Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one?Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –Gibbs: ABC -Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?Gibbs: That’s our opinion.
I don't think Fox has the respectability that it once did - its peers at its sister organizations would be much less likely to defend it like this now - but it never should have.