PressThink: Dick Cheney Did Not Make a Mistake By Not Telling the Press He Shot a Guy

Dick Cheney Did Not Make a Mistake By Not Telling the Press He Shot a Guy

"The public visibility of the presidency itself is under revision. More of it lies in shadow all the time. Non-communication has become the standard procedure, not a breakdown in practice but the essence of it... With these changes, executive power has grown more illegible under Bush."

Among the angry, amused and jaded reactions to Dick Cheney’s methods for informing the nation about his hunting accident, the views of Marlin Fitzwater were of special interest to me. Fitzwater—former press secretary to both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, a loyal Republican—knows how things used to work.

He was livid. “It is all Cheney,” he told Editor & Publisher. “He is the key that has to start all this.” Fitzwater explained what is supposed to happen. The Vice President’s press secretary acts as a kind of journalist within the Cheney camp.

“What he should have done was call his press secretary and tell her what happened and she then would have gotten a hold of the doctor and asked him what happened. Then interview [ranch owner] Katharine Armstrong to get her side of events and then put out a statement to inform the public.
“They could have done all of that in about two hours on Saturday. It is beyond me why it was not done this way.”

Well, it’s not beyond me. The way I look at it, Cheney took the opportunity to show the White House press corps that it is not the natural conduit to the nation-at-large; and it has no special place in the information chain. Cheney does not grant legitimacy to the large news organizations with brand names who think of themselves as proxies for the public and its right to know. Nor does he think the press should know where he is, what he’s doing, or who he’s doing it with.

Fitzwater said he was “appalled by the whole handling of this,” which is refreshing. But he seems to think the Vice President erred somehow. I’m not sure that’s right. Howard Kurtz said it too. “Seriously: What were they thinking?”

The vice president of the United States shoots a man—accidentally, to be sure, this was no Aaron Burr situation—and White House officials wait a whole day and don’t tell the press? Did they think it wouldn’t get out? No one would care? It would remain secret as a matter of national security?

“This is going to ricochet for days,” Kurtz said on Tuesday. The title of his column that day: Monumental Misfire. I’m not sure that’s right, either.

How does it hurt Bush if for three days this week reporters are pummeling Scott McClellan over the details of when they were informed about Cheney’s hunting accident? That’s three days this week they won’t be pummeling Scott McClellan over the details of this article from Foreign Affairs by Paul R. Pillar, the ex-CIA man who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year.

Here’s what the article says: “During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq… the Bush administration disregarded the community’s expertise, politicized the intelligence process, and selected unrepresentative raw intelligence to make its public case.” Pillar was there; if anyone would know he would.

The handling of the news that Cheney shot someone is consistent with many things we know about the Vice President— and about the Bush Administration’s policies toward the press. Though I admire his professionalism, I wish Fitzwater were a little less appalled and a little more attuned to the new set of rules put in place by the Bush White House, especially the rules for Dick Cheney.

The public visibility of the presidency itself is under revision, Marvin. More of it lies in shadow all the time. Non-communication has become the standard procedure, not a breakdown in practice but the essence of it. What Dan Froomkin calls the Bush Bubble is designed to keep more of the world out. Cheney himself is almost a shadow figure in the executive branch. His whereabouts are often not known. With these changes, executive power has grown more illegible under Bush the Younger— a sign of the times in Washington.

This week David Sanger of the New York Times described “Mr. Cheney’s habit of living in his own world in the Bush White House — surrounded by his own staff, relying on his own instincts, saying as little as possible.”

And at the same time expanding the reach of his office. “In the past five years, Mr. Cheney has grown accustomed to having a power center of his own, with his own miniature version of a national security council staff,” writes Sanger. “President Bush has allowed Cheney to become perhaps the most powerful vice president in history and has provided him with unparalleled autonomy,” say Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker in the Washington Post.

Meanwhile, the reclamation of powers lost to the executive branch after Vietnam and Watergate goes on; Cheney is known to be the driver. When this project reaches the press it turns into what I have called rollback— “Back ‘em up, starve ‘em down, and drive up their negatives.” Cheney’s methods after the hunting accident were classics in rollback thinking.

Listen to Fitzwater explain what should have happened, pre-rollback:

“If [Cheney’s] press secretary had any sense about it at all, she would have gotten the story together and put it out. Calling AP, UPI, and all of the press services. That would have gotten the story out and it would have been the right thing to do, recognizing his responsibility to the people as a nationally elected official, to tell the country what happened.”

But Cheney figures he told the country “what happened.” What he did not do is tell the national press, which he does not trust to inform the country anyway. Making sense yet? Ranch owner Katharine Armstrong is someone he trusts. He treated the shooting as a private matter between private persons on private land that should be disclosed at the property owner’s discretion to the townsfolk (who understand hunting accidents, and who know the Armstrongs) via their local newspaper, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times.

“I thought that made good sense because you can get as accurate a story as possible from somebody who knew and understood hunting,” he told Britt Hume of Fox News.

From the Caller-Times it got to the Web, then the AP and CNN. And there you are: The American people were informed of the basic facts (though not at the speed journalists want) and Cheney did not have to meet questions from the press, an institution without power or standing in his world. “I thought that was the right call,” Cheney said yesterday on Fox. “I still do.” He also said the furor among reporters is just jealousy at being scooped by the Caller-Times. (See this reply to that.)

Press thinkers, Dick Cheney did not make a mistake. He followed procedure— his procedure. As Bill Plante, White House reporter for CBS News said at Public Eye, “No other vice president in the White Houses I’ve covered has had the ability to write his own rules the way this one has. He operates in his own sphere, with the apparent acceptance of the president.”

Cheney has long held the view that the powers of the presidency were dangerously eroded in the 1970s and 80s. The executive “lost” perogatives it needed to gain back for the global struggle with Islamic terror. “Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam both during the 70’s served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area,” he said in December.

Some of that space was lost to the news media, and its demand to be informed about all aspects of the presidency, plus its sense of entitlement to the star interlocutor’s role. Cheney opposes all that, whereas Fitzwater accepted most of it. That’s why Fitz is appalled and Cheney is rather pleased with himself.

The people yelling questions at Scott McClellan in the briefing room, like the reporters in the Washington bureaus who cover the president, are in Cheney’s calculations neither a necessary evil, nor a public good. They are an unnecessary evil and a public bad— ex-influentials who can be disrespected without penalty.

I thought I would be featuring at PressThink this week a long and (I thought) very interesting Q and A with John Harris, the political editor of the Washington Post. It was completed over the weekend, but at the last minute Harris pulled the plug and decided against publishing the interview, which we had worked on for several weeks. (I’d tell you the reason, but I don’t know the reason.)

Unfortunately, I cannot bring you his replies, but I can show you one of the questions I asked Harris. It was my attempt to lay out what has happened to the press under Bush, and Cheney. This, I think, is the proper background for events after Saturday’s shooting…

You wrote a book about Clinton, and you have covered junior Bush, and so you are more than qualified to dispute my thesis in this next question, which is a little long (but then this is PressThink.)

I think the Bush years have been a disaster for the Washington press. In my view, the White House withdrew from a consensus understanding of how the executive branch had to deal with journalists. It correctly guessed that if it changed the game on you, you wouldn’t develop a new game of your own, or be able to react. I believe this strategy is still working, too.
The old understanding, which lasted from Kennedy to Gore, was that the White House has a right to get its message out, and the press has a right to probe and question, and so there will always be tensions in the relationship. There will always be spin. There will always be stonewalling. There will always be attempts to manipulate the press.

Likewise, there will always be pack journalism. The press will always exploit internal conflict and make juicy stories from it. Because of its appetite for anything it regards as the “inside” story, the press will always be vulnerable to manipulation by leak. It will always seize on miscues and call them missteps.

But despite all this, and the struggles and complaints, the parties would end up cooperating most of the time because presidents “need to get their message out” (that was the phrase) and communicate with the country, while journalists need stories, pictures, quotes, drama— news from the power center of the world.

And so a rough balance of power existed during that era; people could even imagine that the press had a semi-permanent or quasi-official “place” in the political order. It was known that White Houses tried to manage the news, which was part of governing. It was also known that there were limits on its ability to do so.

But where, John, is it written that these limits will always be observed? What prevents a new understanding from coming into power in the White House, one that withdraws from the earlier consensus? In fact, there is nothing to prevent it; and I would argue that the Bush forces have done exactly that. They sensed that the old press system was weakened and they changed the game on you. They knew you wouldn’t react because to do so would look “too political.”

Other White Houses had a “line of the day” they wanted to push. None had a spokesman like Scott McClellan who, no matter what the question, will mindlessly repeat the line of the day as a way of showing journalists that they have no rights to an answer. That isn’t “spin,” although it may superficially look like spin. That’s shutting down the podium and emptying out the briefing room without saying you’re doing it.

Armstrong Williams isn’t business-as-usual, it’s changing the game. Not meet the press— be the press! But at least the contract that paid Williams $240,000 was undisclosed. Look at the disclosed picture: The Bush team has openly said they don’t believe in the fourth estate role for the press. They have openly said: big journalism is a special interest. Bush has openly denied that journalists represent Americans’ interest in anything, including the public’s right to know. Bush is openly hostile to questions that aren’t from friendlies.

Dick Cheney will look into the eyes of a journalist on television and deny saying what he’s on tape saying! And when the first tape is played on the air, then the second, it doesn’t prompt any revision from his office. That too suggests a new game, in which flagrant factual contradiction is not a problem, but itself a form of cultural politics. Different game.

On top of that, the Republican party gains political traction and excites its base through the act of discrediting journalists as the liberal media. I don’t recall the Democratic Party developing any coalition like that. The liberal media charge is part of the way the GOP operates today— routinely. On top of that secrecy by the executive branch has reached levels beyond anything you have dealt with in your career.

Aside from the coverage of weapons of mass destruction, which is seen to have failed, my sense is that you and your colleagues think you have handled the challenge of covering this government pretty darn well. (Correct me if I am wrong.) The game hasn’t changed, you contend. We’re still in a recognizable, fourth-estate, meet-the-press, rather than beat-the-press universe. Those—like me—who accuse Bush of taking extraordinary measures to marginalize, discredit, refute (and pollute) the press are said to be exaggerating the cravenness of this Adminstration and ignoring the parallels and precedents in other White Houses, including the Democratic ones.

Actually, I may have understated the magnitude of the change Bush and company have brought to your world, because I didn’t connect the pattern we can find in journalism to the Bush Administration’s treatment of science, its mistreatment of career professionals and other experts in government, and of course its use and misuse of intelligence. All have to be downgraded, distorted, deterred because they’re a drag—also called a check—on executive power and the Bush team’s freedom from fact.

To offer one more example, there’s no precedent that I’m aware of for what’s happened to public information officers under this Bush. These are the government’s own flaks who have to be brought to heel by the political people, who want to erode any trace of professionalism. That’s changing the game; and to say in response, “well, there have always been flaks, Clinton had flaks, Carter had flaks” is just pointless and dumb.

[You’ve said you believe in a] mainstream press that is detached from the fight for power, and I would like to believe in that too. I think it’s noble. I think it’s necessary. How can you have an independent press without that kind of distance? But power—the executive power under Bush—hasn’t “detached” itself from the press, John. Not at all. It is actively trying to weaken journalism, so that it can over-ride what the newspapers say, and act like they don’t exist.

Finally, then, here are my questions for you: Do you ever worry that Bush might have changed the game on you, and put in practice a different set of rules? And if you don’t worry about that, why the hell not? And why shouldn’t you guys—the Post and the press corps at large— change the game on Bush and company?

I found something disingenuous about the performance of the White House press this week. Like when David Gregory of NBC News asked McClellan, “Does the President think it’s appropriate for the Vice President to essentially make decisions at odds with the public disclosure process of this White House?” This was an attempt to exploit the tensions between McClellan’s office and Cheney’s office after McClellan said he would have handled the news differently.

Tensions in the White House staff are fun to cover, but when that story dies down in a day or two journalists will be back where they were— pretending that we’re still in a recognizable universe, where to meet the press is to face the nation, and the White House sooner or later has to disclose.

After Matter: Notes, reactions & links…

Hilarious. This post made it into one of Bill O’Reilly’s rants. Apparently, I am just some “far left” blogger to him peddling “an idiot conspiracy theory.” Sad because I feel I have written some nuanced things about O’Reilly.

Brit Hume of Fox also got into the act, paraphrasing this post on his show, Special Report, and telling people I wrote it. Hume also misquoted it by leaving out the word “not” in “… not the natural conduit to the nation-at-large.” Too funny.

AP: Story of Cheney shooting doesn’t remain the same.

Take a look at what Metafilter did with this post. A Presidency in Shadow.

Newspaper journalist, PressThink reader and comment wizard Daniel Conover goes for the fences in Journalism from a software perspective. It’s about how facts once established might stay established, and lots else.

Good Cheney analysis by Garance Franke-Ruta at Tapped:

The vice president has not held a press conference in three-and-a-half years and did not have press staff with him at the Armstrong Ranch; the idea that he would have, on his own, drafted and released a press statement or called a reporter about what happened is preposterous. He is a man who is used to having other people do things for him, and the question on Saturday night was, as he said on Fox, “Well, who is going to do that?”

Thomas Sowell at Real Clear Politics:

NBC White House correspondent David Gregory was shouting at White House press secretary Scott McClellan, as if Mr. Gregory’s Constitutional rights were being violated. It was a classic example of a special interest demanding special privileges — as if they were rights.
There is nothing in the Constitution or the laws that says that the media have a right to be in the White House at all, much less to have press conferences.

