to keep the focus on those deserving military families, and that the notoriously publicity-shy Depp and Burton felt the same. In Right-Wingnutistan, though, no good deed goes unpunished.

Just to be sure, I asked Carney if there were any other secret parties he wanted to ‘fess up to now.

“That one where he lit the Christmas tree?” Carney replied. “That was supposed to be secret, but as usual it leaked.”

Here’s the video of Carney’s response, from C-Span2:

Here’s the pool report from the event, from USA Today‘s Richard Wolf:

A couple hundred military families, chosen by each service, and White House staffers and their children roamed the first floor of the White House as an old-fashioned turntable played albums — yes, albums. POTUS and FLOTUS came into the East Room at 7:12 p.m. to greet some of them personally. Included: Robert Gibbs dressed as Darth Vader, with son Ethan; Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, dressed as Goofy (the president jokingly asked cameras not to take her photo). The First Couple handed out the same treats that went to those passing by outside; at one point the president squatted down to talk to some of the children, seated on the floor.

As the pool was being ushered out, the president spoke briefly. He told the military families “We are so grateful to you,” especially those who are separated from family members. He thanked staffers and their children, at which point FLOTUS piped in, “They’re so cute!”

“They’re adorable,” POTUS said, “as is, by the way, my wife — a very nice-looking Cat Woman.”

The president told everyone to enjoy the party and the characters but warned, “Some of them are pretty big and scary.” He noted that younger daughter Sasha “doesn’t like big furry things.” (Neither Obama offspring was seen, but we’re told they were there.)

“Did you talk to the President and First Lady while researching the book?” Lauer pressed.

RELATED: Axelrod Confirms That Robert Gibbs Did Curse Michelle Obama

“The book is mostly reported through top aides and close friends of the president and First Lady,” Kantor responded. “I’m one of the only people to get access to the East Wing and the First Lady’s staff there. What I found is that aides and friends were able to tell stories that the Obamas don’t talk about, like what happened the first time they tried to go home to Chicago.”

Lauer presented pushback from the White House, which called her book an “overdramatization of old news.”

“Are you kind of taking poetic license here?” Lauer questioned.

“They haven’t disputed any of the facts,” Kantor argued.

Kantor went into more details about how First Lady Michelle Obama hasn’t been involved in the day-to-day activities of the West Wing.

“Is she disappointed with what’s happened so far?” Lauer asked.

“According to my reporting, there were times she was really frustrated,” Kantor revealed.

Watch Lauer’s exclusive interview with Kantor below, via NBC:

THE 5 BEST PANELS OF 2011

1. Who: Richard Just, Jodi Kantor, Ryan Lizza, moderated by Franklin Foer
Where: New America NYC
When: December 8, 2011
What we said: “One issue that hasn’t been addressed this season, the panel noted, is the global economic crisis, which Lizza pointed out is something that can’t be blamed on Obama, so it hasn’t been a part of the GOP talking points.

This event was sold on the weird and wacky characters and events from the past few months, yet the debate centered more on the question of where we go from here. Herman Cain’s name barely showed up, for one. It seems that it’s time to get serious.”

See the full review.

2. Who: Gay Talese, David Carr, Andrew Rossi, moderated by Bill Keller
Where: Times Center
When: June 14, 2011
What we said: “So will The Times live on? Rossi isn’t sure if journalism will remain the same on a new platform. Carr, however, thinks The Timeswill survive, even if only as a status symbol. When you’re on your iPad, he said, it’s impossible to tell if you’re reading The New York Times or not. Echoing this sentiment were two people sitting in front of us at the event who made it difficult to tell if they were tweeting about the panel on their iPhones or just checking their email.”

See the full review.

3. Who: Seth Meyers, John Mulaney, Marika Sawyer, Colin Jost, Erik Kenward, Bryan Tucker, Chris Kelly, moderated by Steve Gaydos
Where: Paley Center for Media
When: November 13, 2011
What we said: “They rely heavily on the audience at dress rehearsal on Saturday evening to telegraph what’s working and what’s missing the mark. Their approval is reflected through their ratings – which the writers claim doesn’t influence them – but another gauge  is Internet reaction. The writers say that SNL was made for YouTube well before YouTube even existed. After all these years, it continues to connect with new viewers and to cater to the times.”

See the full review.

4. Who: Michael Lewis, interviewed by Ira Glass
Where: 92nd St. Y
When: February 3, 2011
What we said: “Glass, one of the best interviewers out there, can make a heavy topic like finance come alive. He clearly has an affinity for Lewis, who he declares is one of the few journalists who does fact-based reporting while clearly having a good time doing it. Glass was at the top of his game, engaging with Lewis, reacting to both his answers and his implications, as he sought closure and a villain to blame for the economic downturn. But what Glass said he found in Lewis’ book, The Big Short, were ‘heroes’ in the form of bankers.”

See the full review.

5. Who: Nicholas Lemann, Stephen B. Shepard, moderated by Myron Kandel
Where: JCC of Manhattan
When: October 5, 2011
What we said: “We used to rely on news anchors and editors to determine the biggest news of the day. Now, we each choose for ourselves, and have the abilities to deliver our selections to others. What hasn’t changed is that people still rely on those they trust to help curate the news. And since there are more media options now than ever, everyone can find and design his or her own diet. Although it might be time to begin worrying about fragmentation…”

See the full review.

