Tapper: 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 –
(Crosstalk)
Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.
Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –
Gibbs: ABC –
Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?
Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.
Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?
Gibbs: That’s our opinion.
That was in response to mild criticism of a network that we all know actually ISN’T a news organization, for fear of a chilling effect on the media. Well, here’s the real deal:
The Republican National Committee on Friday pulled out of a planned Feb. 26 debate with NBC News amidst a revolt by candidates after Wednesday’s CNBC debate.
“While debates are meant to include tough questions and contrast candidates’ visions and policies for the future of America, CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of ‘gotcha’ questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates,” RNC Chairman Reince Priebus wrote in a letter to NBC News Chairman Andrew Lack.
Since CNBC is an NBC Universal property, “We are suspending the partnership with NBC News” for its Feb. 26 debate.
Priebus’s email panned CNBC for “inaccurate or downright offensive” questions, specifically singling out a question to Donald Trump, who was asked whether he was running a “comic book” version of a presidential campaign.
“What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates’ policies and ideas.
Debates can mean big money for networks, which charge premium prices to advertise for the event. CNBC reportedly charged about $250,000 for a 30-second ad during Wednesday night’s debate — similar to reported prices for the previous CNN debate.
And let’s be clear- the questions weren’t mean and unfair:
The Republican presidential candidates are right. The media do suck.
But not for the reasons the candidates complained about Wednesday night.
We in the media suck because we have rewarded their rampant dishonesty and buffoonery with nonstop news coverage. Which, of course, has encouraged more dishonesty and buffoonery.
Hence the aggravating behaviors that candidates doubled down on during the debate, based on lessons that we in the media taught them.
Read the whole thing. If that isn’t enough, here’s a Vox explainer:
Cruz’s attack on the moderators was smart politics — but it was almost precisely backwards. The questions in the CNBC debate, though relentlessly tough, were easily the most substantive of the debates so far. And the problem for Republicans is that substantive questions about their policy proposals end up sounding like hostile attacks — but that’s because the policy proposals are ridiculous, not because the questions are actually unfair.
The Republican primary has thus far been a festival of outlandish policy. The candidates seem to be competing to craft the tax plan that gives the largest tax cut to the rich while blowing the biggest hole in the deficit (a competition that, as of tonight, Ted Cruz appears to be winning). And the problem is when you ask about those plans, simply stating the facts of the policies sounds like you’re leveling a devastating attack.
Take the question to Trump. He wasn’t asked if he was a comic book villain. He was asked why his policies sound like “a comic book version of a presidential campaign.” And the question was specific. Moderator John Harwood asked, “Mr. Trump, you have done very well in this campaign so far by promising to build another wall and make another country pay for it. Send 11 million people out of the country. Cut taxes $10 trillion without increasing the deficit.”
Trump declined to explain how he could cut taxes by $10 trillion without increasing the deficit. Instead, he appealed to another CNBC personality for support. “Larry Kudlow, who sits on your panel, who’s a great guy, came out the other day and said, ‘I love Trump’s tax plan.'”
As for the wall, Trump didn’t get very specific there, either. “A politician cannot get them to pay. I can.” That is … not an answer.
Similarly, Ben Carson wasn’t asked whether he could do math. He was asked whether his tax plan’s math added up.
They didn’t like the questions because it shows how fucking stupid their answers are, short and sweet.
There is only one appropriate response by the collective media to this action by the RNC on an actual sister news organization- refuse to participate in any of the debates until NBC is back in the fold. That would show that you are tired of being pushed around by liars and charlatans. Let them hold all the damned debates on Fox. You’ll lose out on money, but keep your integrity. And it will expose the GOP and Fox for who they are.
But you know that is never going to happen.
Gin & Tonic
Anybody here notice that an important baseball game is being played?
Jerzy Russian
@Gin & Tonic:
I did. Intercourse the Mets.
Anoniminous
@Gin & Tonic:
Let’s see, they are in the Second Quarter the score is Love All the puck has just been iced and the striker is up to bat?
C.V. Danes
It’s all part of that vast liberal media conspiracy, I tell ya.
Jeffro
It’s true that the news organizations are not going to all rally around NBC, and really, it’s the RNC’s right to cancel out if they feel they’re being treated unfairly. Let ’em. Let ’em keep speaking just to Tea Party audiences and only going on FOX. Let’s see if that gets them anywhere.
Meanwhile, Obama (and soon, Hillary or Bernie) can keep knocking FOX around for being the Republican mouthpiece that it is, going on any channel or outlet (not just pre-selected, pre-approved ones), talking to all Americans and not just the nutters, and keeping the White House in sane hands.
I think it’s great. They can’t square the circle here until they give up some of their most childish behaviors, and yet they still refuse to give up their blankies. Poor babies.
Felonius Monk
Fixed it for you, John.
Hildebrand
Frankly, I think they were just looking for an excuse to cut that particular debate out of the schedule – it was to be on Telemundo. Hmmm.