This has become a customary courtesy over the years, but courtesy is a two-way street, except for those in the media who act like spoiled brats…

Stephen Sprueill at National Review compares Sowell’s post to this one. “What I didn’t get from reading Jay’s post, however, is how he thinks the press should change…”

Not entirely sure at the moment. I will say this: Mark Glaser and I discuss CBS, Wisconsin Newspaper Let Audience Vote at Mark’s new blog for PBS: Media Shift.

Transcript: Cheney on FOX News. See Howard Kurtz about meeting the press vs. going on Fox. And Ron Brynaert on the quality of Brit Hume’s question-asking.

Cheney on Fox:

I had a bit of the feeling that the press corps was upset because, to some extent, it was about them — they didn’t like the idea that we called the Corpus Christi Caller-Times instead of The New York Times. But it strikes me that the Corpus Christi Caller-Times is just as valid a news outlet as The New York Times is, especially for covering a major story in south Texas.

Key phrase of his… “as valid a news outlet as…”

Rich Lowry follows-up in National Review. The Imperial Press: Sanctimony and frenzy.

…They had to wait until Sunday afternoon, and that ignited their rage. Worse, the story broke in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. Wrong Times. The Corpus Christi paper doesn’t belong to The Club and doesn’t, like the other Times, employ a host of reporters reflexively hostile to the Bush administration and obsessed with the latest Beltway minutia.
The media need to clue into the fact that no one cares about press management as much as they do.

Which leads to new frontiers in press management.

“Takes five minutes.” Time’s Mike Allen on how alerting the press works. “A Bush communications official picks up the phone anywhere in the world and says to the White House operator, ‘I need to make a wire call.’ A few minutes later, the operator calls back with Associated Press, Reuters and Bloomberg reporters on the line, ready to flash the news around the world.”

Kevin Drum, the Political Animal, on Cheney’s “okay, I’ll explain— once!” interview with Brit Hume:

Cheney acknowledged that the White House wanted him to issue a statement Saturday night, but he refused. “That was my call, all the way,” he said. Translation: he doesn’t take guidance from the White House. They take guidance from him.

Hotline, Media To Ramp Up Efforts To Track Cheney. But Brian Montopoli at Public Eye is skeptical.

David Gregory of NBC News at the Daily Nightly:

My view is, as elected officials with unparalleled influence over the lives of the American people, the President and Vice President owe the public information about their activities. I see myself as a proxy for the public that has raised questions about what happened and why the Vice President did not immediately disclose it.

Mark Tapscott in reacting to this post writes: “The MSM is no longer the mainstream or national.” That’s how Cheney thinks too. Tapscott says the national press is more “regional” than it thinks.

Here’s something to chew on, Mark. The Bush team cares less for weakening the national media than it does for weakening the notion of the national fact.

When you really want to know, go Joe. Gandelman, that is. He rounds up opinion on Cheney and whether he damaged himself. Blogometer (here and here) also does range-of-views well.

Paul Janensch has a wonderful list of unanswered questions. Of special note was this:

The first rule of public relations is that when something bad happens, release all relevant facts and do it fast, or it will keep making news. Didn’t his staff know that?

Paul: consider the possibility that public relations in “disclose” mode is not the policy anymore. New rules for a new game.

The Economist said it in March, 2005:

If there is nothing special about the press, then there is nothing special about what it does. News can be anything—including dressed-up government video footage. And anyone can provide it, including the White House, which, through local networks, can become a news distributor in its own right…
Behind all this lies a shift in the balance of power in the news business. Power is moving away from old-fashioned networks and newspapers; it is swinging towards, on the one hand, smaller news providers (in the case of blogs, towards individuals) and, on the other, to the institutions of government, which have got into the business of providing news more or less directly. Eventually, perhaps, the new world of blogs will provide as much public scrutiny as newspapers and broadcasters once did. But for the moment the shifting balance of power is helping the government behemoth.

And there are new rules emerging for this new balance of power. I’ve been trying to trace them in a series of posts over three years. In the Press Room of the White House that is Post Press (Feb. 25, 2005)

From Rollback (PressThink, July 16, 2005): “This White House doesn’t settle for managing the news—what used to be called “feeding the beast”—because it has a larger aim: to roll back the press as a player within the executive branch, to make it less important in running the White House and governing the country, but also less of a wild card in fighting enemies of the state in the permanent war on terror.”

Posted by Jay Rosen at February 16, 2006 10:07 AM Print

The reality is that the vast majority of climate scientists agree on the most basic premises of global warming, but a plurality of the public doesn't know or believe that. Why? Might it have something to do with the press coverage?

Great point, Dan Conover, and I had been thinking about the cancer example, too -- and it can be extended to press coverage.

You go to the doctor, and he tells you you have cancer and must begin treatment.

So you go to another doctor -- an oncologist -- who tells you the same thing.

You go to another and another and another, until the eleventh doctor tells you he's uncertain if you have cancer, that it may be something else, and that you should not begin treatment because it will be financially dangerous.

You take the eleventh doctor's advice, disregarding his religious affiliation with a sect that does not believe in medicinal treatment.

You go with him, because it means you don't have cancer.

You shop for verdicts until you don't have to hear what you don't want to hear, which is that you have cancer and could very well die.

So you have ten doctors telling you you have cancer and one telling you he doesn't know if you have cancer, and you decide to believe that you don't have cancer.

In effect, what you have done is to elevate to equal status the opinions of the ten and the opinion of the one.

Unfortunately, this is what the American press has done with global warming BECAUSE of the he-said, she-said culture that has arisen to some degree because of this appeasement of the conservative movement who want to hear what they want to hear (their worldview, regardless of reality) reflected in the press.

So the 90%+ of climate scientists who believe that GW is real, human caused, and likely disastrous are counterbalanced by one guy who believes that the science is inconclusive (but who happens to be in the employ of Exxon.)

And the politicians in the employ of the same interests work to convince their consitutents that this "balanced" view reflects the reality of climate science.

This has allowed lay Americans to believe that global warming is an issue of liberals vs. conservatives, when it is largely an issue of climate scientists vs. climate scientists who work for oil companies.

Yes, it is true that scientists are people, too, with biases. That's why their work is peer-reviewed. It must pass muster by being replicated by third parties who are often in competition. That's where credebility comes from in science.

Now, the press is beginning to treat global warming as news-section news, rather than

Top Scientists Predict Global Disaster (Science Times: p.D6)

But "50%" of the American people have been led by their chosen political leadership to believe that global warming a. does not exist; b. may exist but if it does it is not caused by humans; c. may exist and be caused by humans, but it may be good for us.

Conflicting triplethink position chosen depending on the expediency of the political moment.

I believe that it is not out of line with decertification and rollback to note that this does have to do with the rollback of all knowledge professionals by politicians:

(liberal) journalists
(activist) judges
(communist) college professors
(disgruntled) former administration officials
(agenda-driven) geologists and climate scientists

Note that the biggest opponent to the theory of global warming, in our government, in James Inhofe, Senator from Oklahoma. Guess what industries are Inhofe's biggest political contributors ...

And off goes Inhofe, comparing climate change to Bigfoot and Nessie.

I agree with Jay 100% that there is a pattern of de-credentialing anyone who opposes the Administration and its policies, which at current include doing very little about global warming.

The common argument from conservatives is that all these people are so raging with Bush-hatred that they are blind to anything the Bush Administration does right.

But I think that many conservatives are still so blind with Clinton-hatred that they cannot see what the Bush Administration is doing that is dangerous for the health of our country -- and at this point the planet.

Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 20, 2006 2:54 PM | Permalink

I'm an old guy -- not as old as Steve Lovelady, but getting up there.

I remember when the Scientific Consensus™ was that the continents were eternal and stationary. One of my profs, back in the Sixties, was a geologist who was positively scathing about the crackpot notions of continental drift.

I remember when the Scientific Consensus was that ulcers were caused by stomach acids. My brother had to eat bland food and drink lots of milk, which he grew to hate, to "treat" his ulcer. Viral infection? Lunacy!

And I don't remember, but have studied, times when the Scientific Consensus were that atoms were solid, unbreakable balls, when the Luminiferous Ether filled space, when heat was escaping phlogiston... science reporters and those who read them should recall Arthur C. Clarke's observation: When a distinguished and elderly scientist says something is possible, he may well be right. When a distinguished and elderly scientist says something is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong. The same is true of the Scientific Consensus. Ask Paul Dirac and Wolfgang Pauli.

I'm also a dilettante of a lot of things. I read about space and space science, for instance, so I know that evidence for global warming on Mars is solid, evidence for warming on Pluto is good but can't be called firm yet, and there are tantalizing clues of warming in the cloud tops of the gas giant planets. Anthropogenesis seems a bit unlikely in most of those places. The Mars rovers run on batteries and solar cells; if that's the cause of Martian warming you really shouldn't buy that Prius, should you?

I know a guy who programmed the Mann equations into Excel (computers have moved on). I watched as he got "hockey sticks" out of the random number generators in C++, Excel itself, FORTRAN (version 6), and an old copy of Turbo Pascal. The best one, though, was from entering the last four digits of the numbers on a randomly-selected page of the Cleveland phone directory. Those folks in Ohio are f*ed, let me tell you.

And I like to look sometimes at ancient history. Up until the Climate Scientists took hold it was the Consensus of Historians (actually it still is) that there was such a thing as the Medieval Climactic Optimum, an unusually warm period beginning around 800 AD or a bit before. In the year 1000 people were farming in Greenland where glaciers are now; how cool is that? :-) And before that, it was warmer than usual between 500 BCE and 100 AD, so people grew wine-grapes in Thuringia and Britain for the entertainment of their Roman overlords. In general, there appears to be an historical record of climate change consistent with alternate warming and cooling with a period of around 1200 years. The neatest one is the Harappans, where Pakistan and Kashmir are now. If the twelve-century period is about right the Harappan civilization grew up in one warm period, survived the following cold one, expanded enormously in the next warm, then were wiped out at the beginning of the following cool time by invaders from the North, who had (funny thing) expanded their population and economic base and were(?) looking for someplace warm to live. Oh, and the intervening cool period featured remarkable amounts of vulcanism pumping carbon dioxide (and water vapor) into the atmosphere. All just coincidence, of course. If it gets warmer we're all gonna die. Daniel Conover says so, and he believes in science.

I also remember disasters. Remember in the Fifties (Steve does, I'm sure) when we were all turned into Pod People in gray flannel suits by the voracious growth of the megacorps? The only way out of that, according to the vocal consensus, was for the United States to abandon its economic expansion, turn all its affairs over to Socialist management (i.e. the Soviet Union), don sackcloth and ashes, and apologize for vileness and wrongdoing.

Later in the Fifties, of course, we all got blown up by the A-Bomb, with pitiful remnants left On the Beach. The solution to that, according to Consensus, was for the United States to abandon its economic expansion, turn all its affairs over to Socialist management (i.e. the Soviet Union), don sackcloth and ashes, and apologize for vileness and wrongdoing.

In the Sixties it was the Ice Age, remember that? We all froze to death. The only way for any remnant of humanity to survive, according to the Consensus, was for the United States to abandon its economic expansion, turn all its affairs over to Socialist management (i.e. the Soviet Union), don sackcloth and ashes, and apologize for vileness and wrongdoing.

Later in the Sixties we all choked to death on Pollution, if you remember. All that industrial activity was poisoning everything, and the firm, unbreakable consensus was that the only solution was for the United States to abandon its economic expansion, turn all its affairs over to Socialist management (i.e. the Soviet Union), don sackcloth and ashes, and apologize for vileness and wrongdoing.

In the Seventies, first, we all starved to death. The damned Americans were porking all the food, and the growing world population didn't have anything to eat, and the clear consensus was that the only possible way out of the problem was for the United States to abandon its economic expansion, turn all its affairs over to Socialist management (i.e. the Soviet Union), don sackcloth and ashes, and apologize for vileness and wrongdoing.

After that was the Second Ice Age, a.k.a. Nuclear Winter. The Soviet Union was gonna rule the world, anybody who said different was an Imperialist, and any defense against it raised a dust pall that cut off the Sun and froze everybody, and the clear consensus was that the United States had to abandon its economic expansion, turn all its affairs over to Socialist management (i.e. the Soviet Union), don sackcloth and ashes, and apologize for vileness and wrongdoing.

Starting to get a little repetitious? Betcher ass. We're up to the point where 'most everybody on thread should be able to add in the next couple, though.

Climate science, a.k.a. Global Warming, got pushed 'way behind start because it was immediately siezed upon as the latest disaster to which the only possible solution is for the United States to abandon its economic expansion, turn all its affairs over to Socialist management, don sackcloth and ashes, and apologize for vileness and wrongdoing. There isn't a Soviet Union any more, of course, but the Usual Suspects are happy to make do. The scientists, like any human beings, are flattered by the attention <FX::homer simpson voice: Mmm, groupies!> and the politics (and the money) follows the shouting, as usual.

A free, honest, alert, and informed Press would be telling us some of those things. It might even remind us (in its role as advisor about what's important) that there's a lot of commonality between the Current Consensus and the Conventional Wisdom. Instead a lazy, self-indulgent Press has taken the one loudest "narrative" and promoted it as the only one, and people get sore about it. Whether or not any or all of those factors are relevant will play out over the next few years, and (as in all previous disasters) there will be winners, losers, people who break even, croupiers taking tips, and a house percentage. Meanwhile, the Press loses another one. Getting almost boring, isn't it?

