David Gregory on the Pitney question: 'Imagine if Bush had done this'. Um, OK
By David Neiwert Monday Jun 29, 2009 5:45am
Dana Milbank wasn't the only Beltway Villager all wanked out about President Obama prearranging a question with HuffPo's Nico Pitney yesterday. On Meet the Press, David Gregory pressed David Axelrod about it, suggesting that somehow this sort of thing is anti-democratic:
MR. GREGORY: I just want to be clear. Did the White House coordinate with a reporter about a question to be asked at a press conference?
MR. AXELROD: The White House didn't coordinate with the reporter about a question, we were looking for a way to get questions from within Iran. We could--we did not have access to Iranian journalists.
MR. GREGORY: So you talked to a reporter beforehand and said, "Could you ask a question about--from--directly from Iran at a press conference?"
MR. AXELROD: We said if you--we, we, we, we, we knew that he had been and he was very publicly involved in getting--in trafficking and communications in and out of Iran, and we felt it was important...
MR. GREGORY: Well, why is it appropriate to coordinate with a reporter about what's asked at a time when we're championing democracy around the world?
MR. AXELROD: No, no, David, you miss...
MR. GREGORY: Is that, is that what you should do at a press conference?
MR. AXELROD: You're not, you're not listening to what I said. We didn't coordinate with, with him about what was asked.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
MR. AXELROD: In fact, he asked probably one of the most--the toughest and most probing questions at that press conference. We had no idea what he was going to ask.
MR. GREGORY: But you coordinated with him about, about that subject of a question beforehand.
MR. AXELROD: He was a, he was a, he was a, he was a vehicle to get questions from Iran asked at this press conference, and that we thought was not only appropriate but, but necessary.
MR. GREGORY: If President Bush had done that, don't you think Democrats would have said that's outrageous?
Gregory is a Beltway Villager, and like all such folk, he wants to cling to the well-honed myths that preserve their favorite fictions about themselves. One of these is that White House press conferences are actually exercises in democratic, even egalitarian questioning of government officials by the people's representatives in the press corps.
So they are loathe to admit a simple reality: White House press conferences are in cold reality carefully stage-managed affairs, and the main beneficiaries of this arrangement have been the handful of "elite" reporters from big-name media outlets who traditionally have dominated them.
We're perfectly aware that presidents have for some long time gone into these conferences with a prearranged list of reporters upon whom they are going to call. The result has been an immense trivialization of press conferences, because those "elite" reporters have demonstrated over the years their eagerness to indulge trivial, celebrity-media-driven questions at the expense of serious policy matters. In the process, they've become increasingly manipulable.
This trend reached its apotheosis back when Jeff Gannon was lobbing softball questions to President Bush and White House press secretary Scott McClellan. Not only was Gannon a phony journalist, he was being regularly selected to be among the main questioners at the daily briefings.
Considering that this same White House never came clean on exactly why it issued credentials to this fraud -- and especially considering that David Gregory never once objected to it -- his outrage over the Obama White House's calling on Pitney for the toughest question any reporter at that conference asked seems strangely misplaced.
On the other hand, considering that this White House's admission of people like Pitney into the circle of people who get to ask questions at these conferences represents a direct erosion of the "elite" status of people like David Gregory -- and in fact an opening of these questions to many more "representatives of the people" -- it's really not too surprising.
Login or Register to post comments.
Still carrying water for your boy pal georgie bush, huh?
8 Years of MANAGED news conferences, town halls, softball questions and GROOVIN' WITH KKKKKARL ROVE seem to have severely damaged the historical areas of your brain. You have forgotten your last 8 years as water boy for White House press conferences and the war criminal, George W. Bush.
..."Revenge of the Nixon Nerds".
I wish Axelrod didn't feel it necessary to hem and haw and dissemble when asked important questions (i.e. will Obama sing a health care bill that does not include the "public" option?).
Reminds me of the previous administration.