JMG
It’s this simple. Republicans own these networks. The owners will never let the employees be independent in any way shape or form. Wait till the general election debates. It’ll be “Ms. Clinton, where did you dispose of Vince Foster’s body” and “Mr. Trump/Sen. Rubio, how much will the typical American make from my, excuse me, their tax cut.”
ThresherK (GPad)
Tapped is a hoor. And he’s not very good at judging his market rate, at that.
amk
from that rampell wapo piece
These corrupt media mofos will call their own mothers sluts if it gets them the ratings and the moollah.
Jeffro
@amk: Hey, while we’re talking about columnists, here’s one light-years less talented than Catherine Rampell, Kathleen Parker, talking about the advantages of Rubio going up against Clinton:
Basically, Brinks. Trucks. full of money.
And she is okay with that. He doesn’t have to be honest, his budget and tax proposals don’t have to make sense, she doesn’t even know what his baggage is…he just needs that sweet, sweet billionaire cash and off we go!
Patrick
The debate was bizarre; why would Rich Santelli be allowed ask questions? I have never seen the equivalent on the Democratic side. Can anyone ever imagine Michael Moore be allowed to ask questions on the Dem debate?
But the GOP whining is even more bizarre. Obama had to deal with way more bizarre questioning from George S from ABC in 2008, when he spent a whopping 50 minutes asking idiotic, irrelevant questions about flag pins and Jeremiah Wright. And he didn’t whine about it.
mai naem mobile
Have these Teabaggers ever watched Becky Quick or Carl Quintanilla on a regular basis? I would bet money that they are both Republicans, or at least voted for Rmoney in ’12 and Bush in 2000 and 2004. Harwood at best might be a DLC Dem. I would love to be a fly on the wall during Quicks and Quintanillas post-debate conversations. Even more so with Joe Kernen and Rick Santelli who are Teabaggers. Anybody know who’s going to host the FBN debate? I’m guessing it’s going to be Maria Antoinette Bartiromo who will felate the whole lot.
Jeffro
@efgoldman:
Oh, I know that – but this is a different age. Romney’s “47%” sure came back to bite him. Fact-checking is speeding up. Perhaps most importantly, the media seems to have reached a tipping point where they are willing to (gasp) actually call GOP lies for what they are. And after almost 40 years of going nowhere fast, the middle class seems to be getting it, that all of their extra work and productivity have gone to the top 1%.
Let ’em run a traditional hard right primary then try to pivot. Hillary and Bernie are right where a majority – not a huge one, but a majority nonetheless – of Americans already are. And there’s nothing the media can call them on in their plans and policies, especially compared side-by-side with the Repubs.
Mike E
@Jerzy Russian:
Burma!
jl
@Jeffro:
” Let ’em run a traditional hard right primary then try to pivot. Hillary and Bernie are right where a majority – not a huge one, but a majority nonetheless – of Americans already are. And there’s nothing the media can call them on in their plans and policies, especially compared side-by-side with the Repubs. ”
And if it’s Bernie (probably not, but we gotta scenario-ize here), he will play very civil and appropriate but direct and unmistakable issues-based smashmouth with candidates and media when the GOPers try to lie about what they said in the primaries.
And signs are that HRC is getting ready to do the same. I don’t remember her campaign announcing a ‘new Hillary’ but one seems to have appeared nevertheless.
BruceFromOhio
@Jeffro: Grifters gotta grift. Got the beeping Brinks trucks backing up to your loading dock? Why, then, sir, let’s discuss!
Regnad Kcin
@efgoldman: but it HAS driven me up a freaking wall
MobiusKlein
@Anoniminous: Au Contrare, mon frere,
Intercourse the Intercoursing Royals!
mclaren
@efgoldman:
That’s an understatement.
The Hillary Clinton of 1994 who offered up that government health care plan had the political instincts of a stalactite. The Hillary Clinton of 2015 who nuked the Benghazi Committee had the political instincts of a tenth-level ninja.
Making up for Hillary’s lack of native political savvy? Her superb campaign staff, which hasn’t made a single misstep yet. Her campaign launch video was outstanding, her decision to come out early and often with campaign policy white papers was excellent and put her way ahead of the pack, her strategy for dealing with the Republican witch hunts in congress has been masterful, her campaign methodology of locking up the major endorsements and cash donors early is outstanding, and her ability to grab most of the digital campaign & pollings gurus from the Obama campaign and repurpose them for her 2016 campaign puts her light years ahead of both the other Democratic candidates and the Republicans.
Hillary is simply doing everything right this time around. She learned from her mistakes in 2008. I don’t see a single flaw in her campaign strategy. Bernie might win this thing, because one thing you can’t lock up with money and endorsements and a great data-mining ground campaign, is the popular sentiment — and methinks popular sentiment has shifted away from “business as usual” establishment candidates and toward more radical candidates who promise major change from the degnerating and collapsing status quo. But Hillary is doing great withal.
David Koch
@jl: but the wingers never run on issues they run on character assassination. Willie Horton, Whitewater, Swiftboats, Bill Ayers, Ben Gazzara.
