In July, when Politico first reported on statements made by MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber regarding Obamacare, they referred to him as "One of Obamacare’s chief architects, MIT professor Jonathan Gruber," and said he had "just handed conservatives a gotcha moment."
As the story gained steam over the past few weeks and more video revelations of Gruber's disdain for the American voter, as well as his admission that Obamacare had been passed in Congress through deception and trickery, Politico decided to re-examine Gruber's role in the Affordable Care Act. Last week, Politico published a new angle on Gruber's involvement in the health care law with the headline: "New Obamacare furor: Was Jonathan Gruber the “architect”?"
Amazingly, BOTH posts were written by the same reporter, Paige Winfield Cunningham.
In other words, as soon as Gruber's comments began to show real political damage to the Obama Administration and to Congressional Democrats, the "Architect" was no longer an "Architect."
On Tuesday's Special Report, Chris Hayes of the Weekly Standard brought up the issue in the panel discussion:
STEPHEN F. HAYES, WEEKLY STANDARD: I'm troubled by the administration's attempt to distance itself from one of the architects of Obamacare. But I guess I've come to expect that from this president, from his administration, this is what they do. They're not afraid, I think, to be dishonest if it furthers their interest. I'm equally troubled by the reporters who are refusing to cover this or, in some cases, actually pretending that he is not who they said he was just months ago.
There was a Politico article in which the reporter wrote a lede and she said, you know, Jonathan Gruber, chief architect of Obamacare, et cetera, et cetera. The same reporter just wrote an article recently sayingwas Jonathan Gruber really an architect of Obamacare? This is hackery. This is just dishonest journalism. I think journalists have a lot to answer for in terms of being deceived or being enablers of the administration in the first place to pass Obamacare. But they have even more to answer for right now.
BRET BAIER: And some are choosing to say this is a conservative story, it just fits the conservative meme as opposed to he was a guy who was paid by HHS that they cited, not saying that he was paid by HHS, again and again and again, and, yet, the administration is now distancing themselves.
HAYES: This has all of the elements of a good journalistic story. It has conflict of interest. It has outright deception. It is the kind of inside Washington story that journalists who work in this town should love and the people who are today pretending that this isn't a story, they're not journalists; they're enablers, they're working for the administration.
BAIER: Does this change the debate over this?
HAYES: It changes the debate because it take members of the Republican party who are reluctant to go hard on Obamacare in the new Congress and ensures that they will do that.
Transcript via RCP