That said, Gregory's rating are in the toilet (new lows) and I don't see him surviving the year as host. They should just put the show out of its misery. There is no real "Press" any more to "Meet".
As I said yesterday, I think Gregory jumped the shark with his vapored outrage over this. As you said David, people like Gregory just sat back and delighted in the past eight years. Stretch, as I believe bush called him, was always all smiles when bush would wink at him. The president has changed and times have changed. It seems this president is interested in world and national events and doesn't give a damn about the press and their egos.
When I heard Gregory say that yesterday morning. I thought to myself...you've GOT to be KIDDING??? But alas, one of these days the msm is going to figure out why we go to the net for the real news and why their rating keep falling.
The real reason they are outraged is that Pitney made them look like the sycophant courtiers they are and that is not allowed.
do YOU think it's appropriate that people still consider "MSM journalists" like you credible after 8 long years of Bush softballs and unquestioning? STFU! maybe if you faux MSM journalists were more focused on getting the real story within Iran and asking the tough questions instead of focusing on ratings then Obama would have gave you a chance to ask the important questions. d-bag
It's probably obvious to him that the traditional media is being replaced because it can't be trusted to do more than behave like some Entertainment Weekly talking head.
Obama apparently wants some more substantive questions asked, it would behoove Gregory to wake up to this fact and get a reputation for asking relevant questions if he himself wishes to remain relevant.
The supremes just reversed the Ricci (I hope I spelled that right) case. Watch the repubs go to town on this.
David Gregory is trying to be a big shot rather than a journalist. When it was announced that he would take Tim's seat, I knew that was the beginning of the end for MTP as an important Sunday show. When I look at him I see Howdy Doody.
ever since he boogied with Rove. That made him look real professional.
Now when I listen to the beginning of MTP, I'm going to hear the theme to Howdy Doody.
David Gregory has always been more interested in being a villager than a journalist. Why do people even turn that crap on? You know, he's going to stay right where he is and keep right on doing what he does as long as people watch him do it.
very few people are watching. MTP's ratings have never been lower.
Yeah, I watched yesterday's show and I can see why they're low. He was about peeing himself when he was speaking to Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham. And acted like a tool to Axelrod. Now, I think hard questions should be asked of our administration...but he didn't challenge Romney/Graham at all and it was annoying the crap out of me. Especially with the bigoted opinions they were expressing.
with strings attached.
If you look close.
He's just pissed off because he can't get Rove to fill his dance card.
think alike.
On this one.:)
boosh coordianted with a FAKE correspondent, a gay prostitute named Jeff Gannon to ask softball questions, not hardball.
It needs to be pointed out that Gregory was actually a WH reporter at the time! He was in the fucking room with Gannon!
Ever heard of Jeff Gannon comrade Gregory?
But you think a 'big time' on the tee-vee reporter like Gregory wants to remind people that while HE was a whitehouse reporter, one of the other reporters in the room was a
whore(thats not fair, they're all whores) prostitute, put there by the admin in order to pitch softballs, and either didn't know about it, or didn't report it?Axelrod to Gregory :"you're not listening to what I said"
Exactly! David was so excited to ask his bullshit question and feign his outrage that he really wasn't listening to Axelrod. At that moment in Gregory's mind it was all about David Gregory.
He is pathetic in a spot where russert made me wonder if he was a tool as well AT TIMES.
This ass hat, gregory, is so obvious and he is going to bring that show to it's knees as each week passes.
The romney/graham hypocricy-hour made my stomach roll. I thought I was going to lose it. gregory just sat there and let them spew their hypocrisy WITHOUT so much as ONE CHALLENGE. What a piece of shit.
Then Axelrod comes on and he is climbing all over his responses with his faked outrage and next stabbing neocon question. What an insult.
This tool needs to apply at fox propaganda network before MTP dries up and goes off the air permanently.
but got more and more irritated as time went on and HE was beginning to do the same thing...sound like an apologist for Dubya and his crime family. Gregory is SOOOOO out of his league, trying to keep up with the Obama Administration...I just wish they'd send Rahm over to clean his clock!
of the lowest water. When he took over MTP, I watch 2 shows and gave up.
