The lady who showered accolades on the most efficient killer in human history has a few choice words when describing the press during last year’s election:
Actually, when you read the entire story, what the Obama team did is not nearly as bad as the headline sounds. Because what they were trying to do was force the press to report on what Obama actually said, as opposed to the media’s interpretation of what was said. For instance, instead of granting an interview that could be edited and broadcast later, Obama would do a live town hall. So the coverage he got was a video feed of the live event that couldn’t be edited, as opposed to a story that the reporter did, which would be shown later with the reporter’s nuance and bias.
In my business, I’ve been interviewed in the press hundreds of times. I was on the front page of The New York Times a decade ago. I don’t talk to reporters much anymore because most of the time, they just can’t get the story straight. I deal in a complex business, and it takes years to grasp a full understanding of what I do. So when a new reporter starts to cover my field, you can be sure that whatever is said to the reporter will be taken out of context, quoted incorrectly, interpreted wrong, etc. It was very rare indeed for an entire article to be written about my subject matter without some error in it, because the omission or modification of one word could change the meaning of everything. And the press I dealt with just wasn’t that careful.
In other words, I don’t see this as Obama’s or his team’s fault that they had to resort to these tactics. It’s the press’ fault for being lazy and incompetent! In sum, while I think Anita Dunn is horrifically misguided on who her role models are, I do agree that the mainstream press is so completely and absolutely bereft of effort and intellect , that anybody who wants to get a message out has to do it in a way that completely circumvents the 4th estate.