So they wouldn’t come after Sanders on policy, but they’d invent a number of smears out of whole cloth and let the “liberal” media amplify their dirty work.
Roger Moore
@MobiusKlein:
Can’t we all just agree to FTMFYWAVRPF?
SFAW
@David Koch:
Ben Gazzara?
Were you throwing that in to see if anyone was paying attention? Or is there “a thing” re: Ben Gazzara – did Hillary murder him — well, have him murdered — too?
SFAW
@efgoldman:
Oh. Thanks.
(Sound of me hitting myself with the “dumbfuck” stick.)
Another Holocene Human
@Patrick: Cindy Sheehan or, hell, Dan Rather would be a better parallel.
Santelli is a shill for people who make bets on markets with other people’s money. Yes, he went on TV and whined about Obama making “us” (the “winners” who made the correct bet) pay for the “losers'” mortgages.
However he had absolutely nothing to do with organizing the actual Tea Party. That was Dick Armey all the way, baybee.
Another Holocene Human
@mclaren:
Despite her flaws as a politician, Hilary Clinton is someone who’s always engendered deep and abiding loyalty in the people who work for her, whether it was lifers at State or volunteers for Bill in ’96. Whatever it is, she’s just that good.
Obama didn’t beat Hilary in ’08 because she ran a shitty campaign (well, aside from some shitty stuff she and Bill said in SC). He beat her because he’s just that good.
TG Chicago
The WaPo piece was mostly good, but what was up with that line about Rubio and percentages?
Rubio dumbed up that exchange by shifting from comparing the tax rates he proposes for the rich and the middle class (Harwood’s question) to comparing between the rich and the poor.
The WaPo author made a joke, but then quoted Rubio saying something clearly and obviously true. Yes, it was beside the point Harwood was making, but Rubio said nothing wrong about percentages. Why pretend he did?
J R in WV
I’m sure hoping that whichever Klown from the Republican Klown Kar gets thumped like a bass drum by Hillary Clinton OR Bernie Sanders.
And the Klowns are telling lies every time they open their mouths, and the Internet never forgets, as already mentioned. If it does, we know the wingers have paid big money or bought a big company.
The R’s truly don’t understand today’s media, or they wouldn’t have done what they have done with NBC and Telemundo. Pissing away the Latino voters is just possibly the most stupid thing they could have done.
Applejinx
@mclaren: Indeed. The line I draw in the sand is this: I will not be shamed out of supporting Bernie. I’ve a perfect right to do so, and I can well believe the stories he’s having to turn away volunteers because he’s flooded with ’em. I think that’s even more of an indicator than small donors, and it speaks well for the future of our democracy. Gives you hope for the future, since I have personally heard Bernie insist that people not use that energy only for Presidential campaigns: he wants community action and people entering politics and doing the work, just what we’ll need.
That said: there are totally valid reasons to want Hillary to bear the standard, and the more she out-Bernies Bernie the better I like it. If the country wants to get fully behind gender equality, I say right on. If Hillary can be a better symbol for demanding racial justice than an old white Socialist, who am I to argue? It’s not ALL about thinking of policies and banging the table, there’s an element of motivation and empowerment at stake too.
If Hil ran as the dynasty/inevitability candidate and talked like old Bil, that’s what a lot of us are working to avoid. But she IS smart and is learning fast, and with her more than with Sanders I do believe she’s reinventing herself. Bernie doesn’t need to, but it’s standard operating procedure for a Clinton, and I’m pretty sure she’ll deliver whatever the reinvention is, as if it’s been that way all along.
If that means advanced gender and racial politics, all I can say is about time, and I could work up enthusiasm for pulling the lever for Hillary. Not nearly the excitement of voting Bernie for President, but if it feels like casting a vote not only for gender equality but also Black Lives Matter, I’m there.
I don’t want her to bunt on economic issues, though, or we’ll all be fucked while making pretty justice-oriented poses. Just like Obama seizing control of the Malacca Strait, I think there’s some stuff that has to be taken care of even if it’s not telegenic. Let Hillary talk to Elizabeth Warren, and especially consult Mark Blyth, my pet expert on this. America is in a position to spring back from our dark times very nicely, and it’ll make many other things possible, but inaction won’t get us there.
Strangely, Trump’s probably the only one on the R side who even hints at learning those economic lessons. I can easily picture him firing up a lot of stimulus ‘cos the guy’s not scared of spending money or going bankrupt. If you’re a nation-state that prints your own money, the meaning of that changes rather drastically, and it’s all about how much you can juice your GDP to compensate for the percentage of it that’s debt. And no matter who’s in charge, if we crank up our GDP successfully, it’ll make that party look good.
Jado
“You’ll lose out on money, but keep your integrity. ”
What makes you think that they will see this as a viable exchange? They sold their integrity long ago; to try to redeem it now is laughable. Their corporate masters will cash the checks and keep the proles in line – there will never again be a line of questioning at a debate that isn’t softballish in nature and obsequious in delivery.
Drachmas, drachmas uber alles
Uber alles in der Welt