Regards,
Ric

Posted by: Ric Locke at February 20, 2006 10:27 PM | Permalink

I agree that the White House press corps has overreacted to certain aspects of the Cheney incident (although if I were in that room, listening to Scott McLellan's absurdities, I'd be tempted to overreact myself), but there have also been definite missteps by Cheney and the White House that are of legitimate concern. He is, after all, a public figure -- and if he didn't want that kind of attention, he shouldn't have run for high office. A few issues, in no particular order:
1. Why was there no public notification at all until midday Sunday?
2. Why was Cheney not interviewed by law enforcement officials until Sunday morning?
3. Why was there an effort to shift the blame to the victim?
4. Why did it take Cheney four days to make any public comment at all? And was a one-on-one interview with Brit Hume the proper forum?
The shooting incident is, in one sense, a fascinating sidelight and a distraction from real issues. But he is, after all, the Vice President, and he did, as the Daily Show put it, shoot a guy. Plus, it does reflect Administration attitudes on other issues that may be contrary to the public interest, and are worthy of media attention.

Posted by: John Walters at February 16, 2006 10:25 AM | Permalink

I'm curious, Prof. Rosen, about the ground rules for your interview with John Harris. It appears you gave him the final decision over whether the interview would be published. Do you teach your students that the subject of an interview has control over whether it is published?

I work as a journalist and if I'm interviewing someone on the record, we finish up and the person says, "By the way, all of that is off the record," I reply, "No, it isn't." Then I publish it, or use the material from it. If the person doesn't like it, well, that's tough.

Whether a discussion is on or off the record is decided beforehand. If Harris agreed to do an on-the-record interview and then withdrew his permission after the interview was done, you are under no obligation to follow his wishes. Indeed, you're a chump if you do so, and a poor example to your students.

If you agreed to give Harris control over whether the interview would be published, that, again, is a poor example to your students, and a waste of your time. Frankly, I'm not interested in reading someone's questions; I want to read the answers.

Posted by: Dexter Westbrook at February 16, 2006 11:02 AM | Permalink

Dexter: I think of an e-mail interview unfolding over weeks, which is what this was, as a different form. It has strengths and weaknesses.

The weaknesses are a lack of spontaneity; there's no such thing as catching a person in an unguarded moment, for example. The strengths are that the subject truly owns his words, and takes greater responsibility for making them say what he believes.

I define a PressThink Q and A as a jointly-written text. Harris and I were the co-authors of it, not adversaries. I told Harris ahead of time that he would have a chance to see the Q and A in finished form and approve it, which is the way I do all these e-mail Q and A's. When he withdrew his permission I had no choice. By my own rules, I had to scuttle the interview.

Re: "Frankly, I'm not interested in reading someone's questions; I want to read the answers." I agree completely. It was an extremely frustrating--not to mention inexplicable--outcome.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 16, 2006 11:22 AM | Permalink

It might be that the White House press corps is in Washington. Here in the hinterlands, hunters shoot each other all the time. I mean, you wanna wander around in the woods or the brush with people with rifles, you've got to consider you might be shot at. Sounds like Cheney and his hunting partners were not as sharp as they should have been in terms of working together out there.

Suppose Cheney had been golfing at a private club, and hit the guy in the head with the ball on a long fairway shot, and the guy went to the hospital with a concussion? When should the White House press corps have been notified about that? What if this was in Florida, and he had the club manager call the Palm Beach Post about the incident?

I guess the thing is, here in the hinterlands, we heard about it. It's hilarious, the veep shot an old man friend with bird shot. We don't care who told who when. And the press corps, in the few clips we see, look silly.

Maybe what this says is that the "press corps" is no longer effective in its role. Maybe the reporters ought to find better ways to work...maybe stop roaming in a big pack, for one thing.

Posted by: JennyD at February 16, 2006 11:30 AM | Permalink

That's a *question* to John Harris, from a proposed Q & A? It reads like a lecture, or an essay. I am not surprised Mr. Harris has declined to serve as a character (or prop) in one of your essays on the press--why not just write the essay and leave him out of it?

Posted by: Cthomas at February 16, 2006 11:48 AM | Permalink

Clearly the press must re-think its relationship to the White House. Editors should realize there's no reason to go on with the charade of communication when there is none and act accordingly. Do not assign reporters to White House press office. Do not cover the Scottie Show on TV. Assume that the White House will not comment on any of the government's actions and simply proceed to report and analyze them.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at February 16, 2006 11:56 AM | Permalink

why not just write the essay and leave him out of it?

Because he is entitled to reply at equal length, and in just as much detail.

Just because you don't recognize the form of my co-authored Q and A's as being "like" other interviews doesn't mean they lack sense. They're just different animals, with advantages and disadvantages.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 16, 2006 11:56 AM | Permalink

I believe the WH has finally figured out that the press will say what it wants to say. That may be putting a particular spin on a straight news report, or ignoring something that doesn't fit their view, or hype something that does but isn't all that important, or make stuff up.

That wouldn't be so important if it weren't for the possibility that some news consumers still believe the press is giving them the straight dope, because the press says it is.

So, as has been mentioned years ago, this administration is trying to go around the press, or at least the WH press corps, to communicate directly with the citizenry.

Old news.

BTW, not knowing where Cheney is: Shouldn't we be pleased? Considering that the heroes of Flight 93 may have prevented a decapitating strike on our government, it would be prudent to have the big shooters (sorry) dispersed. I have heard, no confirmation, that the cabinet is NEVER all in DC at the same time and that goes back to the earliest days of nuclear bombs.

For an example, one guy I knew who was an Infantry platoon leader in Viet Nam said it was three months before he had a face-to-face conversation with any other platoon leader. All commo was done by radio or messengers. His company commander simply would not allow two of his subordinates to be within twenty feet of each other when in the field.

I'm sure that Cheney's lack of public presence has other motivations, as well as benefits, but the dispersion of the leadership figures has to be one of them.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 16, 2006 12:13 PM | Permalink

"So, as has been mentioned years ago, this administration is trying to go around the press, or at least the WH press corps, to communicate directly with the citizenry."

by not communicating with the citizenry at all.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at February 16, 2006 12:26 PM | Permalink

I love these "rollback" essays, because Jay highlights a lot of truth in them when he describes what's happening. But consider other motives the Bush Administration may have for this "rollback" (even better: "de-legitimization"), besides those Jay presented above:

"What Dan Froomkin calls the Bush Bubble is designed to keep more of the world out."
"...downgraded, distorted, deterred because they’re a drag—also called a check—on executive power and the Bush team’s freedom from fact."

- Jay, above

I think the Bush team's efforts to expose the press' illegitimacy, and treat it accordingly, is less a retreat from reality, and more a "a superior recognition of reality"

Jay nails it here: "What he did not do is tell the national press, which he does not trust to inform the country anyway." [emphasis added]

One may disagree whether the Administration's approach is justified, but you might consider it understandable given the conservatives' (like the Bush team) assessment of our dominant liberal media. Like it or lump it, this is what conservatives believe (I think with good reason); regardless, this is how conservatives can be expected to operate, as long as the benefit outweighs the cost (at which time the strategery will adapt).

P.S. John Walters: Given the foregoing, you can't expect that Dick Cheney would choose to be interviewed by the likes of Dan Rather, David Gregory or Helen Thomas...

Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 16, 2006 1:06 PM | Permalink

The "dominant liberal media" meme is hawked as relentlessly as "9/11! 9/11! 9/11!" That doesn't make it true. But of course for BushCo, Truth doesn't matter.

"Given the foregoing, you can't expect that Dick Cheney would choose to be interviewed by the likes of Dan Rather, David Gregory or Helen Thomas."

What about Barbara Walters or Oprah?

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at February 16, 2006 1:26 PM | Permalink

Here's what the media should report, left or right. Dick Cheney is a liar and should resign for the good of the country.

He was drunk when he shot his friend in the heart from 30-feet away, not 30 yards. You can''t get that tight a pattern with a shotgun from 30-yards. And anybody who knows anything about quail hunting knows you always, always take along a flask of good whiskey. Just ask Tom Wolfe.

Is Jimmy Breslin still alive? Maybe it's time to write another book about another gang who can't shoot straight.

Posted by: Glynn Wilson at February 16, 2006 1:52 PM | Permalink

"John Harris obviously thinks he's Dick Cheney." David Ehrenstein makes an excellent point.

I don't know if this applies specifically to John Harris, but it does seem to apply to much of the corporate press (Howell & Brady are a recent example). While the WH has changed the game on the press, and refuses to recognize the legitimacy of their questions (even when caught in a blatant untruth as Jay Rosen writes above) - so too do the press refuse to recognize the legitmacy of OUR questions (even when caught in a blatant untruth). Instead their effort seems to center on de-legitimizing US - we're uncivil, we use bad words and so forth.

I don't know if the press has changed the rules of their game with the public - or if the game is being unmasked by the new technologies (including of course media critics with blogs). But, I don't like the rules of the game the press is playing with me. Indeed, I wonder if changing the rules of one game (the press vis-a-vis the public) would help the corporate press force a change the rules in the other game (the press vis-a-vis the WH).

Thanks Jay and David for your insights.

Posted by: selise at February 16, 2006 1:59 PM | Permalink

2. Why was Cheney not interviewed by law enforcement officials until Sunday morning?

This is what interests me the most. Why did the Secret Service take it upon themselves to shoo away local deputies from making a proper investigation? The Secret Service protects the literal rear-ends of protectees, not their political rear-ends.

So why has no one called the Secret Service? Sometimes the greatest PR trick of all is remaining invisible.

Posted by: Alice Marshall at February 16, 2006 2:32 PM | Permalink

Jay is right, of course, though the press' own cowardice in covering this administration has made the job of de-legitimizing it that much easier.

This strategy was telegraphed in the interview published in the NY Times in 2004, when a "senior advisor" to Shrub (who I'd bet money was Karl Rove) said to reporter Ron Suskind (and the press as a whole):

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

And while we're lavishing contempt on the press for its general spinelessness and desire to suck up to power, let's save at least a couple tablespoons' worth for those who mindlessly repeat the White House talking points on WMD, the Iraq war, Katrina, Medicare, the deficit, energy policy and the myriad other failures of the Bush regime.

Pathetic, people. Truly pathetic.

Posted by: Bill at February 16, 2006 2:40 PM | Permalink

That Cheney is one cool cucumber to make this meta-statement about the White House's relationship with the White House press corps right after shooting a guy (in the face - TM The Daily Show).

The non-meta-story here is (1) why wait until the next day to go public and (2) what's the deal with the report to the police - were they turned away, or what?

I think any person who has had a drink and operated a car can easily imagine the circumstances in which he would not want to speak with police or reporters until the next day. (Please note, the preceding sentence was not a statement of fact or presumption of anything.)

The meta-story is valid, but there is also a much more basic, police blotter story to be told here.

Posted by: Lame Man at February 16, 2006 2:41 PM | Permalink

It was a legitimate news story stuffed by the hardliners running the country. Nothing new there, just business as usual. Is it right? I think we'd like leaders to be more honest. They could be if they so desired but this bunch clearly doesn't. The people got what they paid for in my view.

Posted by: George Boyle at February 16, 2006 3:45 PM | Permalink

The meta story is the story of why it is possible to bury the police blotter story without real repercussion.

Both are relevant, at different levels, and for different reasons.

The police blotter story is valid, because it remains a distinct possibility that the Vice President did something not worthy of his office -- or perhaps negligent or even illegal.

The meta-story is that on this level, as well as on the national policy-making level, it remains a distinct possibility that the Vice President (and the President) has made a habit of doing something not worthy of his office -- or perhaps negligent or even illegal ... and that because of the Administration's purposeful emasculation of the press, it is no longer possible for the public to determine whether or not that is so.

That is why I said back in the Blue Plate Special post that this story is synechdoche for the larger story -- the part representing itself, as well as the whole.

Gary Wasserman expands this ito the foreign policy arena in looking at the war on leaks:

One argument for why autocratic regimes such as pre-World War II Germany and Japan have engaged in risky foreign adventures is that these narrow elites are not subject to the kind of outside review by knowledgeable people that exists in democracies. The run-up to the Iraq war has raised questions about whether America's marketplace of ideas in foreign policy is still viable. Did the Bush administration's success in gaining public approval for its invasion of Iraq have something to do with its ability to control secret information in a way that muted doubts about inflated claims of Iraqi threats?

[emphasis added]

In other words, by limiting itself to engaging the public only in venues "at a time and place of our own choosing", as the Administration is wont to say, they shield their policies from scrutiny.

You have to wonder why the Administration shies away from scrutiny. I think it's sound logic to say if you're hiding something, then you probably have something to hide.

This points to a government that is so unsure of its own policies that it is afraid to subject them to scrutiny; or that is so certain that its policies will be unpalatable to the public that they must be hidden.

Democracy's greatest strength is sunlight -- you expose your ideas and policies to the scrutiny of everyone else in this "marketplace of ideas." Like poor products -- or inefficient features -- the weak parts are scrutinized out of the market.

That this systematically and purposefully does not happen anymore in Bush's America goes a long way toward explaining the abundance of apparent policy disasters we've witnessed over the last five years.

The infuriating part is, yes, there they go creating the next reality, and here we are studying the last one.

It's the hallmark of people who were raised to leave messes for others to clean up rather than taking responsibility for cleaning them up themselves.

Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 16, 2006 3:55 PM | Permalink

Excellent. Finally, someone gets at the significance residing in this otherwise absurd non-story. However, Pressthink's hostility to Bush and its continuing belief, apparently, that the media's commanding heights do have a valuable role to play somewhat spoil it. I for one am very happy to think this effort to sidetrack and dispose of the mainstream media is happening. I hope Cheney and Bush pull it off. Since their administration will end, however, the ultimate outcome is unclear.