THE 10 BEST QUOTES OF 2011

1. “The thing to fixate on is not the weirdness of the weird candidates, it’s the weirdness of the normal candidate.”
- Richard Just believes the Republicans are scraping at the bottom of the barrel this time around

2. “That’s not that interesting…if it was that interesting, I would have asked the question.”
– Anderson Cooper jokingly takes issue with Reiss’ decision to begin a response with “Here’s something interesting…”

3. “One of the things the Internet did was pick apart the newspaper bit by bit.”
- Nicholas Lemann says that have more sources to get the information and resources we used to find inside of newspapers pages

4. “You don’t ever change what you know to be truth.”
– Oliver Stone takes issue with directors who don’t document fact correctly

5. “The people who get the joke don’t need an explanation. Those who don’t get it won’t understand the explanation.”
- Gilbert Gottfried explains his lack of explanations

6. “Criticism operates in a business environment that it can’t ignore or deny.”
- David Denby says it’s impossible to separate movies from the studios behind them

7. “It’s never about the character, it’s always about the story…I’ve always likened it to a rock n’ roll band. If the band is good, the bass player is cool.”
- Kiefer Sutherland aspires to be that bass player

8. “One thing we have in this family is the belief in freedom of the press even if it’s all about the press. And that’s a great tradition.”
- Gay Talese praises the Sulzbergers for their commitment to the paper

9. “Where do they pay kids who don’t know anything lots of money? Wall Street!”
- Michael Lewis says that some young people were drawn to banking after they read Lewis’ Liar’s Poker

10. “So much of this business is bluffing.”
- Josh Radnor responds to Akerman’s revelation that she had to convince Radnor she could take on the lead role

The Republican race for the nomination is down to two: Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. That was the clear message from a group of political reporters who gathered to discuss the so-far bizarre race for the GOP nod. Moderator Franklin Foer didn’t hold anything back, though, in calling Gingrich a “circus incarnate,” and expressed surprise that the former House Speaker has risen in the polls in recent weeks. The panel explained that Gingrich’s ascent is really the result of others falling by the wayside and thus clearing the way. But Ryan Lizza hasn’t counted out the yet-to-be-named candidate who could emerge in the spring during a gap period. Everyone senses weakness in this field, and there’s oppotunity to be had.

Jodi Kantor tried to make sense of Gingrich’s popularity. She said that Republicans have rallied around Gingrich in the past, and that really on both sides this election season people are stuck talking about the 1990s and how things were then. And, she added, the conservative base likes his ability to stand up and challenge the Democrats. On the other side of the equation sits Romney who has not appealed as much to conservatives, and who Lizza called “mechanical” in seemingly both speech and strategy. Kantor warned that Romney could also face a real test down the line once someone pushes him to explain and defend his lone issue, the economy, and what exactly he plans to do to turn things around.

And now that it’s shaping up finally to be a two-man race – the panel left candidates like Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and others for dead – we’ll see more attacks from Romney and Gingrich. With Barack Obama‘s people also looking to attack Romney’s record as we move closer to November, the former governor may be in store for some mudslinging from both sides. As the debates have proven, though, Obama will remain on the defensive as well all the way through about the key issues. One issue that hasn’t been addressed this season, the panel noted, is the global economic crisis, which Lizza pointed out is something that can’t be blamed on Obama, so it hasn’t been a part of the GOP talking points.

This event was sold on the weird and wacky characters and events from the past few months, yet the debate centered more on the question of where we go from here. Herman Cain’s name barely showed up, for one. It seems that it’s time to get serious.

What They Said

“The thing to fixate on is not the weirdness of the weird candidates, it’s the weirdness of the normal candidate.”
- Richard Just believes the Republicans are scraping at the bottom of the barrel this time around

“Competency isn’t going to be what they go after, lack of a core is what they’ll go after.”
- Ryan Lizza says that Romney’s inconsistency could be devastating for him

“Presidency isn’t just about rationality and making the right decision. It’s about politics.”
- Franklin Foer questions whether Romney has what it takes

“He’s like a conductor of anxiety.”
- Jodi Kantor’s description of Donald Trump’s role in politics

“The strategy for Republicans should be about Obama’s record, not about your own candidate.”
- Ryan Lizza anticipates this election will come down to feelings about the current POTUS

What We Thought

• Foer did a great job keeping the conversation moving, but we were most impressed by how the entire panel was so inquisitive of each other. Not only had they done the research to read what the others had written on the subject of the election, but they also came prepared with followup questions for each other. We’d never seen this kind of preparation and genuine curiosity from panelists.
• It’s rare to see such a great combination of expertise and charisma from a group on stage together. They talked politics for an hour without getting too wonky for the onlookers, and they kept a serious discussion lighthearted thanks to one-liners, mostly supplied for Foer. This wasn’t your same-old conversation about the election 11 months away, and we appreciated that.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Another rare clean performance from the audience at this event. Five questions asked, many more answered during the Q&A. The audience kept the panel on its toes, and also sparked further discussion about candidates, issues, and possibilities that went unmentioned. A job well done.

New York Times Washington correspondent Jodi Kantor has secured a stunning seven-figure book deal this week with Little, Brown to write a volume on the Obamas.

The deal was the result of a heated citywide auction, and was brokered by independent lit agent Elyse Cheney. It comes on the heels of the 34-year-old reporter’s New York Times Magazine cover story on the Obamas’ marriage, which argued that “the Obamas mix politics and romance in a way that no first couple quite have before.”

According to several sources, Ms. Kantor’s book will draw on the three years of reporting she has done since giving up the editorship of The Times’ Arts & Leisure section, in 2005. During the campaign, Ms. Kantor produced a number of biographical stories about the president and his inner circle, including one on his time at the head of the Harvard Law Review, one on his career as a law professor, one on his basketball-playing and one on how his friends were bracing themselves for his presidency.

So basically this sounds like more of a cult of Obama personality book than it does a recent history. A good decision based on recent poll numbers which suggest the personal will the country feels toward Obama has not bled over into support for his policies.