MSNBC: Andrea Mitchell

[LiberalFighter]

As usual she is a scum sucking snake. Making an issue about the WH putting out an interview with Kagan on the website. Strongly suggesting that it is not what it is.

[lordcommander]

1. Ah Mrs Greenspan doing "journalism"

:eyes:

[madmax]

2. Why doesn't this wench retire

with her husband and do something contructive, like knit or play bingo.

[lordcommander]

6. Or play shuffleboard. nt

[mitchum]

3. Atlas Shrieked

[pscot]

9. + 1

n/t

[Enrique]

4. is she suggesting it's not a real interview?

if that's what Mitchell is suggesting, then she's right, of course.

If Mitchell is being a journalist criticizing propaganda disguised as news, then good for Mitchell and any other journalist that does that.

[Jennicut]

5. The White House posted this:

"Today we wanted to share a look at Kagan in her own words. We had a chance to speak with her during the hectic day yesterday, here's what she had to say." Then the video with Kagan. I don't think that comes off as anything other then she spoke to people in the WH and it was posted on the WH website. Mitchell couldn't do real journalism if she was paid a million dollars. She is incapable of it.

[madmax]

7. Her bias is blatant.

The imp from of failed journalism.

[HughMoran]

8. Someone had to defend the right-wing Mitchell

:eyes:

[Enrique]

10. do you want journalism or stenography?

if I want the White House line, which I sometimes do, I'll go to whitehouse.gov. I watched the Kagan "interview" and I found it interesting.

What I don't want is for journalists to just go along with it without comment. I want journalists to call it what it is: propaganda.

[Jennicut]

11. But the WH never acted like it was a real "interview" by an outside source.

Mitchell is saying propaganda because she says that about all Dems. Being critical of Obama does not mean thinking a hack knows what they are talking about. These hacks sleepwalk their way through life and have not done real "journalism" in years.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Who gives a shit about a "real" Interview? Like Andrea Mitchell would know one if it bit her in the

ass!

The media is so not into doing real journalism, for them to take offense
is actually funny. Perhaps if they did their job the way that it should be
done instead of acting like talking heads consistently attempting to sway
public opinion and make the news, someone would trust them to handle it.
Hell, these days interviewers barely allows the subject to speak, and then
most times, they ask stupid ass questions.

So in reality, at least with the White House's shit, you know it's theirs
and one can have the understanding that it will be favorable to the Interviewee.
With the corporate media's shit, they pretend that it's real journalism,
but it's really their very own corporate propaganda totally disguised as news....

[LeftyAndProud60]

12. I was just gonna talk about this. She makes it seem like the WH tried to make people think she was

being interviewed by a real reporter. They put it on the WH Youtube site not some media outlet. She's just mad becuz they didn't give her access. Fuck her.

[LiberalFighter]

19. Mitchell is such a prune.

[goclark]

13. A real prune nt

[HughMoran]

15. she's simply a mediocre reporter at best who's influenced by her right-wing husband

I can't stand watching her.

[Cha]

16. Supreme Court nominees are traditionally denied access to

to the "media"..mitchell's not aware of this?.. "Fauxsnooze complaining bitterly"..really?

"DID REPORTERS REALLY EXPECT A SIT-DOWN?

".... The White House posted an item to its blog yesterday, featuring Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan talking a bit about herself. It wasn't too big a deal -- it's only about three minutes long -- but it gives the viewer a little better sense of Kagan's personal background and career.

Some in the media aren't happy.

While the White House seems to believe the American people deserve to hear from Kagan, it has not made her available to reporters. That prompted some consternation at today's White House briefing.

"It appears that Solicitor General Kagan did an interview yesterday right after the president's announcement," said a reporter. "You've now posted that on the White House Web site. Who did the interview? And can I have one?"

"I think it's -- I think it's on the website if you want to see it," responded Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Soon after, the reporter can be heard saying, an edge in her voice, "So a White House staffer interviewing her."


The reporter went to emphasize how "frustrated" she is by the development. This morning, Fox News kept this up, complaining bitterly that the White House would do something so outrageous.

This is pretty silly. When Supreme Court nominees are introduced, in any administration, the standard practice is to deny media interviews before the confirmation hearings. That's hardly surprising -- no White House wants their nominee to get caught off-guard by a media professional, leading to a response that might be used against him/her. Obama's team is handling this the same way every other modern West Wing has.

The difference, in this case, is that there's now a three-minute bio clip on the White House website.

The decision to post an interview with Kagan conducted by a government employee -- not a journalist -- is in line with the Obama administration's policy of regularly using new media tools to go around traditional media.

Well, sort of, but not really. This wasn't really an interview, and the alternative wasn't a sit-down with a journalist, but rather, no remarks at all.

A "Fox & Friends" host said there's "no precedent" for the video. Since the Internet didn't exist for most of American history, that's probably true. But there's also "no precedent" for a White House making a high court nominee available for traditional media interviews, either.

I realize there's some animosity between media professionals (who want more access) and White House officials (who want less), but these new complaints are pretty weak tea.

—Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[Enthusiast]

17. Why would anyone listen to her.

She is Greenspan's wife! No credibility.

[activa8tr]

18. Her husband is the tipoff........her choices in life have been obviously influenced by

$ only.