He is a little snot-nosed kid that is wet in the pants.
the far right news conference Bush had with Rush, Hannity and a bunch of the other loons.
Yep.
He had Beck, the psycho Boortz, and every other reich wing nutjob propagandist in the White House, getting their "marching orders" to disseminate to the masses on OUR corporate owned airwaves.
Need I say more?
was, through his enterprise, to make the fawning hacks and sycophantic shills of the WhiteHouse stenographic Corpse look like the paid-off, sold-out, corpoRat fucknozzles they all so uniformly (Helen Thomas apart) demonstrably ARE.
That's it.
I have never heard the term "fucknozzles" but I like it and may borrow it on occasion.
popularized (ubiquitized, prior to my banishment) on Lite-Blue by my avatar there, WoodyGuthrie's Guitar, aka wgg...
help yourself to it when appropriate (pretty much anytime when dealing with or describing the established power order).
douchenozzle, assknuckler, and buttpumpkin (or buttpump) are nice too. /immaturity
..another W-water carrier on the TV trying to tear down the current administration? At what point do we get honest and balanced journal....oh wait, never mind!
Remember the time bush was asked if he had any regrets about his time in office and he just stood there blank until he finally said, I wish you would have asked that question in advance so I would have had some time to think about it. Did Gregory burst into flames then? Was he appalled that the president might get questions in advance? I don't recall any mention of it.
At least this president doesn't make jokes about a man wearing sunglasses....when the man was blind.
I think it's hysterically funny that no matter how hard he tries or how much he wanks, the right will always hate him as a "liberal" and the left will always despise him for wanking. I have yet to watch a Meet the Press with David Gregory and I never will. His feeble efforts to make the wingers stop accusing him of being a liberal have done nothing but drive away viewers. What a perfect analog to what's going on in Congress. In an attempt to gain meaningless bipartisanisship, too many weak kneed or corporatist "Democrats" are ready to give away the store on health care and climate change to get these fictional, imaginary votes from Republicans. It's stupid beyond words and Democrats are having a really hard time learning this particular lesson. Republicans aren't going to support ANYTHING introduced or supported by Democrats. EVER. No matter what it is. Curing cancer wouldn't get bipartisan support in the congress right now.
Because he's a Turd... and a pussy to boot. (No pun intended)
I like pussy! ;-) I don't use the term "cocksucker" as an insult for the same reason.
... but the audience is shifting to aggregate sites for their news. This is both an issue of convenience - I get the news I'm interested in, without having to wade through stories about cats stuck in trees or the gimmick-du-jour being pushed by an increasingly desperate-for-market-share management - as well as immediacy.
As much as I hate to admit it - especially because this patch has been my job for over 20 years - broadcast news is bleeding to death. It's not going to recover unless it can compete on the simplest of terms and offer something the net doesn't have.
Another thing that Gregory and his ilk are pissy about is that Obama called on an internet reporter. Remember when they were all bent out of shape when Obama called on a Huffington Post reporter during his first presser and Mara Liason was beside herself.
is unable to comprehend its own obsolescence.
of any substance or interest to be "beside herself" in any meaningful way. Vapid slag is what she is...
There is that. She wants to be just like Briney Hume.
What a rat's nest of wankery the beltway has become. There's nothing the tradmed offers that appeals to me anymore. They should either evolve or crawl into the nearest tar pit.
In my area Gregory is on opposite George Stephanopoulos and more and more we are watching George, at least until he pulls out his round table discussions. These reporter discussions on both shows are totally useless.
That wasa what I tried to say but failed miserably. Staphapolicis may have on George Will and some other nut (although David Brooks at least can debate a point somewhat logically even though he is on the wrong side usually) but at least he has a couple liberal types to balance the show. Gregory constantly has only right wing shill to agree with everything Gregory wants to put out.
so we don't have to?
