White House chief of staff John Kelly surprised the liberal media by granting an interview to National Public Radio, something Donald Trump hasn't done in his brief political career. Kelly talked to John Burnett, who knew Kelly as a press briefer when he was embedded with the troops in southern Iraq. In this interview, Kelly was scathing about the press, and guess what? Those comments didn't make the story, which aired on Friday's Morning Edition.
JOHN BURNETT: So what's harder — commanding Marines in a combat zone in Iraq or bringing order to the Trump White House?
JOHN KELLY: Working in the White House is the hardest thing I've ever done in my life, bar none.
BURNETT: Talk about that.
KELLY: Well, first, with all due respect to people like yourselves, I was not ready for the press that covers a White House. All of my time, and you remember it a little bit, I think, we were pretty good to you guys. We had a good team effort going in the field. When I was working in the Pentagon at a higher level, senior level the Pentagon press corps were really good to work with. I mean they, they seldom wrote or did the story you wanted to read, naturally, but they were really professional in trying to get the accurate aspect of every story. It wasn't personal. It was pretty professional. And I still call some of them ... good acquaintances. This is vastly different. This is — it's personal, it's vicious. ...
I did my first off the record [interview] — that was immediately violated. But after about six weeks in a job one of the reporters said to me, "Look you were our worst nightmare. This place was a clown show before you showed up. We didn't think this president would last a year [or] 18 months. Now that you're here, there's order to the place. The leaks all but went away. So, sorry but you got to go." So here I am, sitting, still here.
BURNETT: With your background valuing chain of command and military discipline, do you feel like you've brought some discipline and integrity to this inner circle?
They overstate that, press covers that a lot. Again, I don't mean to be too hard on the press but they — I know everything. Right? And so when I read the press accounts of what's going on here, I say, "gee, how could they have gotten that that wrong?" So I think the press, and maybe it's because only certain people talk and those people maybe leak or are sources — and maybe those people aren't as honorable as they should be. But when I read what they write, I think to myself they may have had some low-level source and that's — and to write a story like that — whatever "that" is for a major newspaper like the Post or the Times — to base it on almost rumor strikes me as being a little bit — not the way to do business.
Why does this part get buried? Can't the "Democracy Dies in Darkness" braggarts try to offer a self-defense when they're called vicious and unprofessional? Is offering a source anonymity sometimes used because the actual source is not impressive? The media don't want you to see how they make their slanted sausage.