White House communications chief: Our favorite Fox News reporter is…

posted at 7:29 pm on October 8, 2009 by Allahpundit

…not whom you would expect.

Anita Dunn, the communications director, who is leading up the White House’s rapid response effort, did point out to me that there was at least one Fox News employee who she considered an upstanding member of his profession. Did she call out Fox News Sunday’s Chris “Biggest Bunch of Crybabies” Wallace? Or Shepard “Public Option” Smith?

No and no. “We think Major Garrett is a legitimate reporter,” Dunn told me, referring to the network’s White House correspondent. Sorry Major, if that hurts your rep among certain parts of the Fox News viewership. I would add that I personally have a professional affinity for Major, since we are both alums of Mother Jones magazine. (Note to Glenn Beck: Mother Jones magazine is named for Mary Harris Jones, who was a socialist. Put this fact up on your chalkboard and I am sure you will quickly conclude that both Garrett and I constitute a KGB sleeper cell with White House press credentials–a clear threat to the republic. Or maybe not. Nothing wrong with asking questions. Etc.)

Seriously? The apple of the White House’s eye on Fox is Major Garrett? Isn’t there someone else on that network known for sneering at climate-change skeptics and oh, say, railing at Republican senators about the glories of the public option? Whose influence is, by most measures, a lot wider than Garrett’s?

I hope Shep’s working for the money and not the love. You were robbed, pardner.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Like most not-so-closeted gays Shepherd Smith walks a tightrope that makes interesting tv which can also be disturbingly erratic. He wants to play the fair and balanced Fox role but can’t help himself from veering left at unexpected moments for fear of being ostracized by the gay mafia.

miles on October 8, 2009 at 11:19 PM

I know who their favorite Facebook poster isn’t.

portlandon on October 8, 2009 at 7:34 PM

On that note:

This from Reuters!

Another side of Sarah Palin: financial guru

http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/10/08/another-side-of-sarah-palin-financial-guru/

gary4205 on October 8, 2009 at 11:25 PM

Oh, and everyone quit pickin’ on Major Garrett, he’s a decent Reporter. He’s one of the few that has gone after Gibbs “Sam Donaldson” style!

Shep? Fagala.

Jerry Rivers? Walking turd.

Greta? Really fine journalist.

Glen Beck? Owner, Fox News!

gary4205 on October 8, 2009 at 11:29 PM

Even when answering that question they do it in an assinine way.

“We think Major Garrett is a legitimate reporter,”

really can they be more condescending? No crap he is a legitimate reporter, I guess the lines get skewed when you think Letterman is a news reporter, or Keith “How the F does one get fired from SportCenter” Olberman.

Rbastid on October 8, 2009 at 11:47 PM

Only there’s that pesky problem of the “public option” being unconstitutional. Nah, you wouldn’t think of considering that, being a socialist liberal and all…

2Brave2Bscared on October 8, 2009 at 11:00 PM

1. I must be the only socialist liberal that voted for McCain
2. The “unconstitutional” argument is bullshit; if you don’t believe me, please check out the Social Security Act of 1965

Seixon on October 9, 2009 at 12:33 AM

Garrett is a good “straight” reporter from what I’ve seen. Also similar are Bret Baier and Brit Hume. Cavuto is pretty close in that regard, but he does editorialize but that’s fine with me because I generally agree with him. ;=)

Dr. ZhivBlago on October 9, 2009 at 12:42 AM

No need to chalkboard it Allah, you scummy leftist plant.

No, I’m not kidding.

voxpopuli on October 9, 2009 at 2:59 AM

Seixon on October 9, 2009 at 12:33 AM

Just what Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution authorizes Social Security?

Citing one un-Constitutional law as the argument for another un-Constitutional law isn’t an argument.

dominigan on October 9, 2009 at 8:40 AM

“We think Major Garrett is a legitimate reporter,”

Legitimate?

Pity we don’t have a legitimate POTUS for FNC to cover.

KMA, Dunn.

petefrt on October 9, 2009 at 9:15 AM

Major Garrett is a fine, no nonsense, and apparently unbiased reporter. Just because he worked for Mother Jones doesn’t make him a lefty loon. He has provided both sides of the White House’s points and the opposition points of view in his reporting. With no preference showing in his demeanor or references. The only guy better is Brit Hume. Brett Bair and Cavuto are also some of the most unbiased guys I’ve seen on any network. Facts make a news story. Not feelings!

Could the White House make a more condescending statement, though. “He’s a legitimate reporter?” No Sh*t Sherlock. He’s at least as good as all the rest you’ve got slobbering over your genitals and kissing your *ss every day. These people in charge are absolute morons.

Good for Major.

Subsunk

Subsunk on October 9, 2009 at 9:51 AM

I lost all respect for Shemp during Katrina, when he stood on that bridge in the rain shouting, “Won’t somebody help these people”?
I dislike Geraldo, but he would have slapped Shemp and gone over to help those people himself.
Shemp can go, Fox has enough girls

sparker911 on October 9, 2009 at 10:01 AM

Shepard Smith is not a reporter–he’s an anchor. He would have no direct interaction with the White House.