I haven't watched Sunday AM tv since Lawrence Spivak retired/died...
Both Axelrod and the press sec need to memorize: "I beg your pardon?" And not as a quesstion to be responded to but as a seguay to say that Bush had non-journalist plants in his press corps, etc.
The Bush administration was actually PAYING "journalists" to push policies in their columns. For example, the Department of Education paid Armstrong Williams $240,000 (yes, you read that correctly) to advocate on behalf of the No Child Left Behind Act.
That is it!
It is so simple, yet poignent and would bring these nut-jobs to their knees blathering and drooling. They must think that we all have forgotten about Jeff Gannon and all of the Idiot "W" press conference set-ups!
...of anyone's precious Sunday morning. I won't watch him.
It's the packaging on the outside that makes you want to see what's inside. MTP and the other MSM have no packaging on the outside.
Let's see, it is standard policy to call on "reporters" from the networks, so those reporters know a chance to ask a question is coming and can plan what to ask, but that's not "coordination." But it IS "coordination" when the WH alerts a reporter, not in this blessed inner circle, that he will be granted a question as well, so he knows a chance to ask a question is coming. OK Yes, I see. It's all so clear.
You put that very nicely. Good points too.
MTP could have kept their status if they would have hired somebody like Gwen Ifle instead of second string David Gregory who simply wants to be just like Mike (Wallace's son on Faux). Unfortunately for MTP there is still the internet. Even George Stephonopolis is 10 times better than Gregors.
In my opinion Chuck Todd is following in Gregory's footsteps. He too seems to feel we are fortunate to hear his opinions rather than just report the facts.
Chuck Todd is definitely much more interested in being a villager than being a journalist. And you're right: he seems to consider it a huge favor that he is lowering himself to speak to we, the unwashed about things that we have no business discussing without his invaluable input.
... the facts, the opinions of Gregory and others are useless.
News has become like the Twilight Zone episode where a greedy businessman contracts with the devil (in the luscious form of Julie Newmar) to send him back in time, so he can take his knowledge of the modern world and profit from it.
So he ends up in a hick town and tries to explain the concept of an automobile. The locals not only don't get it, they scoff - because the businessman himself doesn't know anything about machining parts or how an automobile actually works.
Gregory is an ignorant big mouth blow hard and the hypocrisy is obvious.
Jeff Gannon was Karl 'Turd Blossom' Rove's personal sex slave. He wore the name with pride.
Just another msm show shilling an opinion that should be ignored.
They are supposed to deliver the facts and we are the ones who are to form opinions based on our knowledge and what they report. I don't give a tinker's damn if Gregory is upset about something the president did. Just tell me what he did and I'll decide if it pisses me off or not.
People used to do television news as a public service and it was looked at as an operating expense. There's nothing wrong with having for profit news except that invariably the owners and stockholders get greedy and then it stops being news and become all agenda driven opinion, all the time. They have torn down any firewalls between news and opinion long ago and things aren't going to get better until those are re-established.
... are still supposed to be predicated on serving the community. Stations are required to maintain public files, accessible to members of the public and/or community watchdog groups, that show how the station is meeting this requirement in terms of programming, diversity, etc.
The 24-hour news cycle almost requires opinion-based news, because facts don't always shake out as fast as you'd like. So the headlines at the top of the hour are almost always the same, the video doesn't change, and thus came the expert to tell us what it all means.
For profit news is the gorilla in the room
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeC3pUvEIRs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XTCKTBqNak
There was a "plant" in there all along during Bush's presidency. It's some wacko old coot who when called upon generally launches into some kind of rambling "question". Under Bush, it was generally of the nature of "Mr. President, those nasty liberals in Congress are doing....blah, blah, blah...how are you handling it?"
Don't know what his credentials are, but anyone who frequently watches these daily press conferences will know whom I talking about I believe.
David Gregory?