The key point, however, is that their efforts coincide with (and make perfect sense because of) a deterioration in the media's talent, value and legitimacy anyway (and its corresponding increasing and extreme partisanship and ideological fanaticism). That is why its marginalization is much to be welcomed and most definitely not to be feared. Democracy and truth will be enhanced, not diminished, if the frivolous lunatics on display this past week fade away. News media is expanding exponentially, and we cannot know what further steps in its evolution await us. What is clear is that we are watching the gyrations of a dying dinosaur. I only fear that this beast's residual power is still much greater than one would hope.

Posted by: Jonathan Burack at February 16, 2006 4:04 PM | Permalink

"He treated the shooting as a private matter between private persons on private land that should be disclosed at the property owner’s discretion to the townsfolk (who understand hunting accidents, and who know the Armstrongs) via their local newspaper,...."

Jay, I don't know how it works where you live, but if I shot a guy in Michigan, I'd d*mn well better talk to the police when they show up.

Posted by: Barry at February 16, 2006 4:13 PM | Permalink

"You have to wonder why the Administration shies away from scrutiny. I think it's sound logic to say if you're hiding something, then you probably have something to hide."
The administration would probably say that there certainly is something to hide -- from our enemies. It's a pity, they might add, that we can't operate as openly as we might have in the past, but people will understand that these are dangerous times, and they will know that these temporary measures are necessary to maintain our freedom. Only the willfully obtuse, or openly malicious, will cavil at us doing what is needed.
This was largely the line taken by the German and Japanese elites during the '30's, and it was mostly successful.

Posted by: johne at February 16, 2006 4:40 PM | Permalink

To Barry,

The police were informed as were the medical people, the only ones who needed to be. They are not the ones complaining. Their case is closed. The big bruhaha was never about that anyway. It was about the prissy little White House press corp's insistance that the Constitution provides that "the press shall be informed of everything a president does, immediately, or in a period not to exceed 12 hours under any circumstances, whenever said press deems it necessary, period." Not MY Constitution, however.

Posted by: Jonathan Burack at February 16, 2006 5:39 PM | Permalink

The Texas hunting story is indeed a synechdoche for the larger story, which is what makes it so irresistable to the press.
Cheney is so deep inside the self-sealing bubble that he might as well live in some sort of bizarre parallel universe, one in which if you shoot a guy in the face and heart, you just pack him off to the nearest hospital --- and then go to bed without calling the police.
The bubble is a place where deeds, innocent or not so innocent, have no consequences for the doers.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 16, 2006 5:45 PM | Permalink

Fascinating article. Do you think you could condense it into a few of paragraphs while getting the main point across? That is not an insult. I want to get the premise out there for debate and I am afraid people will be too lazy to read the whole article as currently written.

By the way, congrats on the record for the world's longest question (to Harris). I know you can't print his answer, but let me guess...he replied "what was the question again?"

Great article. Seriously.

P.S. I don't think that, nor do I want, the media to be the fourth estate. At least not the big media...too much editorializing and not enough reporting. We citizens are not as stupid as they think. The WH is not beating them, they are beating themselves.

Posted by: Lou Grant at February 16, 2006 6:00 PM | Permalink

It has been a very long time since the liberal media that dominate the White House press corps let the truth get in the way of their reporting. This non-story is further proof of their fatal mixture of arrogance and incompetence.

Posted by: James Nevler at February 16, 2006 6:24 PM | Permalink

Steve L. --

If a bubble is a place in which facts need not intrude, then you are the one in the bubble. Your claim about Cheney going to bed without calling the police is a slanderous lie, and shows why he is right not to trust your former colleagues in the MSM.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 16, 2006 6:29 PM | Permalink

That may be the case in Michigan, but in Texas, there is no legal requirement to report a shooting on private property unless it ends in death. And Cheney reported it within ten minutes of the shooting, anyway.

Posted by: John Cole at February 16, 2006 6:38 PM | Permalink

I think it would be good for you to read Thomas Sowell's piece today, Spoiled Brat Media LINK . I believe it very clearly reflects the attitude of a great many people in this country. As to the future, I can foresee a time in the not-too-distant future when there won't be a White House press corps, at least not in the White House.

Posted by: Mike Doughty at February 16, 2006 6:49 PM | Permalink

I think that the VP has been engaging in the old game of "rope-a-dope" with the media. While creating a brou-ha-ha over the delays in announcing the incident, the inconsistent stories etc. etc. the press is spending much of its time focussing on the aftermath of the incident, and ignoring the continuing administration attempts to duck accountability for driving a coach and horses through FISA.
Picking up on something else in this thread...if the MSM are being marginalized by the White House, who seem to be of the belief that they can communicate perfectly OK via press releases and interviews to media sycophants, then they might like to stop pissing off the other set of people they interact with, namely their news customers. I am making a point of ignoring most MSM outlets, because (a) I can't trust them any more , (b) they seem to think that they can blow off criticism by shutting down comment channels, and hiding behind sniffy statements like "we will not respond to personal attacks". Even an old cove like me can spot ducking and weaving when it's that blatant.
The MSM needs to realize that the governing political forces are not on their side, and try to avoid pissing off the other end of their business chain. Perhaps they could start by swinging the focus back to the bigger-picture malfeasance that is currently being buried under the mound of "Cheney shot somebody and hid" stories.

Posted by: Graham Shevlin at February 16, 2006 6:49 PM | Permalink

Jay, there's a funny piece by Ron Fournier out today, in which he says

Republicans say they are pleasantly surprised that the intense media coverage of the hunting accident has shifted attention from the case of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff. Libby is accused of misleading investigators about who leaked the identify of a CIA official.

...

That's the scandal to watch, Republicans said.

The hunting accident "really has gotten Scooter Libby out of the press," said Deb Gullett, a GOP activist from Phoenix, who is chief of staff to the city's mayor. "But it will come back."The story also quotes Congressman Tom Cole as saying that press coverage of the shooting has improved Cheney's image. You just can't make up a world in which reporters are gratefully ridiculed for massive coverage of a shotgunning by the vice president, or one in which the public perception of the veep is allegedly improved by the incident.

Posted by: weldon berger at February 16, 2006 7:00 PM | Permalink

Few can see their own faults. The press talks of a "bubble" mentality - then spends most of the time loudly complaining that the newmakers did not TELL them about, well, news happening. As a consumer of news and articles, et al, I find the "outrage" of the press very similar to the outrage of realtors when faced with competition - "Why that is nothing but a commission avoidance scheme!!" Well DUH! Who made it the 11th commandent that you HAVE to pay a realtor to buy real property? The same for news. The idea used to be you received a superior product - fact based, etc. After Dan Rather and his fake but accurate documents - too bad you destroyed your own credibility.

Posted by: Californio at February 16, 2006 7:23 PM | Permalink

Thanks for the link to E&P, Neurocon. This hits the nail on the head.

When asked about the White House press corps' continued grilling of Press Secretary Scott McClellan, the pair supported the ongoing interest, but disagreed with the harsh approach. "We need to ask every question we can think of," Powell noted. "But until someone has proven themselves untrustworthy, I don't think we need to act like pit bulls. That makes us look bad."

This is exactly why the Bush Administration goes to local outlets. They already have proven themselves untrustworthy in dealing with the national press.

These folks at the local paper trust Cheney, because they've never been on the White House beat. Perhaps you haven't been watching, but that's where you're told that Rove and Libby had nothing to do with the leak of Plame's ID, when they did, or that Whittington is fine, when he's just had a heartattack, or that the Use of Force resolution supports subverting FISA when it doesn't, or that Congress was briefed about the NSA wiretapping program when, in fact, they weren't.

That's why, for the local papers, it is part of the larger story of local hunting accidents, and for national papers, it is part of the bigger story of fundamentally dishonest government.

Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 16, 2006 7:37 PM | Permalink

It is worth reading what hunters have to day about this-

Doug Pike, Field & Stream

Upland bird hunters everywhere knew exactly what had happened when word spread this past weekend that Vice President Dick Cheney shot a quail-hunting companion in South Texas, but some media reports made it sound as if the victim were to blame.
A quail flushed. Vice President Cheney swung his 28-gauge shotgun on the bird and tugged the trigger. His 78-year-old buddy, Austin attorney Harry Whittington, took a piece of the shot string in the upper body and face. Luckily, they were about 30 yards apart, far enough that pinhead-sized quail shot did minimal damage.

Reports from the owner of the ranch where the VP was hunting that Whittington violated some sort of ``Texas protocol'' requiring hunters to make formal announcement of their comings and goings in the field were a bit misleading. Everywhere that upland birds are hunted, the drill is pretty much the same. It makes sense to let other hunters know when you're moving to the left or right, or that you're back after visiting a nearby tree, but there's no requirement to do so. The onus is on everyone who carries a gun not to shoot at anyone else.

Cheney shot another hunter. Sooner better than later, he should own up to his mistake.

Posted by: Alice Marshall at February 16, 2006 7:40 PM | Permalink

Californio brings up a good point---that is, there is very little news gathering in the WH press corpse. The national press expected to be told what happened, there was no thought of actually FINDING OUT what happened.

And where the hell was our brave watchdog press that day? Obviously not at the gates of the Armstrong Ranch where they might have actually SEEN an ambulance leave the property, and done the required followup. Oh no, the pampered poodles(TM) of the national press demand you hand feed them the news, or you are a BAD, BAD person, and "questions" will be raised, as the consequence for not spilling your guts to Our Brave Watchdogs.

Dick Cheney is right in that the national press will never beat the local press on any story that is out of the NE corridor. They don't have the contacts or the knowledge.

Posted by: rgrafton at February 16, 2006 7:55 PM | Permalink

Gosh, someone has gone and made the super-important white house reporters angry again! They are out-raged! Do you hear me? They are out-out-out-raged! So we must tend to them because they are more important than anyone else! Oh my, they are so very, very angry! Oh goodness, what shall we do? Well, here's an idea, let's make the vice pres prove that he was not drunk! We imagine that he must have been dead drunk so now he is obligated to prove that it ain't so! We want proof! Yes, we demand proof and we demand it right now! Proof! Proof! Right now! And if we don't get it, we will do two things. First, we will write articles saying that he could have or should have or must have been drunk (this is known is professional circles as the Dan Rather Standard). Second, we will be even angrier that we are now! We will be out-raged! Do you hear me? I am out-raged! That means that I am the center of everything and you must listen to me and do what I say because I am out-out-out-raged!

Dario

Posted by: Dario Siteros at February 16, 2006 8:02 PM | Permalink

Steve L. --
If a bubble is a place in which facts need not intrude, then you are the one in the bubble. Your claim about Cheney going to bed without calling the police is a slanderous lie, and shows why he is right not to trust your former colleagues in the MSM.
Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 16, 2006 06:29 PM

Neuro-conservative:
It is you who is the liar.
The very citation you supply makes it clear that it was the Secret Service who called the sheriff, not Cheney. And when the sheriff's men arrived at the entrance to the ranch that night, they were turned away.
As for Cheney, he went back to the ranch house, had a roast beef dinner (urpp!) and retired for the night.
Not until 8 o'clock the next morning did the sheriff's deputy find his way to the scene to interview Cheney.
Try that trick yourself next time you shoot at someone in the line of fire of a bird.
And let us know if it works for you.
(Hint: It won't.)

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 16, 2006 8:08 PM | Permalink

I think you're on to something about the change in the rules of the game. But of course, that is one of the key rationales for the Bush presidency, trying to transform American domestic and foreign policy and the premises that have become conventional wisdom.

You see this an indication of the administration's interest in subordinating truth to further its power. There is no doubt this administration is experimenting with new venues to get its message out. But as you suggest, the administration asks: What makes preening reports so special and answers, nothing.

This and every other administration would like and tries to get a free ride for their message. They are aided by the fact that Serious, substantive questions are in a minority in any briefly or press conference. Perhaps not surprisingly, the most informative news events are one on one interviews, where the prepared reporter with an open mind and open ended questions can learn a great deal about presidential thinking and administrative policy.

Posted by: Stanley Renshon at February 16, 2006 8:23 PM | Permalink

what news did the Corpus Christy paper gather?
the paper was told the news on Sunday, 18 hours later. they were told neither by the shooter nor the victim. one eyewitness, Ms. Armstrong, didn't even witness the shooting.

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 16, 2006 8:35 PM | Permalink

The first thing I want from the press is to know if, how, when and by whom a sheriff's officer was or was not turned away from the Armstrong ranch gate on Saturday evening when breath tests could have been administered and collusive testimony would have been less possible.

This is what I would have wanted in 1966, 1986 or now. I suspect we'd have found out sooner in 1966 than 1986 and sonner in 1986 than now. There used to be reporters - now there are syndications, sycophants and, small but growing mercy, people reacting with blogs.

I don't give a stuff about grist delivery arrangements for the Washington mill.

Posted by: AlanDownunder at February 16, 2006 8:38 PM | Permalink

Lovelady, this is the kind of bubble we're supposed to be indignant about?

Local law enforcement was called at or around 5:30 pm local time the day of the accident. The Vice President didn't call the local sherrif's switchboard personnally; his security detail did. Law enforcement mutually arranged to speak the next morning with Cheney.

Geez, I suppose if Cheney doesn't personally clean the toilets, then he's in a bubble.

Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 16, 2006 8:47 PM | Permalink

The old understanding, which lasted from Kennedy to Gore, was that the White House has a right to get its message out, and the press has a right to probe and question,

It's interesting that you mention Kennedy here. While I agree that on the one hand the Bush admin is pushing back against the press in (perhaps) an unprecendented way, the press has pushed its way into new territory in covering the White House.

