BRAIN.
Seriously the man is a HACK. I read his various posts yesterday and it was a classic example of beltway drivel run amuck.
Tapper was trying to revive the "What did the President know and when did he know it" meme from the 1970s Watergate era. I know that most current journalist are waxing nostalgic for the "golden-age" of investigative journalism but GIVE US A BREAK! Tapper seems not to recognize that this narrative is played out and not even applicable to the current Blago controversy. It is a shameless attempt at self-promotion on his part.
He parses Obama's (admitedly tentative) words, asks a series of inane questions and then proceeds to chastise the Obama team for failing to live up to their self-proclaimed standards of transparency. He fairly drips with sarcasm here:
On its website, President-elect Obama's Transition Team is making a big deal about transparency, posting memos and information about meetings with various, largely supportive organizations.
True transparency means a little more than that, one might posit. It means telling voters about matters that aren't entirely comfortable to share.
If one is just counting as being "transparent" the act of sharing meetings with environmental groups delighted to be counting down the days until Wyoming gets its favorite son back, then the notion might not mean much.
And that would mean that in order to truly be transparent, the American people need to find out as much as possible, as soon as possible, about what role anyone Team Obama played in any of the various shenanigans Gov. Blagojevich is accused of committing -- or any others we don't yet know about.
I could picture him stamping his feet in a fit of temper as he pounded the keys of his laptop. Truly, this is NOT actual reporting but pure HACKERY.
Nate Silver went through the actual 78 page complaint with his usual meticulousness and reconstructs the ACTUAL FACTS of the case. His post titled "What Jake Tapper Doesn't Know about What Obama Knew" is a classic and a must-read. With the precision of a forensic scientist on CSI, he combs through the ACTUAL allegations in the complaint to unpack what seems to have happened in this case.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/...
Bravo to Nate! Thank You! Jake Tapper is only interested in easy and cheap demogoguery rather than actual REPORTING. He is a DISGRACE.
Steve Benen in writing about an article written by Liz Sidoti encapsulates all of my criticism of "journalists" like Tapper. He writes:
It's only been 24 hours, and it's pretty obvious that reports like this one, from the AP's Liz Sidoti, are going to quickly become mind-numbing.
President-elect Barack Obama hasn't even stepped into office and already a scandal is threatening to dog him.
Obama isn't accused of anything. But the fact that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a fellow Democrat, has been charged with trying to sell Obama's now-vacant Senate post gives political opponents an opening to try to link him to the scandal.
There's just no reason for reporting like this. Is Obama connected to Blagojevich's scandal? No, but the scandal is "threatening to dog him." Has Obama done anything wrong? No, but Republicans are going to "try to link him to the scandal."
Well, yes, of course they are. That's what political opponents do. We're supposed to have an independent, professional press that helps the public cut through the nonsense and explain why baseless attacks are wrong. Instead, we get an "analysis" piece like this one.
Benen cites Jamison Foser who notes:
Republicans can try to link him to the scandal. Have they succeeded? Are there actual substantive connections between Obama and the wrongdoing? Because if there aren't, that's the story: Republicans smearing Obama by falsely suggesting he is tied to the wrongdoing.
Finally, Benen writes about what I hope reasonable observers will conclude from reading the current HORRIBLE coverage of the Blago controversy as it relates to team Obama:
Alas, Sidoti and the AP don't see it that way. Her report says there are "signs the continuing investigation could still involve Obama." That would be interesting, if it were true, but Sidoti pointed to no evidence to support the assertion.
She added that "more details on the case could be forthcoming." How insightful.
The scandal isn't dogging Obama, but the AP believes it's threatening to dog him. Hmm. All we know at this point is that Obama didn't play along with Blagojevich's tactics, Obama didn't help Blagojevich, Blagojevich was livid with Obama's lack of cooperation, and federal investigators haven't implicated Obama with this mess in any way.
And yet, here's the Associated Press, telling a national audience that this story may mean trouble for Obama. It's wildly irresponsible.
One can only hope that TRUE journalist like Lynn Sweet, Jonathan Alter, and Marc Ambinder will continue to provide FACT-BASED reporting rather than uninformed speculation.