Ifill & Carlson on HuffPost Question to Obama: 'Perfectly Reasonable'

Photo of Matthew Balan.
  • Bookmark and Share

Howard Kurtz, CNN Host; Gwen Ifill, PBS Host; Christina Bellantoni, Washington Times Correspondent; & Margaret Carlson, Bloomberg News Columnist | NewsBusters.orgDuring a segment on the “Reliable Sources” hour of CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, PBS’s Gwen Ifill and Bloomberg’s Margaret Carlson agreed that it was fine for President Obama to call on Sam Stein of the Huffington Post at his first press conference, and that the correspondent’s left-wing question on a proposed “truth committee” investigation into the Bush administration was “perfectly reasonable.” Carlson also agreed with host Howard Kurtz’s assessment that the “White House press corps not exactly rolling over for the new president.” Her response: “Never do, do they?”

Ifill and Carlson participated in a panel discussion with The Washington Times’ White House correspondent Christina Bellantoni at the beginning of the 10 am Eastern hour of the CNN program. Kurtz brought up the topic of the first presidential news conference, and specifically, how Stein was one of the reporters who asked a question: “So is this a new era for bloggers, in terms of the White House recognition?”

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Carlson first joked that Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington had “popped the champagne and cheered, because this is what bloggers have been waiting for, and he got it.” Ifill then interjected that Stein “had a perfectly reasonable question.” Carlson agreed, and continued that “Huffington Post is as much a player in this last campaign, and now in this White House coverage, as anybody.”

Kurtz then mentioned how The Huffington Post correspondent “asked a question about a proposal on Capitol Hill to start a truth and reconciliation commission to look into Bush-era wrongdoing.” Stein’s full question: “Today, Senator Patrick Leahy announced that he wants to set up a truth and reconciliation committee to investigate the misdeeds of the Bush administration. He said that before you turn the page, you have to read the page first. Do you agree with such a proposal, and are you willing to rule out right here and now any prosecution of Bush administration officials?” Obviously, this was a question from the Left.

Ifill then repeated her “reasonable” point: “I was interested to hear what the president had to say, which was not much, because it was off-topic, but it was perfectly reasonable to ask it. I would be a little crazier if it was a blogger who’d never covered anything, who just showed up and said, ‘You know, I was -- woke up this morning, thinking that, you know, I have a hangnail, Mr. President. Can you help me with that?’”

Bellantoni threw the “partisan card” in her take on the issue: “...[I]t would have been, maybe, a little bit more interesting if he had called on someone like, say, Salon, or a new media outlet that hadn’t just thrown a major party celebrating the inauguration of Barack Obama.”

The CNN host followed-up on her point, and brought up how liberal talk show host Ed Schultz had also been present at the press conference. He asked if their had been criticism of Former President Bush if Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity had been present at one of his press conferences. Ifill agreed, while Carlson became defensive of The Huffington Post’s legitimacy.

KURTZ: Well, you raise an interesting point, because Huffington -- you know, a conservative blogger didn’t get a question. Huffington Post was just filled for two years with pro-Obama columns, and also the liberal radio host Ed Schultz was seated in the front row. He did not get a question. So I heard some people ask, ‘Well, what if George Bush had put Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity in front? Well, wouldn't there have been a lot of criticism?’

IFILL: Yes. There would have been a lot of criticism, no question.

CARLSON: The Huffington Post broke the story that stuck with Obama through the whole thing about the bitterness and the guns.

BELLANTONI: They’ve done -- they’ve done great work. There’s no question about that, and it’s nice to have that many broad outlets. I mean, Ana Marie Cox was there for Air America, as well, and I think that there's -- it’s good to have that many different types of people in the room. But you've got to call on them, too.

KURTZ: I wonder if conservatives will feel shut out.

Earlier in the segment, Kurtz played excerpts of reporters’ questions from the press conference, and commented that the “White House press corps not exactly rolling over for the new president.” Carlson’s reply:

CARLSON: Never do, do they? I can’t remember a time, except after 9/11, the press rolled over, but they don’t roll over for a new president, necessarily. What disappointed the press there, most of all, was that, unlike Bush, who gave short answers, and a lot of reporters got questions in, he gave tutorials. Those answers were long, and there were not as many questions in. So they have to adjust to a new standard.

