I don't find any source for the Bush administration calling MSNBC illegitimate nor saying they would treat it as an opponent. I tried Google. If they made this as a public declaration, I should find it, no? Maybe he did it privately?
This was the first one that came up for me a few days ago. I don't follow this site, but they have done the research on it. I would not post something I had not read.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910210028#5
In 2008, Bush counselor Gillespie attacked NBC
In May 2008, Bush White House counselor Ed Gillespie publicly accused NBC of engaging in "deceitful editing" in its airing of portions of an interview NBC reporter Richard Engel conducted with Bush. In a letter to NBC News president Steve Capus, Gillespie wrote, "I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the 'news' as reported on NBC and the 'opinion' as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines." Fox News personalities subsequently questioned why Bush would agree to be interviewed by NBC in the first place and applauded the White House's decision to attack NBC.
Gillespie accused NBC of "deceitful editing" and of "blurring" the lines "between the 'news' as reported on NBC and the 'opinion' as reported on MSNBC." In a May 19, 2008,
open letter to Capus, Gillespie said NBC engaging in "deceitful editing" of an interview the network's Engel conducted with Bush. In the letter, Gillespie wrote:
Mr. Capus, I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.
NBC stood by reporting, criticized Gillespie's letter. From a May 19, 2008, AP
article on MSNBC.com:
NBC countered by saying the unedited interview has been available since Sunday on the network's Web site, and that the reporting accurately reflects the interview. The extra sentences by Bush were included during a report on Sunday's "Today" show.
Capus replied that there was no effort to be deceptive and called Gillespie's criticism a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
"Just as the White House does not participate in the editorial process at the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal or USA Today, NBC News, as part of a free press in a free society, makes its own editorial decisions," NBC said in a statement.
In NBC's nightly newscast on Monday, anchor Brian Williams noted that the White House objected to how it presented the Bush interview. Williams reiterated that the entire interview was available on msnbc.com and that viewers could post comments on the broadcast's blog if they wanted.
That didn't satisfy Gillespie, who issued another statement moments later. "It's simply absurd for people to have to log onto the Internet and stream video to get accurate information from NBC News," he said.
The White House routinely pushes back against news stories it does not agree with by issuing "Setting The Record Straight" press releases. But the one against NBC News stands out for its angry tone and its accusation that the news division deceptively and deceitfully edited the president's words.
NY Times' Stolberg: Gillespie letter was "go-for-the-jugular move." In a May 23, 2008,
New York Times piece, Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote:
That was unusual enough; most disputes with reporters are settled -- or at least aired out -- behind the scenes. But the real aim of the lengthy missive could be found in its very last line, in which Mr. Gillespie accused NBC of blurring the lines between its news division and "blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC."
This was a go-for-the-jugular move. NBC, which shares offices and staff with its more opinionated cable sister, MSNBC, is particularly sensitive to such criticism, and Mr. Capus responded by saying the "reporting accurately reflects the interview" and that, in any event, viewers could see the entire unedited interview on the MSNBC Web site.
Around Washington, the Gillespie "Setting the Record Straight" was seen as a kind of shot across the bow, a warning from a White House that is trying to keep the spotlight on the president when the press is more concerned with the presidential campaign. It also raised the question of whether the administration was using the letter to NBC to further Republican goals.
"It is routine for them to write memos and scream and yell, it's all part of the game," said Joe Lockhart, who did his own share of screaming and yelling at the press as President Clinton's press secretary.
"But when it goes public," Mr. Lockhart said, "it reflects a broader strategy to get something else done. Maybe it's to put everyone on notice that we're still here, or to put everyone on notice that you'd better be careful, we'll embarrass you publicly if you get the story wrong. Or maybe it's a political strategy to help McCain and help gin up the base. Or it could be all three. But it wasn't a random act."
Fox News' Ingraham questioned why White House would agree to NBC interview. From the May 19, 2008,
O'Reilly Factor, with guest host Laura Ingraham (as
noted by Think Progress) (transcript from Nexis):
INGRAHAM: Now Karl, why would the White House agree to do an interview with Richard Engel? I mean, this is the guy who, you know, really didn't want to give the surge any credit and NBC, an organization, obviously that's called this a civil war. Now it's kind of not gone back and changed his view on that. We're in a recession, etcetera, etcetera. I mean, why bother really at this point?
ROVE: Well, incidentally, you saw in the letter that Ed Gillespie sent to President Capus of NBC. He reiterated -- brought back up the issue of civil war, where they unilaterally decided in 2006 that they would depict this as a civil war. Ed pointed out they haven't been depicting it as a civil war since late last year. And had they -- he inquired as to whether or not they changed their policy.
Look, NBC has got a real problem because we're now in a position where we are starting to see the journalistic standards of MSNBC, which are really no standards at all, creep into NBC, which is a respected news organization.
And you ask why would the president give an interview to him. Well, look, the president gives interviews to the major news networks all the time. If he were to sort of blacklist NBC, NBC would be screaming in the streets and be talking about it every night at news...
INGRAHAM: Right.
ROVE: ..every night on the news report. So it's important for him to give them the courtesy of responding to a request for an interview.
Fox News' E.D. Hill: "Why go on a venue like that to begin with?" As noted by
Think Progress, on the May 22, 2008,
O'Reilly Factor, Hill suggested that "NBC News basically panders to the left and is, in essence, in the pocket for Barack Obama" and asked: "Why go on a venue like that to begin with?" (from Nexis):
HILL: You know, I'm sure you know from watching this program that, you know, Bill has, you know, has been reporting for more than a year on a pattern suggesting that NBC News basically panders to the left and is, in essence, in the pocket for Barack Obama. Why go on a venue like that to begin with?
GILLESPIE: Go on a venue like MSNBC?
HILL: Yes.
GILLESPIE: I don't know. It's -- you know, the -- you know, there are elements there who are clearly advocates for a candidate or a point of view, not even commentaries or commentators really or analysts. So I don't know why he would.
Cal Thomas: "What's taken the Bush administration so long? ... They should have taken on the media a lot sooner." From a discussion about Gillespie's letter on the May 24, 2008,
Fox News Watch (from Nexis):
CAL THOMAS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: What's taken the Bush administration so long? Just seven months or so before they leave office they're taking on the media? They should have taken on the media a lot sooner. I had this conversation with Karl Rove at the beginning of the Bush administration. I said, you can leak to the "New York Times" and suck up to the liberals in the media and hope they'll be your friends or you can look for people who will give you a fair and balanced shake and go before them. They tried to suck up to the "New York Times," and the big networks and they paid the price.
Jim Pinkerton: NBC "declared war on the White House. Why shouldn't the White House be fighting back?" From the discussion about Gillespie's letter on the May 24, 2008,
Fox News Watch (from Nexis):
E.D. HILL: Jim, tell me whether or not you think it was smart of the White House to send that letter?
JIM PINKERTON, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR AND WRITER, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE: I think absolutely. I think NBC has staked out a position as the most leveling of the broadcast networks and their little cat paws at NBC keep opening this on. And they declared war on the White House. Why shouldn't the White House be fighting back?