I wasn't around then, but I've never seen transcripts of the WH press corps pushing for information about the president's relationship with Marilyn Monroe and the mysterious other women he surrounded himself with, or throwing a fit at a gaggle because they hadn't been told of Kennedy's daily cortisone dosage. As was proper, in my opinion.
Perhaps as administrations find themselves more and more under personal scrutiny (attack?) by those that cover them, the instinct to not cooperate kicks in. A press that doesn't use its outrage judiciously (note: not on a Jeff Gannon) will surely use up goodwill more quickly than a press that pushes and probes on matters of substance.
This is a long winded and clumsy way of saying that this President obviously doesn't have the same understanding with the press that Kennedy had, but I see it coming from both sides.

Posted by: MayBee at February 16, 2006 8:49 PM | Permalink

a president getting a BJ is a public matter?
a veep accidentally shooting someone is a private matter?
all we need is for the special counsel on the Plame case to involve himself in this shooting/peppering. Fitz grills Cheney in front of a grand jury, then indicts Cheney for perjury, not for accidently shooting someone but for his inconsistent testimony about the accidental shooting. and justice for all?

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 16, 2006 9:15 PM | Permalink

Trained Auditor:

I'll repeat it again.
Someone less exalted than the 2nd in command of the United States goverment really needs to try to replicate this experiment.
Try shooting someone in the face and heart, turning away a sheriff's officer who shows up at the ranch gate a couple of hours later, and then waiting until 8:30 the next morning to entertain local law enforcement authorities.
Let me know how it goes.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 16, 2006 9:33 PM | Permalink

The hissy fit by the angrily trembling reporters in the White House press corps is really a separate issue from all the rest of this. Indignation that one is not spoon fed news is really unseemly.

That, however, is a separate issue from whether the vice president
1. received preferential treatment
2. abused his position of public authority to receive preferential treatment
3. sidestepped an effective investigation into his alcohol consumption at the time of the shooting.

May I suggest that these are all questions that need to be directed to the investigating officers in the jurisdiction, not to the White House? And that calling those folks up and asking questions is something anyone can do, including bloggers?

I'm reading the Reuters report in which the local law enforcement folks are saying it was just an accident and, again, it's a compliant reporter being spoon fed farina and doing a good job as a stenographer. No indication that any questions were asked that would bear on the issues above. Are there no reporters assigned to this who know how to ask for the evidence upon which the sheriff's conclusions were based? Do they just assume they won't get answers, so they don't ask? For all I know that sheriff can't wait to explain how his guys worked this incident.

Keeping in mind, of course, that the thing may simply have been an accident as the sheriff says, and the only thing that needs to really happen is for Lynn Cheney to take away the veep's guns and give him something safer to play with.

Posted by: Bill Watson at February 16, 2006 9:52 PM | Permalink

Hi Jay. Good piece.
I'm in agreement with your statements.
I decided to have some fun with the story doing two satire pieces:
first a combo of the shooting and Brokeback Mountain - it was a lovers quarrel.

and then Cheney headed to Turin.

Posted by: Scott Butki at February 16, 2006 11:19 PM | Permalink

It doesn't get much better than this.
It's the perfect metaphor for the Iraq war.
Shoot first, ask questions later.
(Or, rather, shoot first and divert questions later.)

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 16, 2006 11:58 PM | Permalink

This article is a perfect example of why the American public is laughing heartily at the so-called fourth estate. What else can you do but laugh at someone who frames a simple question in fourteen paragraphs and thinks that it's completely normal to do so? Contemporary "professional" journalists have raised self-parody to a high art form.

Posted by: Vagabond at February 17, 2006 12:49 AM | Permalink

Very interesting comments. The VP says during an interview that the natonal press is PO'd that they didn't get the first word, and now that has become THE STORY. Doesn't anyone see how the WH has manipulated the events to make the press look bad, changing the focus and tenor of the entire incident. This is psych 101. And still, no one really knows what happened that afternoon, while millions of bytes and tons of paper will be wasted on secondary BS. There are important questions that need to be answered, and the first of those is why the media has allowed themselves to be so easily bushwacked. Go out, get the story, and let the WH react instead

Posted by: synecdoche at February 17, 2006 5:31 AM | Permalink

....the 'White House Press Corps' has been a sad joke upon on the public for decades.

Unmanned video cameras could easily accomplish 95% of their "news product".

American taxpayers already pay hundreds of million$ for official public-relations/public-information agencies in every corner of the Federal government. The purpose of these unnecessary agencies is to make their boss look good ... by trumpeting favorable information and minimizing unfavorable information.

What then would be the objective of private news organizations covering the government ??

If citizens can rely on the vast government public-information/public-relations apparatus for relevant information -- then private-news-organizations are redundant.

If citizens can NOT rely on this vast government apparatus -- then THAT is the prime daily news item for private news reporting.

The White House Press Corps should uncover & report truth. It would be a welcome change.

----------------

Posted by: RobertsCK at February 17, 2006 6:50 AM | Permalink

Vagabond asks....

"What else can you do but laugh at someone who frames a simple question in fourteen paragraphs and thinks that it's completely normal to do so?"

It is not simply the length of the framing that matters. Usually, that length is needed for the reporter to set up the mark (disguised as a person from whom one seeks information). Only when the question is set up properly, can it be posed such that ANY answer will indict the mark. This "have you stopped beating your wife lately" framing almost completely dominates the White House press corp. Questions designed to embarrass crowd out almost entirely honest quests for information. I realize people here think the pols at the briefings do not supply honest information anyway. However, I think the failure to find out anything is above all the adversarial posturing of a press that has already abandoned any interest in getting information.

A proof of this has also been alluded to in this Cheney episode. I think many of the specifics of the shooting incident that people here want explained are petty and trivial. Yet I do think if the press actually thought the incident itself mattered (it doesn't and they don't) they could have sought to dig up answers to such quesions themselves. It is not laziness only that explains their total disinterest in doing so.

Posted by: Jonathan Burack at February 17, 2006 9:24 AM | Permalink

I would suggest, in turn, that the press' self-reverential petulance on Cheney's manner of communicating this event to the public, and especially the Washington press' fanatical search for something nefarious about this Administration in the story's details, is a synecdoche* for our dominant media's behavior on larger stories.

* But at least I learned a new word!

Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 17, 2006 10:14 AM | Permalink

Seems to me the press had no difficulty learning about the secret CIA flights over Europe. And the Abu Ghraib abuses. And the secret holding facilities in Eastern European countries. And the NSA "domestic spying" international enemy surveillance program. All of which have variously either put American intelligence officers at risk of being killed, broken our promises to our allies to keep secrets, or put Americans at home at risk of large scale terrorist attacks. They didn't neet official press releases to find out that stuff. So what's with the outrage? You're investigative journalists, so GO INVESTIGATE.

Oh, and I would have thought that the Associated Press would have picked up on this when the story was written down in Corpus Christi, because that paper is a member of AP. If it HAD been picked up, we would have heard about this at least 12 hours earlier. But the press is so accustomed to being spoon-fed, they aren't even paying ATTENTION anymore.

Posted by: dave at February 17, 2006 10:23 AM | Permalink

Yes, the White House and Cheney have changed the rules on communicating with ordinary Americans through the traditional news media. They are rules that would be typical of an ordinary neo-fascist regime. I'm sure Putin appreciates them.

Posted by: Joe at February 17, 2006 10:53 AM | Permalink

"Rollback" makes into a news report from the Knight-Ridder Washington bureau.

More than ever, the Bush White House ignores traditional news media and presents its message through friendly alternatives, such as talk-show hosts Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
And when a reporter appears belligerent in a televised confrontation with the White House spokesman, as NBC's David Gregory did this week, the imagery helps the administration turn the story into one about the press, which energizes a Republican base that hates the media anyway.

More than just a matter of sniping at an enemy, the Bush administration sees the traditional media as hostile. Working to erode their legitimacy in the public's eyes is a critical element of its determination to weaken checks on its power.

Okay, the guy did interview me, but still...

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 17, 2006 11:57 AM | Permalink

There's nothing funnier than an angry Leftist mindlessly spouting Leftstream media talking points and then complaining that the media isn't biased in his favor.

Posted by: andrew at February 17, 2006 12:14 PM | Permalink

Yes, there is. It's a Bushist trying to decide whether to applaud the ruthless reasoning behind Rollback... or deny that the Bush team could be so ruthless because, well, it don't sound too good... or declare the Bushies innocent of ruthlessness because journalists are so biased they deserve what happens to them!

Choices, choices. It's funny.

Anyway, this isn't about the press or "Leftists," fundamentally. It's about freedom from fact as a perogative of power.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 17, 2006 12:45 PM | Permalink

It's pretty much beyond arguing that relations between press and the White House have shifted. But I believe this more a story about a shift in relations between press and readers / viewers. The delay in reporting the incident spanned a time when most of the public was out on Saturday night, in bed, or at church. What were we supposed to do with the information that Cheney had been involved in a hunting accident? Why are we supposed to care that he took three days to explain himself? If there's no ready answer to these questions, then the press corps' tantrum was self-referential: It had nothing to do with end users.

Posted by: Jay Lewis at February 17, 2006 12:48 PM | Permalink

the issue is not whether the public was busy on Saturday to receive the news. the issue is that the news should be disclosed on Saturday and be available for readers and viewers.
if it is just a simple mishap, why not talk disclose it immediately?
3 days without an explanation has everything to do with the end user, not the press.

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 17, 2006 1:01 PM | Permalink

Here's why it's relevant to the end user:

If the incident were reported to the wires on Saturday, when it happened, it would have been the top story on every front page of every Sunday paper in the nation.

Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 17, 2006 1:16 PM | Permalink

Jay's on to something, because the following choices are equally funny as those he highlighted:

It's a [Bushist] sufferer of Bush Derangement Syndrome trying to decide whether to [applaud] concede secret admiration of the ruthless reasoning behind Rollback... or [deny] assert that the Bush team could be so ruthless because, well, it [don't sound too good] is consistent with their evil ways... or declare the Bushies [innocent] guilty of ruthlessness because journalists are so [biased] truthy they deserve [what happens to them!] better!

Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 17, 2006 1:26 PM | Permalink

"Yes, there is. It's a Bushist trying to decide whether to applaud the ruthless reasoning behind Rollback... or deny that the Bush team could be so ruthless because, well, it don't sound too good... or declare the Bushies innocent of ruthlessness because journalists are so biased they deserve what happens to them!"

I'm not sure what's ruthless about it. The Leftwing media, in this instance the White House Press Corps, doesn't even pretend to care anymore about being even handed, so why should Republicans treat them with any respect? Because they don't want to break imaginary "rules" about how the media should be handled? That's laughable. And it's even more funny to watch the Left on the one hand deny the obvious left wing bias of the media, but then complain that a Republican White House is bypassing the media. Well, the only people who are upset by this are on the Left because they know that the WH Press Corps is on their side. There's no other reason for you Leftists to be upset about it. The MSM losing power and influence is always bad for the Left and never bad for the Right. Interesting how it works out that way, huh?

Posted by: andrew at February 17, 2006 2:04 PM | Permalink

Totally interesting.

Some fear freedom from fact, others not so much. And some have a theory about why it's necessary these days. All are worth considering.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 17, 2006 2:09 PM | Permalink

Jay:

Your assertions about "Freedom from Fact" are unconvincing. Pillar's point of view is that of a CIA insider upset that decision-making is not a collaborative process with hundreds of conflicting points-of-view held by and within the differently-abled bureaucracy. No decision making can occur in such an environment, and that someone took the time to dig into the conflicting mass when there was already consensus on the background facts speaks well of the attempt to listen. The other "facts:" Cheney's conflict with a taped assertion - suffers from the relevancy test.

This is not a general assertion that all that is said is fact, merely that there does not appear to be a decided attempt to depart from facts other than normal politically motivated assertions of reality. You may not agree with the portrayed reality, but other than fairly infrequent mistakes, there does not appear to be concerted attempts to alter facts. I guess that is also something you might not agree with.

On the Thread subject:

Rollback of the WH Press Corp, a fine term of art, is, you assert, a deliberate decision on behalf of at least some of the administration. There are certainly those among the right that would cheer the stiff-arming of the WH PC. Additionally, there are those among the normal listening public that find the WH PC less than useful and find no particular objection to them being scooped by the small town Texas paper. Getting news through more than one filter, especially a somewhat ossified filter is one useful way of determining for ourselves the truth of a matter. The lock on news coming from the WH through a group who have long since succumbed to group-think can at best give only a modicum of the view inside of that cave. An occasional view from outside the cave is welcome and refreshing, even if not as sophisticated.

The conjoining of interests between the Press Corp (and greater press supporters) and the Left on this particular (lack of) issue can only be discerned by those that realize that interests of the two groups are not the same (exactly.)

I, for one, applaud the press part of the current row. I believe that it highlights the detachment between the press and the public. This tension needs to be seen and understood before change can have meaning. It will serve as an accelerant to whatever comes next.

Posted by: John Lynch at February 17, 2006 2:14 PM | Permalink

"There does not appear to be a decided attempt to depart from facts other than normal politically motivated assertions of reality."

that would go under deny that the Bush team could be so ruthless because, well, it don't sound too good...

Deft dismissal of Pillar, though. Efficient data validity denial. "CIA Turf War, NEXT!"

Here's what John Lynch wants you to dismiss as "enemies"-of-the-Prez, inter-office feud material. Foreign Affairs Magazine, March/April 2006, Intelligence, Policy, and the War in Iraq by Paul R. Pillar.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 17, 2006 2:22 PM | Permalink

Jay,

I have no problem saying parts of the administration can be, and is, ruthless in bypassing the WH PC and actually don't think it sounds either ruthless or "not good."