That’s an interesting answer from Carlson, since she knows something about “rolling over.” After the 1992 election, she sucked up to George Stephanopoulos, who was about to become Bill Clinton’s communications director: “His too-good-to-be-true face looks out from a gallery of photos lining the wall of his parents’ apartment....Critics think the soft-spoken Stephanopoulos has insufficient heft to speak for the President; yet this brooding, dark presence has a quiet authority. His power whisper makes people lean in to him, like plants reaching toward the sun.”

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"His power whispermakes

"His power whisper makes people lean in to him, like plants reaching toward the sun."

OMG!

Give me a break...yet her nose still stays firmly up all their rears...talk about obvious brown-nosing.

We on the right all know what would have happened if somebody from MRC or NewsBusters was present, let alone Rush, Hannity, Levin or anyone else on the right.

Just who are they trying to fool with any convincing leftist blather.. other than themselves and any lemmings that listen to the BS.

Can a liberal here explain

Can a liberal here explain why Sam Stein is okay but Jeff Gannon had to go (I'm talking strictly about their professional resumes :-)?

“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)

Truth Commission is perfectly reasonable?

Isn't the media supposed to be the ongoing "Truth Commission?" But they don't have the power of subpoena. So, I'm wondering if the liberal media wants to indulge their personal speculations, backed with the power of subpoena.

Here's the logical problem at the heart of this nutty idea. You have to take for granted that the Bush Gang was malicious in the first place. But since that assumption won't itself be under investigation, the Truth that will emerge will be self-contradicting. Classic example: the firing of the US Attorneys.

  • Fact: the president can fire the attorneys, for whatever cause he likes. They serve at the pleasure of the president, and can be fired at his displeasure.
  • The liberal argument is that, despite what the law allows, it would undermine the "trust" in the justice system if the attorneys were believed to be acting strictly out of partisan motives.
  • But where comes the suspicion that the firing of the attorneys was purely partisan? It's a suspicion from the other party. Partisan suspicions are in the eye of the beholder.
  • But when the Truth Commission itself is clearly an act of partisan suspicion, the same applies to the Commission as well. If partisanship is in the eye of the beholder, then the Truth Commission is just as supicious as the firing of the attorneys.

They expose themselves in the act of "exposing" others. All of the allegations of abuse were all political differences, now promised to be painted as criminal.

We used to think that

We used to think that extremist propaganda, brainwashing and subversion/revision of history were only things that happened in novels and in far away lands.

Now it's here.

Er, been here actually...

One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.

I guess most of the media

I guess most of the media saw a different press conf. than myself and most of you all on newsbusters.  What I have seen in the past three weeks reminds me of the Hans Christian Andersen story/fable of the "Emperor's New Clothes." there is no there...there. 

The panel on this show, Reliable Sources, is indicative of what we have to look forward to for a long time, even after Uhhbama leaves office.  Right now they, LMSM, are taking a sabbatical from any critical thought. And that mousey broad, Margeret Carlson is a complete joke.

The calling for the so-called "truth commision" sounds ominous and downright scarey to me. Do the leftist really want to go down this road?  Be careful what you wish for.

Will?!?

KURTZ: I wonder if conservatives will feel shut out.

Not any more than conservatives in the House and Senate.

acumen... Especially the

acumen...

Especially the House and Nancy Rules!

Is this really news any more?

After all, the Dems, liberals and leftists live in a parallel moral and social dimension.

Of course, they think it's reasonable for Obama to have done this.

What would be news-busting is if they didn't think that way.

this is reward/payoff

 for huffpo as being the unregulated, subversive arm of the Propaganda Machine. rewarded for their service to the Glorious Cause, for Keeping The Faith, and doing nothing but providing plausible deniability for slander and libel against His opponents. 

"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is like calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".

"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the same&quo