... Dana Perino got caught cueing someone in the audience once. Bush was getting flustered, and the next question just happened to come from someone sitting next to her, and it was a softball primed for another Bush bumper-sticker.
I think I know who you are talking about. He had grey hair that was always kind of messed up and he always asked his questions real loud. Not so long ago there was something about him on the net. The group he represented was quesionable or something. If we knew his name we could Google him.
The thing that is so weak about the false outrage is that Nico Pitney asked the toughest question of the presser and didn't even get it answered. The false outrage is so transparent. Just look who are making the most noise and you know who not to watch or listen to. Dana Milbank? Give me a break. His little show of outrage yesterday only showed how sophomoric he is and the way Gregory got his outrage up was just as lame. If he wants to ask the question about Obama choosing a specific reporter and how it happened just ask the question. Why could he not figure out that the outrage from the MSM reporters was self indulgent? He must have been able to figure out that there was nothing underhanded or wrong with Obama wanting a question about Iran. It is understandable that the MSM reporters were not going to ask a pertinent question about the subject. Hey David why didn't yoiu comment on the actual question instead of who asked it. It's because the question was so good. Oh the outrage. It is outrageous.
Not one of the so called journalists from the MSM had access to anything remotely close to this guy Nico's info.
This is largely due to the crack down on the media by the IRGC.
He was the only one who was getting info out of Iran.
Why didn't the MSM figure out how to get info out?
Because they don't have the same sources that bloggers on the internet have. MSM journalists are becoming irrelevant. It's their own doing.
They made their own bed, and now they have to lie in it.
Nico was on Washington Journal (c-span) the morning after this press conference was held. He explained exactly how this all came about and if any "journalist" had listened to him they would realize how juvenile they sound and how stupid and uninformed they sound. Probably at that time of day they are too busy primping in front of the mirror to pay attention to anything else.
Every dog in a yard hates a dog in a leash.
Every dog on a leash hates a dog at liberty.
The captive CorpoRat press, tied to trees in the Corporat backyards see somebody like Pitney, walking along all proud (and ignoring his leash), and they go mad with envy.
Maybe even the CorpoRats might want to ask important questions, but are under instructions from their corporat/editorial masters. They are so well trained they don't even need isntructions anymore. They just more and more inane, stupid, gotcha shit, and pretend to be 'objective.'
Woof, mo-fos! WOOF WOOF WOOF...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He82NBjJqf8
Here's nico pitney on CNN talking about Dana Milbank's article. Dana really called him a "dick"?
I remember when he wrote a column about Bush's body language and how it betrayed all sorts of things.
I emailed him and said, "You're just noticing this stuff NOW?" (It was obvious even on the campaign trail.)
His rather snippy reply was, "I was talking about this past week!"
The "BLOODY PEASANT!" went unspoken, but was quite clear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434
He should have said: We all know that the Bush administration limited questions to friendly reporters. They've admitted as much. As I recall Mr. Gregory you got the chance to ask a lot of questions.
agreeing to take a question from Michael Ware on behalf of an Iraqi.
Even Nico, a Blogger from Huffington Post gets to ask President Obama a question and yet and still David Gregory is the only one it appears that President Obama hasn't spoke to.
Well David Gregory, if you weren't such a flunky for the Republican Party and didn't show that you weren't a Rev Wright Propagandist during your mediocre time on Race to the White/16 Pennsylvania then maybe the President would give you the time of day.
But the bottom-line is you are pathetic and if NBC doesn’t act soon you will be the death of MTP, I mean lets get real I longer watch this show, I now tune in to FACE the Nation and This Week with George Stephanopoulos, but watching MTP, it’s painful to listen to you speak.
celebrity but with more viewers. That must have stung.
about Jay Leno, LOL!!!
If President Bush had done that?????? What the puck, this moron pretending to be a journalist is one reporter short of a pool.
Gannon ring any bells asswipe? Leaking to the press to distribute propaganda to start an illegal war ring any bells? Gregory is unqualified and likely the worst anchor hosting a so called serious news program. Why is he still employed?
this moron pretending to be a journalist is one reporter short of a pool.
cess pool?