Thank you, I think, for the praise of my efficiency; however I have read with interest the (Pillar) material, coming out as it has over the past week. It conflicts with other material, also apparently credible, such as three congressional investigations, British investigations, and other CIA officers, both ex- and current. I find it another voice, but not a definitive one. I'm sorry if a one paragraph statement about the material comes across as a trite dismissal.

Posted by: John Lynch at February 17, 2006 2:39 PM | Permalink

Sorry I must have misunderstood. I took

Pillar's point of view is that of a CIA insider upset that decision-making is not a collaborative process with hundreds of conflicting points-of-view held by and within the differently-abled bureaucracy.

as dismissal, since that is not a point-of-view anyone could rely on in this day and age, especially when it comes to threat assessment.

We understand why you're upset, Paul, because you want a thousand flowers to bloom, and that's nice in a "I'd-like-to-teach-the-world-to-sing" way, but we have a war against Islamic Terror to win here.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 17, 2006 2:52 PM | Permalink

Whoops, Jay, it looks like you're conflating Lynch's denial that the Bush team seeks "freedom from fact" with his discussion of "Rollback". That conflation appears to stem from an assumption that "Rollback" equals (or is intended to promulgate) "freedom from fact". I think you'll admit that is not established; though it makes a great alternative to discussing whether, instead, rollback equals getting facts to the public with less dominant media distortion.

Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 17, 2006 2:58 PM | Permalink

It is no conflation. It is an argument. You can call it unproven, and I would agree. Nonetheless, it's been gaining, a little, lately.

In my view "Rollback" is a rational policy. It has an objective. There are other Bush policies simultaneously developed that have the same objective. That objective I try to capture with the phrase freedom from fact, which is part of a gigantic expansion of executive power underway right now.

True conservatives (the few left) are worried that Bush is a closet statist who believes in ever bigger government. Freedom from fact is part of that spreading bigness. The government not only sidelines the press, it takes over information provision, and the whole business of establishing "what happened."

Imagine it: You need Atta in Prague you can have Atta in Prague. Whether he was there or not is a ultimately a negligible factor in your powers of assertion and documentation. What government wouldn't want that power? Cheney's government does. Bush's government does.

Do conservatives or Bush loyalists want this? Frankly, some do. They think it's part of information warfare, which we cannot neglect. A tiny number are frightened by it. And most are in the phase where none of this is happening. I don't think they've figured out yet whether they want a government with freedom from fact, so they keep the focus on the scoundrel press and how deserving it is of dumping.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 17, 2006 3:09 PM | Permalink

If I understand the premise of your argument, the RollBack is in order to achieve freedom from fact.

This I would have to dispute. There are too many sources of fact, too many reports, too many leaks, too many diverse voices for there to be a conspiracy (uncovered) concealing meaningful facts.

This is not to say that there aren't some voices more powerful than others that want us, the public, to look at their facts; and their interpretation of those facts as the one and only truth(iness.)

I'll buy the WH and WHPC Rollback theory; but not the connection to a conspiracy to hide facts. I ascribe the motivation for Rollback to entirely different reasons; some of which have been debated on this forum exhaustively.

Posted by: John Lynch at February 17, 2006 3:24 PM | Permalink

There are too many sources of fact, too many reports, too many leaks, too many diverse voices for there to be a conspiracy (uncovered) concealing meaningful facts.

That's all very nice, if you live in a world where all those sources are not rolled up into one lumpen mass called "the liberal media" and summarily dismissed as biased distortions.

For every fact, there is now an opposing and equally valid Party version. That's relative truth, and as a governing tactic, it's frightening.

The "conspiracy" here is not to conceal facts, but to convince the target audience that facts are not trustworthy unless they come from the Party, the White House, or a selected conservative media outlet.

Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 17, 2006 3:35 PM | Permalink

Conspiracy? Nice one, John.

The whole point purpose and premise of Pillar's article is to show how policy-makers can triumph over the evidence without a conspiracy, if they are willful enough. The signals are subtler; they add up and cook the books.

No conspiracy needed. That's what he is writing about. Read it again.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 17, 2006 3:36 PM | Permalink

"The "conspiracy" here is not to conceal facts, but to convince the target audience that facts are not trustworthy unless they come from the Party, the White House, or a selected conservative media outlet."

In other words, we should all be quiet and believe whatever the Democratic Party and selected liberal media outlets tell us. Anything else is a threat to democracy, right?

Posted by: andrew at February 17, 2006 3:47 PM | Permalink

Peggy Noonan, that member of the leeeberal media:

The Dick Cheney shooting incident will, in a way, go away. And, in a way, not--ever. Some things stick. Gerry Ford had physically stumbled only once or twice in public when he became, officially, The Stumbler. Mr. Ford's stumbles seemed to underscore a certain lack of sure-footedness in his early policies and other decisions. The same with Jimmy Carter and the Killer Rabbit. At the time Mr. Carter told the story of a wild rabbit attacking his boat he had already come to be seen by half the country as weak and unlucky. Even bunnies took him on.
Same with Dick Cheney. He's been painted as the dark force of the administration, and now there's a mental picture to go with the reputation. Pull! Sorry, Harry! Pull!

Can media bias be detected in the endless coverage? Sure, always. But it's also a great story. A vice president of the United States shot a guy in a hunting accident, and no one on his staff told the press. That's a story.

But as a scandal I'm not sure it has a big future.

But Noonan opines about what the WH is thinking, without saying -- the hate magnet becoming a liability?

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 17, 2006 4:09 PM | Permalink

The weakness, it seems, is we're trying to divine what the Bush Administration's objective is for making use of "Rollback"/De-legitimization. It seems that divination can place too much weight on one's opinion of whether the Bush team's intentions are good or bad.

But do we have to deduce the Bush team's objectives here?

“Too often they treat us with contempt,” Elisabeth Bumiller, one of three Times White House correspondents, says. “In comparison, the Reagan Administration coddled us. This crowd has a wall up. They never get off their talking points.” What Bumiller calls a “wall,” Mark McKinnon calls “a funnel for information.” [emphasis added] - From FORTRESS BUSH How the White House keeps the press under control, Ken Auletta, New Yorker, January 19, 2004.

"The president has great goals for our country: a growing economy, strong homeland and national defense, tort and Social Security reform and affordable health care. But we need your help to get the president's message past the liberal media filter and directly to the American people," - Ken Mehlman, Republican National Committee Chairman, in a January 2005 fund-raising e-mail.

Not freedom from fact, but freedom of fact (i.e. facts no longer subjected to a filter skewed left).

Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 17, 2006 4:47 PM | Permalink

The Social Security town halls became ineffective the more our media friends publicized them as mere communication technique; that became the story rather than the events' message.

I think such town hall meetings will be less effective, in future, to the extent our dominant media decides to publicize those kinds of political sausage-making - - which are fair game to publicize, but only so long as the publicity is applied to both sides even-handedly.

Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 17, 2006 5:16 PM | Permalink

TA:
A "message" is not a fact, nor is it a truth; it's a term describing an advertising campaign or a public relations initiative.
Sarah Vowell has written elsewhere that she believes "the true American patriot is by definition skeptical of the government." Not just this government; any goverment.
The same sentiment has long been part of the (largely unexamined) credo of the political press. No president wants his "message" filtered through a professional skeptic. What Jay has been drumming on for as long as I have been reading him is that this president, more than others, has launched a concerted and coordinated and largely successful effort to isolate and marginalize those skeptics.

And the evidence that Press Think has marshalled to buttress that case is abundant, and littered all over the site.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 17, 2006 5:21 PM | Permalink

TA, you want it both ways. the Social Security reform message was unfiltered to the town halls, and the reform still failed. and you blame the failure on the media for reporting on the town halls as a technique? how about the SS reform failing on its own merits.

partisans on both sides assign so much blame and credit to the media.

the liberal MSM with its WH stenographers are not be trusted, yet all powerful and have been discredited.

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 17, 2006 6:03 PM | Permalink

It's been a hilarious week with the MSM foaming at the mouth over a non-story. It is not the Bush Administration's "rollback" of the media that is important; rather, it is the MSM's "rollback" of itself. If you want to be relevant, then be relevant.

Posted by: Phil at February 17, 2006 6:44 PM | Permalink

I dunno, Phil.
The vice president of the United States shoots a man, doesn't call the police, then clams up for four days, until the White House twists his arm to say something ?
Granted, it sounds like a really bad made-for-TV movie.
But it isn't. It's something that really happened.
Seems to me it's also something that a "relevant" press just might want to cover. As Brit Hume so aptly put it, "Not since Aaron Burr ... "
Where I come from, "not since Aaron Burr" is news.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 17, 2006 7:14 PM | Permalink

This is sweet! SLovelady sez: "...(VP) clams up for four days...Seems to me it's also something a 'relevant' press just might want to cover."

This begs the question: is the only 'relevant' press the East Coast Liberal Elite Press? So what is the Corpus Christi Caller-Times? Chopped liver?

Hubris, thy name is MSM. Get a clue! Most of us will trust our local press over the national press any day. Live and DON'T learn.

Posted by: rgrafton at February 17, 2006 7:30 PM | Permalink

In Lovelady's universe, the VP could only expiate himself by personally calling 911, David Gregory, and the Pope, and even then only if he was calling to announce his resignation and immediate plans for ritual seppuku. Most normal people would accompany their friend to the hospital and make sure that the law enforcement officials at the scene (Secret Service in this case) were aware of what had happened and had contacted the local authorities.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 17, 2006 7:35 PM | Permalink

I think that this thread has reached the crux of both the strengths and weakness of Jay's Rollback theory. As description, it is in critical respects spot-on. The comparison to Fitzwater is illuminating, and Cheney has not made a secret about his views of executive power, having seen them reach their nadir in the mid-70's.

Jay then relies on the authority of a disgruntled former spook's muddled, self-serving CYA essay to declare the Admin as being free from facts. From a PressThink perspective, Jay's use of the word "fact" is even more highly loaded than his insinuation that Pillar has them and Bush/Cheney avoid them. As an example, Jay points to Atta/Prague story as a non-factual assertion of power. But how about these facts? Or these?

The problem with our current situation is that intelligence matters are now at the core of our daily survival. These matters are necessarily secret to the public (sorry Mr. Risen, but I don't want to know whether we cracked the Enigma code), and are murky even to those in the know. This problem underlies many of the issues addressed recently by PressThink, including Plame, Miller, NSA, Risen/Keller, and Rollback.

It appears that Jay sees this problematic in terms of "facts" vs "power." Jay seems to take for granted the prior precedence of facts, and uses to full effect the nefarious implications of the word "power" (especially when used in connection to Cheney).

Yet even Pillar concedes that there was little disagreement on the "fact" of Saddam's WMD. Where CIA and WH disagreed was on outcomes of potential actions or inaction. These are questions of judgement and policy. Despite the protests of Pillar and his comrades, the American people elected George Bush and Richard Cheney to make those judgements and set those policies.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 17, 2006 8:53 PM | Permalink

"In Lovelady's universe, the VP could only expiate himself by personally calling 911, David Gregory, and the Pope ..."
Posted by: Neuro-conservative

Actually, Neuroticonservative, I'd settle for Cheney calling anyone ... 911 would be a good start ... or his wife ... better yet, Whittingham's wife ... or the White House ... or a hospital.
He deigned to do none of those.

I think Kevin Drum said it best, in deconstructing Cheney's reluctant session with Brit Hume:

"First, Cheney acknowledged that the White House wanted him to issue a statement Saturday night, but he refused. 'That was my call, all the way,' he said. Translation: he doesn't take guidance from the White House. They take guidance from him."

Exactly. If we have learned anything from this Keystone Cops routine, it is that when the chips are down, Cheney trumps Rove. (And many, many people had thought the opposite.)
Hell, for four days at least, Cheney trumps Bush.
And that's a long time to keep the president of the United States at bay.

That was enlightening to watch.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 17, 2006 9:32 PM | Permalink

David Gregory, White House correspondent for NBC News, tells us his press think:

My view is, as elected officials with unparalleled influence over the lives of the American people, the President and Vice President owe the public information about their activities. I see myself as a proxy for the public that has raised questions about what happened and why the Vice President did not immediately disclose it.
...Mr. Cheney, in my view, acted as if he had something to hide. He also chose to allow a witness to this accident and the White House press secretary to spend three days portraying this as the fault of the shooting victim, Harry Whittington. Wednesday, Mr. Cheney changed course and took the blame. That invites press scrutiny.

This episode was also emblematic of how the Vice President chooses to communicate with the press and by extension the public.

...Maybe you think there was no grave harm in waiting to learn the facts of this incident for a few days. I can accept that. The way we do our business is not always pretty and we should be accountable for that. I happen to believe, however, on balance, our dogged pursuit of lots of information, all the time, is a good thing. I view the White House press corps as a proxy for the public. It provides fodder for important debates in this country. But then again, I do have a bias: I'm in the information-gathering business.

Neuro: I didn't describe the Administration as being free from facts. That's sloppy. I said that in its policies toward the press, its efforts at bringing professionals in the government to heel, its put downs and misuse of science, and its approach to the intelligency agencies--to name four areas--the goal has been to achieve a certain freedom from the constraints of fact.

This I ses as inseperable from the boldness and visionary quality of the Bush presidency, and from the beliefs of the evangelicals who in their pact with Bush include him as one of them.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 17, 2006 10:38 PM | Permalink

Excuse me, but I find fascinating, revealing and slightly comic this description of the system, "procedure," the way it's supposed to work for the press at the White House.

