Because the non-scandal surrounding Richard Engel's George Bush interview for NBC News doesn't seem to be quieting down anytime soon, let's re-examine the argument that White House counsel Ed Gillespie is making — that NBC edited the interview to push its lefty politics or something.

Notes WaPo's Dan Froomkin: "If Bush had actually explained what he thought Engel got wrong, then the editing might have come in for legitimate criticism. But all Bush did was vaguely and confusingly suggest that what he was calling appeasement was not taking the words [of enemies like Iran -- or Hitler --] seriously.' By no accepted definition does that amount to appeasement. But regardless, Bush's point was dutifully noted in what NBC aired."

So then what the hell was Gillespie complaining about?

CONTINUED »

[Update: NBC responds. Below.]

Did NBC News "deceptively" edit an interview with President Bush to make it sound like the commander in chief was fingering Barack Obama when he was talking about negotiating peace with Iran (and how doing so amounted to "appeasement")?

That's what White House counsel Ed Gillespie is alleging in a scathing letter sent to NBC News' Steve Capus, demanding the network air the president's "actual answer" to the question. [The Hill]

"NBC's selective editing of the President's response is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that he agreed with Engel's characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it," reads the letter. "Furthermore, it omitted the references to al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and ignored the clarifying point in the President's follow-up response that U.S. policy is to require Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program before coming to the table, not that "negotiating with Iran is pointless" and amounts to 'appeasement.' This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President's responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts."

So what type of editing did NBC, allegedly, perform?

CONTINUED »

The most worthwhile takeaway from today's O'Reilly/News Corp. vs Olbermann/GE feud story isn't the whiny phone calls from Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch to Jeff Zucker and Jeff Immelt complaining about Keith's attacks on Fox News, or the whiny phone calls from Steve Capus to Ailes complaining about O'Reilly's attacks on NBC News correspondent Richard Engel.

It's that News Corp. wanted an lefty blog's Bill O'Reilly "ambush video" to be off limits for Olbermann, even though O'Reilly's own use of ambush video cameras drive some of the show's highest ratings and YouTube views.

CONTINUED »

While this morning's Page Six item about Keith Olbermann recyles previous Jossip reports, it also makes one thing more clear: News Corp. has many vehicles to push its anti-MSNBC/GE crusade, and Bill O'Reilly's diatribes are just one of them.

Repeating our previous reports about Keith Olbermann's behavior and conflicts with other talent like David Gregory and Dan Abrams, P6 also finds itself on the front lines of O'Reilly's battle against the network — which, it turns out, News Corp. tried to quell at the highest levels, and is now more than content to keep supporting. Just like the real war!

CONTINUED »