David Gregory's "coordination" hypocrisy
July 19, 2009 1:05 pm ET by Jamison Foser
A few weeks ago, NBC's David Gregory was outraged at the possibility that President Obama knew The Huffington Post's Nico Pitney would ask a question about Iran during a presidential press conference. During the June 28 broadcast of Meet the Press, Gregory repeatedly questioned Obama advisor David Axelrod about the matter:
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. 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. 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. GREGORY: Is that, is that what you should do at a press conference?
...
MR. GREGORY: But you coordinated with him about, about that subject of a question beforehand.
...
MR. GREGORY: If President Bush had done that, don't you think Democrats would have said that's outrageous?
...
MR. GREGORY: Right. So you would, so you'd do it again?
As I noted at the time, Gregory's obsession was more than a little silly, given that television shows like his regularly negotiate topics with guests in advance. But I underestimated Gregory's hypocrisy.
Here's an email Gregory sent to an aide to South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, in an effort to book Sanford on Meet the Press:
Hey Joel ...
Left you a message. Wanted you to hear directly from me that I want to have the Gov on Sunday on Meet The Press. I think it's exactly the right forum to answer the questions about his trip as well as giving him a platform to discuss the economy/stimulus and the future of the party. You know he will get a fair shake from me and coming on MTP puts all of this to rest.
Let's talk when you can.
That was on June 24 -- just four days before Gregory grilled Axelrod about coordinating the subject of questions with reporters.
Gregory later followed up with another email:
[C]oming on Meet The Press allows you to frame the conversation how you really want to...and then move on. You can see (sic) you have done your interview and then move on. Consider it.
So, Gregory was not only coordinating with Sanford's staff about what topics Gregory would ask Sanford about, should the South Carolina Governor agree to appear on Meet the Press -- he was telling the aide he would allow Sanford to "frame the conversation how you really want to."
And then, just a few days later, Gregory took to the air to denounce the White House and Nico Pitney for coordinating about the subject of a question. Incredible.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
In between the government and the people stands an obsolete, malignant force that can't possibly justify its existence. Using the media to get the news is like smearing mud on your windows to see outside.
The "pre-planned" questioning was a red herring all along. The press really doesn't care about that.
What Gregory, Schieffer and Millbank are really upset about is an Internet-based news site or a blogger getting higher billing than they do.
Just look at the hissy-fit the press through last week when the WH had the gall to announce a presser via Twitter instead of telling the press first ...
If he had any substance, he wouldn't need to be arrogant in the first place.
From the most trusted man in America to today's shallow shills who could care less about truth or the news and are more interested in being part of the 'in' crowd of the beltway and access.
It's so obvious that Gregory is chiefly concerned with appearances. Substance is long gone, which explains why W and his henchmen got away with so much. The WH correspondents are paper tigers.
To mention Gregory and his ilk in the same breath as Cronkite, Murrow, Sevareid, Shirer, or even those of a more recent generation like Rather, Hewitt and Wallace is ignorant.
Rather? You mean the disgraced Rather that was fired for lying about a story that was false then trying to cover it up Rather?
Last I saw of Rather he was resigned to some cable HD channel you only get in hotels!
BTW: visualize, if you will, Gregory's antics at the aforementioned dinner, and try to picture Walter Cronkite, or any of his generation of real reporters, doing that.
For reference, here is an example of a Jeff Gannon question:
"Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines. And Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work – you've said you are going to reach out to these people – how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"
THAT is an example of a softball question. Gannon doesn't even care what Bush's answer is. It's basically just an attack on Democrats.
Contrast it with Nico's question:
"Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working for?"
Hardly a softball, or even an easy question. In fact, it's challenging Obama's position on Iran, questioning whether he has the correct approach.
As a sidenote, how ridiculous does the Gannon question sound now that the economy has collapsed? Kind of shows you the level of denial the entire right-wing was in about the state of our economy.
How interested was Gregory with the disclosure that Bush gave a prositute unfettered access to the White House? The same as all the rest of the "liberal media" - they refused to cover it. Clearly, if Bush had a prostitute with unfettered access behind closed doors it was to discuss policy, since both Bush & Guckert-Gannon were such policy wonks. Nothing to see here..