From Kelly O'Donnell, White House Correspondent for NBC News:

There is a long standing and well organized process by which this White House and previous administrations release information to the American people. The media are a conduit. Every day, at any hour of the day, a specific group of journalists is on duty to receive any news release, no matter how urgent or mundane. That group is compromised of representatives from different types of news organizations, newspapers, magazines, television networks and so forth. They form a "pool" and we rotate that duty. Most often those reporters are physically at the White House or near the President when he travels. The pool, by design, is immediately reachable. The White House and the media have an agreement to use this system. It's standard practice.
The Vice President, as he described it himself, does not regret bypassing that system. Mr. Cheney explained that accuracy was more important than speed. He stated that his friend and host Katharine Armstrong wanted to reach a local newspaper reporter she knew personally. Armstrong was unable to reach that reporter and was later referred to another to explain what happened. The story went out on that local paper's Web site. Even after it appeared there, the press pool was not notified. When the news did get around, reporters who called the Vice President's press office were encouraged to view the story from the south Texas newspaper. That is not a typical procedure.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 17, 2006 11:01 PM | Permalink

It's very interesting, in a conversation at least partially about filtering of facts, to see what Steve Lovelady does with the facts of this particular case.
If I were his reader, what would I be left to believe about what happened at the ranch after Cheney shot his friend?
It is true that Cheney didn't call 911, and I don't know whether he personally made any of the other phone calls...but we do know most of those things were done.
Would I, as a reader and citizen, be well-served by Lovelady's filtering of the facts?
Which gives me more accurate information? Lovelady's version or the Corpus Christy paper's version?

Posted by: MayBee at February 18, 2006 12:06 AM | Permalink

David Gregory, quoted above: I view the White House press corps as a proxy for the public.

Mr. Gregory, speaking as a member of the public: you're fired.

Whether it was, or is, true or false, the "narrative" presented by Cheney and co. regarding the events of the Great Bird Hunt is cohesive and plausible to anyone who has ever been bird hunting, or who lives in Texas and has neighbors who regularly go bird hunting. The supposedly-substantive objections -- why didn't he report it to law enforcement? -- fall down in fundamental ways. The Secret Service is law enforcement. It was the very first Federal law enforcement agency, in fact. County Mounties are redundant, at best.

Most of the rest of the objections fall down because they are plainly made by people who have no idea, no tiniest glimmer, of how a quail hunt is conducted or of the likely events and risks involved with one. If misbehavior occurred, the only people who are ever going to figure it out and present it in any believable fashion will have to be people who understand quail hunting. It's abundantly clear that nobody in the White House Press Corps qualifies, nor do at least most of the commenters here.

As a forinstance: a commenter, above, noted that Cheney had originally blamed the victim, then recanted by taking responsibility. As a bald representation of events that's tolerably justifiable if the person so noting doesn't understand quail hunting.. The original statements were to the effect that Mr. Whittington violated a safety rule regarding where he would be, and that this was the proximate cause of the accident. This is not "blaming the victim" in the context of bird hunting; the person holding the gun has responsibility for what gets shot with it, and no hunter could plausibly deny that or expect to get away with the denial if he did. It is a perfectly plausible explanation of how the accident occurred, without containing one shred of blame for the person who got shot. So making that comment does not cause anyone knowledgeable to question Mr. Cheney's character; it instead constitutes a confession of cluelessness, and therefore valuelessness, on the part of the commenter.

So if there is truth to be discovered, the White House Press Corps will not be the one to discover it; they haven't the equipment. That being the case, it's trivial to dismiss their insistence on being notified as childish petulance, because that's a large part of what's actually happening, and even if it were not, they clearly could not do anything about it if they were notified. The truth, if different from what's been presented, might possibly be discovered by a writer for Guns&Ammo or possibly Field&Stream -- and, on present evidence, Mr. Gregory and many of the commenters here would dismiss it with prejudice as not being a product of those reporters with credentials they respect, a qualification journalists from local or small organizations clearly do not have.

This seems to me an instance of a larger trend, that of declaring that anyone knowledgeable about a subject is inherently subject to conflict of interest when the subject is addressed. The end result of that is having lawyers and accountants inspecting airplanes for safe condition, because the engineers have a conflict of interest. Ultimately, accepting the principle means that a journalist declares total impartiality by demonstrating total ignorance of the subject involved. As a Utopian principle it might be valid, but since the result is utterly implausible "news" the impartiality of the "reporter" is moot.

So, yeah, George Bush (and, even more, Dick Cheney) would like to eliminate the national Press from the news-stream. They are in a fair way to succeed, largely because the national Press seems not merely willing, but anxious, to hand them their heads on demand. I'm a Bush supporter, at least in some respects, and even I don't find that a good thing, but it isn't going to change until some fundamental changes are made in the way the Press does business.

Mr. Gregory, you're fired. My proxy is withdrawn. You aren't qualified to determine the truth or falsity of statments made on subjects you know nothing whatever about, and demonstrating that you know nothing about them is not a suitable way of demonstrating your good faith.

Posted by: Ric Locke at February 18, 2006 12:17 AM | Permalink

Jay -- While my use of the term "free from facts" was sloppy, your 10:38 statement appears consistent with the facts vs power prism which I ascribe to you. It seems as if you agree with the speaker of the now-famous quote to Suskind about the shapers vs the studiers of reality.

You align four sets of professionals against the bold, religious visionaries. But the professionals hold no claim on special wisdom (and, in the case of the press, not even special knowledge), nor are evangelical Christians incapable of absorbing facts or acting rationally, regardless of how it may appear at Washington Square.

The Executive must always take action in the absence of certainty (actually, we are all doomed to that condition). As I noted before, this is where judgement, integrity, and policy vision come in -- this is the ground on which Presidential elections are battled. Intellectuals and highly specialized professionals obtain no special privileges in these arenas, and many of the highest-IQ presidents (e.g., Wilson, Hoover, Carter, Nixon, Clinton) have shown themselves to have been deeply lacking in one or more of these qualities.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 18, 2006 12:37 AM | Permalink

It seems that the White House Press was in a tizzy because they had to report a very unpleasant occurrence involving Mr. Cheney without any guidance from the White House about how the unpleasant occurrence should be handled. Thus they were almost forced to go out and ask questions, even followup questions, or look like they were left scratching their blow-dried heads.

They went four whole days with no guidance about how to handle such a situation, and no anonymous sources were coming out, no faxed talking points forthcoming, to spin the situation. This annoyed them. Then the guy had a heart attack, and the White House Press was worried they might have to report something even more unpleasant.

Fortunately, Mr. Cheney gave his interview, the shooting victim rightfully apologized to the Vice President for causing him such a fuss, and the White House Press is able to call the incident closed, to everyone's satisfaction.

Whew, that was a close one.

Posted by: Phredd at February 18, 2006 10:02 AM | Permalink

Among "no special knowledge," "CYA" and "axe to grind" you have pretty much everyone covered, huh, neuro?

Paul O'Neil, that would be no special knowledge, right?

No, you idiot, he was a cabinet secretary who got fired! He's gotta be axe to grind, as in "disgrunted ex-employee," get it? Whos next?

Richard Clarke... I'm guessing axe to grind?

NO, don't you know who Clarke was, and what he did? That's a CYA all the way.

Right, right. Paul Pillar...

We just went through that, CYA also.

Okay, looks like this one's a NASA scientist...

No special knowledge, NEXT!

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 18, 2006 10:11 AM | Permalink

Will Femia, at the "Clicked" column on MSNBC, led with PressThink Friday:

Bloggers have been complaining about a complacent, press-release relaying press corps for years, so it's curious that some of those same bloggers would be upset that Cheney didn't play to that system to announce the details of his accident...
It's an interesting exercise to imagine what a new system of reporting would look like and what that system would mean in terms of the transparency of our democracy. I was expecting Rosen to conclude his essay by pointing at the distributed reporting and analysis that has come to be associated with blogs. Instead he leaves the question open-ended. How should the press deal with a White House that does not believe in the previously accepted system of information dissemination?

By the way, the big liberal blogs all ignored this post. It was more popular on the right: Hugh Hewitt, Mark Tapscott, National Review, Ed Driscoll, Real Clear Politics, and the essential Balloon Juice.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 18, 2006 10:38 AM | Permalink

High-trafficked Pressthink threads always have been one sided (not that there is anything wrong with that), a reflection of our highly partisan times.

Look at the Grokking Woodward or Brady/Harris/Howell columns, the comments were mostly from the left, angry and upset at the press.

On Cheney, comments mostly from the right, angry and upset at the press.

Ric Locke, the Secret Service is law enforcement on something like this? that's a new one. why doesn't the Secret Service put out a report on the peppering incident. why didn't we depend on the Secret Service on the Lewinki matter?

MayBee, (jumping in here before Lovelady) are you satisfied with the fact that Cheney was able to defy the WH and did not put out a statement until Sunday. Are you OK with Cheney not talking to the Sheriff's Department until Sunday?
Should this be standard procedure for all hunting accidents? The shooter's representatives to alert local law enforcement, and law enforcement should agree to interview the shooter the following day?

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 18, 2006 11:08 AM | Permalink

I think that a) Axe-Grinders, CYAers and folks with No Special Knowledge, are just as real as b) Whistle-Blowers and Straight-Shooters. The problem is how to tell the former from those who claim to be the latter, when it seems people in the business of informing us are at least sometimes ideologically sympathetic to one side?

I guess that puts me in the camp of those who think it's important to find "agreed-upon facts — the commonly accepted information that is central to public debate.” We appear to get less of that from our dominant media on matters that can be used bludgeon this Administration.

Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 18, 2006 11:30 AM | Permalink

Jay -- Now that you've gotten that out of your system, would you care to respond to my point? I am accusing you of committing (a variant of) the naturalistic fallacy.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 18, 2006 12:19 PM | Permalink

(Off-topic, Jay, one feature of a future incarnation of Press Think I'd like to see is an isolation tank for the bias war. Not to eliminate this discussion, which is enlightening, maddening, and fun -- but to maybe have a sub-thread for each hot topic post in which to continue the perpetual bias discussion.

I'd also like to see a Guest Column by a real conservative journalist -- someone who both understands the gripes of thinking conservatives re: "liberal media" and who understands the rules of journalism and the historical role of the press in this country -- explaining exactly what "liberal", "liberal bias", and "liberal media" mean to conservatives.

So much of the discussion is lost here between people who don't take the Bush Administration on good faith and people who don't take the press on good faith.

I've seen the evidence against the Bush Administration, but I don't quite grok the evidence against "the press" -- and I have never understood how a news media controlled by mega corporations could be deemed irrepressibly liberal while liberals who rail against corporate control of the news media are deemed irrepressibly communist.

I also don't understand how a press that holds Bush's feet to the fire, even after plenty of Republicans have begun to do the same, can be seen only as having a particular policy agenda and no legitimate purpose.

I suppose the conservative answer here is that everything the press does comes with liberal spin -- and that, therefore, every discussion of Press Think by definition has liberal bias as a central focus (interesting how little bias war there was at the Postman post ... because it had little to do with the Bush White House).

But I need to see that really explained by someone who is not merely railing against what is perceived as an anti-Bush interest group with microphones.)

Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 18, 2006 12:25 PM | Permalink

Richard, the wv-mining post took out the political/bias factor, but left the press-*strong dislike* factor.

the problem is that one's political view is an integral part of one's perception of the press. it's hard for people to separate the two.

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 18, 2006 12:52 PM | Permalink

Neuro: "I am accusing you of committing (a variant of) the naturalistic fallacy."

Huh? How's that again? All I could get from your post is: no matter who says it, it's not credible. Partisans aren't credible because they're partisan. Bureaucrats aren't credible because they're CYA bureaucrats. Scientists aren't credible-- what do they know? Ex-Bush servants aren't credible, they're ex. And so on. What's the point?

I find nothing to respond to in this:

"You align four sets of professionals against the bold, religious visionaries. But the professionals hold no claim on special wisdom (and, in the case of the press, not even special knowledge), nor are evangelical Christians incapable of absorbing facts or acting rationally, regardless of how it may appear at Washington Square."

because all your nasty cheap paraphrases--assertions of what I said or believe--are incorrect. You aren't competent, in other words. Who said "evangelical Christians are incapable of absorbing facts?" I didn't.

There isn't any argument here. There's just defense attorney work for the Bushies. What could be more tired than that?

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 18, 2006 1:11 PM | Permalink

To RSimon: If you looking for information about how conservative journalists think about the press, I suggest you go to the CBS Public Eye "Outside Voices" post with Tim Graham here: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/02/17/publiceye/entry1325961.shtml As for your claim that there are only two camps here----those who don't trust GWB and those who don't trust the press, you must have missed the posts here concerning The Angry Firedoglake People vs. WaPo Smackdown---the FDLers don't take either GWB or the press in good faith!

Posted by: rgrafton at February 18, 2006 1:33 PM | Permalink

Simon: You might start with these journalists' explications of our dominant media's liberal bias and political correctness:

Pattern of Deception, by Tim Graham
Bias, by Bernard Goldberg

Coloring the News, by William McGowan

If you're truly interested in a discussion of conservatives' perspective of our dominant media's leftward slant, by real journalists who also don't reflexively dismiss liberal bias evidence, then don't overlook the above.

Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 18, 2006 1:36 PM | Permalink

Geez Louise, Jay! (did I really just type that?)

In your last several posts, you have made a series of appeals to authority -- of various professions and individuals. You have also appealed to the authority of "fact." That term remains somewhat undefined, but it appears to have something to do with knowledgeable professionals. Even in your ad hominem against me, you accuse me of incompetence, and of being a "nasty" ideologue lacking argument.