Gregory may be all of the things that everyone commenting has called him, but he's absolutely right on this one. We would all have been screaming bloody murder had Dubya done the same thing. You know it's true.
to call on someone like Michael Ware to ask a question on behalf of an Iraqi that he had no advance knowledge of. It never happened for obvious reasons.
Who is we, kemosobee?
You've only been signed on for eleven minutes.
"We" being "progressives," Tonto. I'm sorry: Did I crash your private club?
Me just sweat ya.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPGfiDzi_Jk
What you and Gregory fail to comprehend or acknowledge is that the question asked was not a softball question. It was a tough question that Obama failed to answer. Why don't you comment on THAT?? If the Bush White House would have "planted" questioners who asked tough question nobody would have cared no mater what you say. What do you think would have happened? "Oh Bush called on somebody who he knew was going to ask a question about there being no WMD and the fraud he perpetuated about going into Iraq. I am outraged that Bush would do this. I cannot believe it. How dare he." Is that what you are saying would have happened? Are you serious? Who are you anyway? David Gregory trying to defend your ridiculous question to Axelrod?
The complaint seems to be that the White House, specifically in the form of President Obama and/or Robert Gibbs and/or David Axelrod, spoke to Nico Pitney prior to the news conference and arranged for a specific question to be asked.
Whatever happened to PROOF? If you have no proof, you've got no story - just a bunch of pissy-pants 'serious journalists' who are reduced to saying, "Well, what if BUSH had done it?"
And that takes balls, for anyone who is part of the White House Stenography Pool / George W. Bush Fan Club to inevigh against Pitney's question as something that would HAVE to be arranged in advance.
I mean, for cryin' out loud, Bush didn't know who was in the room without a seating chart full of cutesy nicknames. Obama has already shown that he's not going to play by the same rules; all that is required is Pitney's name on the list of attendees, and it's easy enough to call on him for a question. That it was a good question, one that goes beyond "Mr. President, Lindsay Graham farted and it sounded like a comment on your Iran policy," is hardly Nico's fault.
Of course they didn't know what question was going to asked. Only that Pitney was going to ask a question about Iran. They could not depend on the MSM to ask such a pertinent quest as witnessed by all the other questions asked that day.
This is about getting info out of Iran during their current crisis.
Not about starting an illegal war or any number of other questionable activities.
If bush had called a blogger and asked them if they would like to ask a question at a news conference, I can honestly say it would not have bothered me. Now if the blogger told the president in advance what the question would be, that would have bothered me but that was not the case here.
Comparing a world renowned mass murdering lying psychopath's exploits to a trivial question to the President from a blog, of course ignoring the fact that President Blood Sipper regularly coordinated with Right Wing Radio.
I'm "dumb," huh? Terrific level of discourse you're establishing here. So much for an intelligent exchange of ideas. You apparently just prefer a circle-jerk. I'll pass.
Incidentally, "You Are Dumb" is a blog that often points out the foibles of conservatives.
Hard to tell. I will say, you have a short memory, or have little or no knowledge of went on in the WH during the Bush Era, and its going beyond the misuse of the press, which included a Craig's list manpro being allowed to masquerade as a reporter who was called on quite frequently ("Yes, Jeff?") by name by the pimp of the WH Press, who was Scotty at the time, and by Mr. pRes himself.
If you wanna join a site which has been decrying the likes of Gregory since his flirty man dance with kkkarl Rove, and stick up for him, be his apologist, when his premise is totally in error, I think you should be prepared for flack.
Well, I thought I was joining a site full of intelligent progressives--not the equivalent of beer-swilling WWF fans who boo the designated "bad guy" and cheer on their hero without any reflection or self-awareness. My mistake. Thank you, Miss Kitty, for setting me straight.