The reason why the White House cited Major Garrett as their favorite reporter was to snub Chris Wallace (who, on O’Reilly, called them the biggest bunch of crybabies he’d done business with).

Outlander on October 9, 2009 at 10:12 AM

So why not focus the laser beams on that instead? Tell the Democrats that they can have their public option – if they don’t mess with the private insurance that already exists.

Nah, that would be cooperation and constructive, we wouldn’t want that now would we.

Seixon on October 8, 2009 at 9:27 PM

The Republicans have gone much farther at working with Dhimmicrats than vice versa. Most of us here are pissed that they have allowed themselves to get so far to the left they have stopped representing us.

The reason a public option will always outweigh the private insurance cost preferences is because your EMPLOYER decides what insurance plan you can participate in. The vast majority of private health insurance comes from our employers shopping around for the best deal. When times get tough, all employers have to cut costs to keep the company afloat. Because they do not wish to lose ALL their employees, they find the lowest cost alternative which keeps the coverage the employees demand, but keeps their costs as low as possible.

The public option would be that lowest cost provider because the US government can tell the doctors, by legal fiat, what the most compensation they can receive for these services is. They then make sure that all the overhead costs are paid by the US government. Private insurers have to pay their own way there, and therefore, their premiums will always be higher than the government’s. But their service will be far more efficient than the US government because the feds are always the last to pay on time. Always the last to reward efficiency. Always the last to fund innovations. And always the last to care when they screw up, since you can’t sue the federal government when they refuse life saving health care by mistake. Think about it. Every single time you go into a government office to get something, what is the result? You stand in a long line, and you wait for someone who cannot make a decision about a special case to take your application for something. Then you wait several weeks for whatever you applied for to be sent to you. If it is denied, it takes months to get a simple thing straightened out. Name a single govt entity which has EVER been more efficient than McDonald’s or Target, or your family doctor’s office? (And remember, I served in the military, so even I know how inefficient they are about the normal stuff.)

Bottom line, the reason Medicare is broke, Education costs more and more without improvement in our children’s educational performances, and Social Security pays far less than your average 401K, is because government can do what it does only very slowly, very costly, and very inefficiently. Private business always does better than the US govt, or any govt. Because they have incentive to do so cheaper and faster. And that is why we want private insurance.

Don’t ignore the facts and the logic of those who oppose the Dhimmicrat’s version of health care reform. There is a reason it wouldn’t go into effect until 2013. Because no Dhimmicrat alive today wants anyone who dies under govt health care to remember it was they who voted to allow their deaths.

Soon enough, the voters of the country will be fed up with being asked to pay for people who do not pay taxes, and yet get free rides on our backs. And when they have had enough of politicians lying to them, and refusing to represent them and their best interests, the resulting violence and insurrection will make Iraq and Afghanistan look like a Sunday school picnic. The next decade doesn’t look promising to me.

Subsunk

Subsunk on October 9, 2009 at 10:20 AM

If you are a reporter and disliked by this White House, You should be damn proud of yourself. That actually makes you a real, and good reporter.

bridgetown on October 9, 2009 at 11:10 AM

WOW!!

I knew that Shep was a little nuts, but I didn’t think he was an Obama mouthpiece until now…

charlie36r on October 9, 2009 at 11:13 AM

I’m not surprised. If you watch carefully, you’ll note that Garrett almost always disagrees with, or “corrects”, the Fox anchors if they ask a question that places Obama in a negative light (probably to protect his “access” to the Whitehouse, limited as it is). He also has a strong tendancy to put a “gentle” spin on pretty much everything he reports to make Obama look good.

You might call that giving the president the “benefit of the doubt”, but Garrett really does tend to place Obama in the light most favorable to him.

Shepard Smith? A complete moron who’s caked on layers of pancake makeup can’t completely cover the insanity lurking just below the surface. I can’t believe Fox can’t find anyone better than Shep (not that they are even trying) and I simply refuse to watch him.

P.S. Although Hannity espouses beliefs that are fairly consistent with my own, he has a distinct lack of mental gravitas that just frustrates the heck out of me! ::sighs::
(And, yes, I could do a better job, but alas . . . )

Fatal on October 9, 2009 at 12:10 PM

ROCnPhilly on October 8, 2009 at 7:54 PM

CAN I GET AN AAaaaa-MEN!!!!!

***jEEEzus***

seejanemom on October 8, 2009 at 7:56 PM

Not a big deal, but I’m pretty sure it’s 3 syllables. Am I wrong?

Main Entry: nu·cle·ar
Pronunciation: \ˈnü-klē-ər, ˈnyü-, ÷-kyə-lər\
Function: adjective
Date: 1846

Red State State of Mind on October 9, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Good grief that Shepard Smith is annoying.

Hilts on October 9, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2