Here is a lie, from Jake Tapper:
He's also keenly aware that there's a problem when the reporter becomes too much a part of the story. While his exchange with Robert Gibbs elevated his profile, that was not his objective. "The YouTubed exchange with Gibbs is a perfect example of something I didn't care for, not because I think I was wrong, but because the tone of that conversation took focus away from the more important issue - transparency - and put it where I don't particularly care for it, into a debate about me and Gibbs and who was right and who got the better of whom. Which serves no one," Tapper says.
Yes, the point of on-camera arguments between White House correspondents and press secretaries is always the noble pursuit of the truth, right? It's never just about setting yourself up as "tough" enough to eventually host a Sunday show or anything.
The thing is, Rush Limbaugh and National Review are jumping on the Tapper wagon for the same reason that idiot liberals all decided they loved David Gregory back in the say: because he was good at beating up on Scott McClellan. Good for him, he made a dumb guy look dumb.
Arguing with the press secretary is not actually a good way to get useful information for your audience. In fact, it is never a way of getting useful information for your audience. The secretary's job is to stonewall and lie. He will not eventually concede the argument and be like "ok, Tapper, you win, here are those lobbyist recusal documents!" Your job, correspondent, is to actually get the damn documents yourself, through reporting maybe! Unless of course you are too busy reporting important news on how the president lied to you about the smoking!