For what it's worth, I have a good memory, and I know as much as you do, I'll wager, about Bush's abuse of the press--and everything else. I'm a card-carrying W hater. Whoop dee doo! My progressive cojones are as big as yours (begging your pardon, Miss Kitty). Are we all happy now?
Probably not: Because I had the audacity to point out that what Gregory said IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE was, IMHO, correct.
I'm not really interested in the job of being his, or anyone else's, apologist (thank you very much). I just think that intellectual and emotional honesty are hallmarks of rational, reasoned discourse--even among like-minded individuals. Silly me.
So, maybe I'm wrong. Under equivalent circumstances, with Bush telling a likely-sympathetic reporter in advance that he was going to throw him or her a question at the next news conference, all the Crooks and Liars members would have thought that was just dandy. Oh yeah, I can TOTALLY see that.
That's what is being pointed out here. He did it he did it he did it. The point is HE DID DO IT. And it wasn't some topic thing. It was repeated setups with Gannon.
Snark away. You aren't even on topic. It's all about you not getting along here, now.
I don't know why you come here, ostensibly looking for discussion, but really from the get go, it's all been about picking a fight.
OK. we get it. you are superior to us, your progressive is much larger than anyone's here. Good on you.
Well, it wasn't "about me" until LeftandLeft called me "dumb" for making a point, and then you decided to condescendingly question my memory and my understanding of the Bush White House. YOU personalized this, not me. I was, in fact, "looking for a discussion."
"Bush did it too." Agreed. So that means Gregory isn't allowed point out that Obama has taken a step down that same damned path? That's how it works? Please.
Oh hell. What's the use? You're right, Kitty. I don't fit in to this play group. Carry on.
Mon, 06/29/2009 - 08:22 — LeftandLeft
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9n0HbicZto
I'll take Bela everytime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM7rB_ecU4E
It means George Bush did exactly that (Look up man whore Jeff Guckert/Gannon for details) and you guys were alright with it.
Gregory isn't being a soothsayer, we all saw it happen.
How soon the Fug Thuglies forget.
Anyone who was on stage dancing with Karl Rove has given up the mantle of 'journalist.' Just another tool in the Repug belt.
if Gregory's outrage has anything to do with Obama slapping down Chuck Todd earlier in the week.
Just another "Butt-Lickin Washington Beltway Looser Make Believe Journalist".
Piece 'o' Crapist
"BLWBLMBJ" for short...(if you will)
Butt-Lickin Old Washington Media Establishment?
Or maybe Brainless, Lame, Obsolete Washington Journalist Opposed to Bloggers?
Is there any such thing as bloogers
Bloggers who whilst posting pick their noses?
I hope Walter Cronkite has something to say before he leaves us.
"I think it is absolutely essential in a democracy to have competition in the media, a lot of competition, and we seem to be moving away from that."
"Objective journalism and an opinion column are about as similar as the Bible and Playboy magazine."
"There is no such thing as a little freedom. Either you are all free, or you are not free."
http://www.biblicalproportions.com/modules/ol...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owAkE4GLH4w
the outrage from either side. Wow, a reporter was pointed out, and quite obviously the question was KNOWN in advance as usual. Axelrod admits it:
How did Axelrod know Nico was going to ask about Iran if it wasn't planned in advance? Since when are these little skirmishes NOT preplanned?
... Nico said as much in an earlier column on HuffPo.
so I respectfully ask, what did he say in his column? That questions are all pre-arranged?
back under your bridge.
God damn it Canuck are you dense? Obama did not know WHAT question was going to be asked. Read it again and think about it. They wanted a question about Iran. Is that so bad? They got a question and Obama didn't even answer it. It was too tough. Don't you think if Obama KNEW the question before hand he would have had an answer? Think before you type!
that is not what Axelrod said at all. Are you that dense?
Yes it is. "he was a vehicle to get questions from Iran asked at this press conference". He didn't say what the question was going to be dipshit.
He knew the question was going to be about Iran, but had no clue what it was going to be. Duh. Ya, most of these spokespeople have no clue what reporters are going to ask. Give it a rest.
you are pretending to knowledge you don't have. Why is someone dense for failing to agree with your unsubstantiated opinion? It may be that you are right. In this case I think not. If the president knew what the question was he would not have largely evaded a direct answer. His answer was good but not great. The question was great.
... but I believe Axelrod tried to tell Gregory that Pitney had said he would ask an important question about Iran if he were called upon.
.
That is quite a bit different that what you said Concerned(troll)Canuk.
That Nico Pitney when called upon would be asking a question about Iran was a given since he had been openly asking Iranians to submit questions for a possible answer by the president. The particular question to be asked wasn't known in advance.
what you are saying is the President of the United States, regardless who he is, reads the Huffpost and gets his points from them? Ya right. And when he's done that, he surfs for porn.
You are dense.
I'm dense, but you are a Democratic Party supporter pretending to be a lib and progressive. Who's really dense here? Ya, thought so.
I know you are but what am I?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs4Gj7JsET4
and you're glue". OK, recess is over...back to school, kids.
... that arguing over the labels 'liberal' and 'progressive' and who is what or whom is highly unproductive and about as effective as the GOP's slate of front-runners for 2012?
Ok. Ya got me there. But remember. The GOP frontrunner in 2012 will prob be the next Prez so carefull what you imply. LOL.
They said the same thing about Lincoln. (I am not comparing Obama to Lincoln. Just the situation.)
That's what I read about Jeff Gannon. How come we don't know why he spent those over there. Why and with whom.
the same reason Obama refuses to release his visitor info. National Security ya know.
Your comments are as impertinent as they always are Canuck. I am beginning to realize you are a dipshit.
As always, attack posters with valid arguments, it's so liberal. Not. Now think back to the Access to Information BS that has gone on since the swearing in, and you'll see my point. You know, use the Google. Same crap, different president.
I am trying to inform yoiu that your argument is full of shit. IT IS NOT VALID!!! You are arguing about something that is not true. And now of course you change the subject. Typical.
Read. Decipher. Read again.
Garcia said: How come we don't know why he spent those over there. Why and with whom
I replied: the same reason Obama refuses to release his visitor info.
Where did I change the subject? I answered his question. Since, obviously, you don't believe it, here is the story:
Obama blocks list of visitors to White House
Taking Bush's position, administration denies msnbc.com request for logs http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/polit...
Oh and thank you in advance for your apology.
Mr. Gregory, yours was the phony question and. might I suggest that if you are going to be such an unprincipled hack you could at least put on a bow-tie to advertise the fact.
http://www.coffeecup.com/images/about/bela.jpg
"Waaaaah...how dare the White House allow the mainstream media to be revealed for the frauds that we are. Waaaah...it's not my fault that I'm so limited in my abilities to see the larger picture and understand the issues that are actually relevant to the world, and unable to parse intelligent questions that seek to inform. Waaaah...I'M a real journalist...I am I am I am I am. Its says so...right on this show. Read the credits! I'm a journalist! Now, moving to bigger issues...the President hasn't formally issued a statement on the death of Michael Jackson."
Is he the guy that does the informercials on TV for Oxicontin so you can remove them there racing stripes in your shorts? I'm so confused.
Here's the difference between Barack and Bush. Bush actually did have pre-screened questions. He got CAUGHT doing it! Remember when he tried calling on some tool who wasn't even there? He felt rly awkward it was funny.
media reports have already said that Obama was caught the same way, giving his "town hall" meetings. It's only natural. They have to spew the same messages regardless who is Prez. They aren't going to go to any scrums unprepared.
"Ahem ...awwwright ... go 'head Stretch ... [crickets]
Stretch yew here ...? [crickets] ... BigPants yew here? ...[crickets]
JimmyJ? [crickets] ...TommyT? Is 'they ANYBUDDY here? [crickets] .... aw shucks!... I gotta call on that wrinkled ol lady agin...?"
Login or Register to post comments.