From this evidence, I deduce that you are suggesting that there is some sort of determinable "is" (fact) that can/should dictate Executive action (ought). Moreover, you explicitly state that Bush acts in a different fashion, which is wrong insofar as it disdains "fact." He may be bold and visionary, you state, but you regard this as a religious-like conviction. This appeal to religion can only be seen as pejorative, given your previously-established preference for appeal to the authority of "fact."

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 18, 2006 1:43 PM | Permalink

This is so true: "one's political view is an integral part of one's perception of the press."

So that those of us in the independent center thought the press sucked just as much during the Clinton Administration as it does in the Bush Administration.

Well, maybe the press sucks more now since we have the internet to fact-check their (press & politicians) @sses.

Which makes me think of something---do people really think the press will be "better" if and when a Democrat is in the WH?

Posted by: mary richards at February 18, 2006 2:09 PM | Permalink

I'm just fascinated by Prof. Rosen's view that e-mail interviews are different from any other type of interview (see the description of his interview with John Harris near the top), and that he would agree to give the interview's subject, Harris, the final say over whether it was published.

Talk about stenography!

In Prof. Rosen's world, the subject of an interview writes his/her own answers, and decides when or if it's published. Even the satanic Bush administration doesn't expect this kind of treatment, I'm sure.

Prof. Rosen, whoever is sitting in your journalism classes is wasting their time.

Posted by: Dexter Westbrook at February 18, 2006 5:01 PM | Permalink

Instead of looking in your rule book, and sneering at the violation you detected, why not take the empirical approach, Dex?

PressThink's e-mail interview with Jim Brady.

Hugh Hewitt's old fashioned interview with Jim Brady.

Compare and contrast.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 18, 2006 6:10 PM | Permalink

Neuro: Even in your ad hominem against me, you accuse me of incompetence

I didn't say you were incompetent in some general way. I said you are incompetent at one one thing. Which is: you cannot accurately summarize or paraphrase a view you dispute. It appears to be beyond your abilities. You have to make it sound more categorical, more extreme, more crazy than it is.

Just now, for example, you did it again. You said I accused you of being a "nasty" ideologue lacking in arguments. No. I said your nasty paraphrases were inaccurate. "Nasty" modified "paraphrases," not "you." In fact, the main reason your paraphrases are inaccurate is that they are so nasty.

I didn't call you an ideologue, either. (See what I mean? Incompetent.) I said you reminded me of a defense attorney for Bush. Defense attorneys aren't ideologues; they're in charge of proving their guy is innocent no matter what happened. Ideology would actually get in the way of that.

I provided in this post at least 8 links to material intended to support my claims about the Bush team's desire for freedom from factual constraint. If you want to know why I said what I said, click the links and read.

One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight

One more thing, Neuro: You never answered my question: Who said "evangelical Christians are incapable of absorbing facts?" I didn't. But that was your (incompetent) paraphrase. What I said was that the drive to achieve a certain freedom from the constraints of fact, a political project meant to expand executive power, is "inseperable" from--that means related to--the beliefs of the evangelicals who are hard core supporters of the President, and who count him as one of their own.

That you would paraphrase this view as "evangelical Christians are incapable of absorbing facts" shows exactly what the problem is.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 18, 2006 6:40 PM | Permalink

"The people yelling questions at Scott McClellan in the briefing room, like the reporters in the Washington bureaus who cover the president, are ... an unnecessary evil and a public bad— ex-influentials who can be disrespected without penalty."

Yup. He is right about that. Deal with it.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 18, 2006 6:56 PM | Permalink

Bush's jaw, you are asking me if I was satisfied when my point was that Lovelady's version of events, while most likely factually correct (we have no idea if Dick Cheney called Lynne, for example), they don't provide an unfiltered story for the reader.
Cheney didn't call 911, but medical attention was sought immediately and an ambulance took Mr. Whittington to a hospital. The secret service (or someone at the ranch) did call the local sherriff's department, law enforcement officers did interview Mr. Whittington in the hospital, President Bush was notified by 7:30 that there had been an accident and by 8:00 that it had been Cheney as the shooter.

As to whether this should be standard procedure after a hunting accident, all I can say is that I have no reason to believe it is not. The law enforcement officers never suspected a crime, but treated it as an accident. John Cole of the essential Balloon Juice posts further up in this thread more information about Texas law in such cases. I am satisfied that police use their judgement every day in determining the expediency with which an accident investigation must be dealt.

But my own satisfaction is unimportant here. Did the authorities break a law in the way they handled this case? If not, the argument will be between partisans as to what it all means. And apparently, the 'facts' will be presented by partisans to try and eek out the meaning most satisfying to their view. Mr. Lovelady's post was an example of that, in my opinion.

Posted by: MayBee at February 18, 2006 7:11 PM | Permalink

I'll buy that, Ric, and I confess, I don't qualify; the one and only time I have ever gone quail hunting was in 1963, at age 19, and I found it about as engaging as watching paint dry.
Which is why I found it especially interesting to read the "Outdoors" column in today's New York Times, written by Charles Fergus of Shooting Sportsman magazine. I quote:

"I have hunted upland birds for almost four decades, often as one in a group -- not for quail, but for grouse, woodcock and pheasants. The protocol is the same: When a bird is shot, the party does not hunt onward until someone -- a human or a dog -- recovers the bird, and all members are present and accounted for."
Further along, "It remains the responsibility of every shooter to know the whereabouts of all members of the group. If you do not know where your companions are, you do not shoot. It's as simple as that."

Which leads me to believe that perhaps Mr. Whittingham's error was not in his choice of personal location at the time of the shotgun blast, but in his choice of hunting companion.

Me, the only question I'm left with is why did the Times put this article on page six of the sports section instead of page one of the newspaper.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 18, 2006 8:09 PM | Permalink

Jay, you've done the nigh impossible; you have at last created a thread where the wingers agree (though for entirely different reasons than your own) with your initial premise:

"Dick Cheney Did Not Make a Mistake By Not Telling the Press He Shot a Guy"

That's a pretty good hat trick. Like watching an expert detective draw out the usual suspects until they convict themselves.

Kudos.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 18, 2006 8:23 PM | Permalink

Slow down, Jay -- I too believe that you are misunderstanding and/or mischaracterizing where I am coming from. I am not trying to make you sound crazy or extreme; I am sincerely trying to understand the philosophical underpinnings of your argument.

I still believe that I detect a philosophical elision from is to ought underlying your point -- this is not crazy or extreme, merely a fallacy (although this is certainly an arguable point). Problematically, you also seem to be employing a (related) rhetorical elision, in which you seem to want to deny that you are making an argument at all. You appear to be saying: "Pay no attention to me, for I am making no argument; I am merely pointing out a pattern of facts [see these links -- they speak for themselves!]."

In both instances, I am objecting to your maneuver of appropriating the word "fact." Philosophically, you have left it undefined; rhetorically, it shuts down debate. Because you have left such a freighted term undefined, I have attempted to construct a philosophical position that would be consistent with your usage. What you take to be incompetent paraphrasing is neither; it is philosophical inference (perhaps totally off-base, but there you have it. Note also that that goes for the evangelical Christian comment as well).

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 18, 2006 9:02 PM | Permalink

For the record, I don't think Cheney made a mistake by not telling the press- he made a calculated move. Nobody is pretending Cheney has an open and happily functional relationship with the national press. Trying to sidestep the national press' inevitable treatment of the accident was a deliberate choice. The fact that the incident held no vital national importance made the choice to delay reporting for 14-hours, and then to local media, a valid choice.

Having said that, I think it would have been a better choice to notify the national press on Saturday evening. There is no denying there was always going to be great national interest in this truly bizarre incident. In that sense, I think he absolutely did make a mistake.

Posted by: MayBee at February 18, 2006 9:07 PM | Permalink

I would like to add that my evangelical comment was admittedly more polemical and political, and I would be happy to withdraw it if it is getting in the way of my larger argument. (At the same time, I do not concede your point re: inseparability; I just don't want to get bogged down on that until we have a little more clarity on the more basic point).

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 18, 2006 9:16 PM | Permalink

...perhaps Mr. Whittingham's error was not in his choice of personal location at the time of the shotgun blast, but in his choice of hunting companion.

AFAIK it's "Whittington", but I agree with you. Furthermore, if public statements and behavior are any guide, Dick Cheney agrees with you.

I accept the sobriquet: I'm a "winger". But my interest in this is not to defend Dick Cheney. Rag on him all you want to. He did a bad thing and deserves to catch flak for it; the only thing that saved it from being a terrible thing is luck. And absolutely none of that has anything to do with Press Think.

Clearly you missed part of my post: "...many of the commenters here would dismiss it with prejudice as not being a product of those reporters with credentials they respect..." Charles Fergus isn't one of the White House Press Corps. He's not part of the in-group. He isn't qualified to opine on political matters. The fact that he knows what he's talking about is irrelevant -- so his article, which may or may not be important, is relegated to neverneverland, along with the high-school basketball scores and the racing results, while the High Priests of Journalism bloviate about nothing on the front page. Which is about Press Think, and confirms my prejudices. In spades, dealer vulnerable.

Posted by: Ric Locke at February 18, 2006 9:17 PM | Permalink

What do I mean by this bizarre and allegedly impenetrable phrase, "freedom from fact?" Here's an example, from one of the links I gave you. Robert Cox's The National Debate blog.

On CNBC's Capital Report last Thursday has generated a good deal of controversy. When confronted by Borger with comments he had made on Meet The Press in 2001, Cheney denied saying it was "pretty well confirmed" that Mohamed Atta went to Prague in April 2001 and met with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia. Transcripts from Meet The Press show that Borger accurately quoted the Vice President.

Some may find this incident trivial and essentially meaningless. I do not. And if I were a Cheney believer (in his power to do good) it would unsettle me. So I put it in the "small but telling" category.

It tells us how far Cheney will go--far past the point of embarrassment--to preserve his freedom from fact. He didn't want it to be so, so it was not so. The fact that it was so was so... irrelevant. And he saw political sense in playing it that way.

No big philosophical or post-modern point about the meaning of "fact," Neuro. In this case the fact I mean is that Dick Cheney once said on national TV it was "pretty well confirmed" that Mohamed Atta went to Prague in April 2001 and met with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He did say it. I remember watching it myself. For some reason, he wants history to have happened differently. Who can say in the end why a man wants something like that?

Cheney claimed a right to deny the transcript, and the tape-- and he did just that. To me it is an accurate and reasonably precise thing to say, in that incident on CNBC, that Dick Cheney wanted freedom from a particular fact. Even more intriguing is that he felt entitled to it.

And one step beyond that, where no one wants to go, including Republicans, probably including you, Neuro, as well as the Washington press... Dick Cheney has actually been experiencing a kind of radical and unccountable-to-anyone freedom to make up his own facts, or pressure others to do it for him, as well as playing by his own rules, owing to decisions by his boss to create a vice presidency that is essentially the "stealth" side of W. Bush.

With that kind of permission come many consequences, Neuro. Obviously we are 98 percent in the dark about most of them.

I'm telling you what I think one of the consequences is, and being of sound mind, and a quick study, you are free to reject my description as implausible or cracked.

I'm telling you the people you support, who are in power, running the government, fighting terror around the globe and solving problems at home, have been screwing the epistemological pooch for some time now, and ordering up the constructions of the world they need for political purposes, purposes always declared in advance of close study, and never as a result of it. It's a dangerous way of operating, but it is also a political style with great advantages.

The Bush government needs to be able to dictate what the facts on the ground are. And it goes out and does it. That is why you see conflicts with every profession and position in the verification chain. Not just in journalism. That is my whole point, lately. Let's enlarge the discussion to take in all the means by which modern governments try to get an accurate handle and independently verify the world.

In each case we find "wars" with the Bush people. Think about it. Why is this happening? What sort of pattern is that? Those things interest me, so I keep writing about them.

All in all, a pretty dark picture. Because I don't really understand it myself I keep trying to describe it. Must be 20 posts by now.

To enlarge the picture even more, Daniel Conover's newest is to be read by anyone who has followed the comments portion of PressThink.

Journalism from a software perspective. (In there he writes: "Rollback is the implementation of de-certification." Exactly. I never thought of it.)

Finally, while every government around the world might want freedom from fact sometimes, it takes one with imagination to actually try it. You know the common phrase, I might use it myself, "I think you're taking liberty with the facts when you say..."

Philosophical question-- not a knock on Bush, ok? Can you imagine a government founded on reckless extremes of that kind of liberty?

Cheers....

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 18, 2006 10:27 PM | Permalink

Jay -- Thank you for your clarification; I found it helpful. I may not have time to respond fully tonight, but I am chewing it over.

Thanks also for the link to Conover -- very provocative. I think his approach is utopian, but probably far less utopian than my appeal to a more cognitively engaged citizenry (see here.)

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 18, 2006 11:40 PM | Permalink

What should an administration do when a "self proclaimed proxy"for the public is not, in reality, a proxy for the public.

Should an administration continue the charade, just take its lumps, and not get its story out?

Or should the administration get its story out by other means.

If an administration tries to get its story out by other means, in a sense voting with its feet, and is successful, the "self proclaimed proxy" is identified as a pretender and loses credibility.

This is not rollback. It is just the result of the general public's accurate appraisal of the MSM's current lack of credibility.

Posted by: rich at February 18, 2006 11:46 PM | Permalink

Jay, the problem is "one bad apple spoils the barrel." The Press's credo, short as it is, has two words too many -- and it has led them astray, because the surplus words have become the emphasis.

Let us take one example from many, diverting ourselves for a moment from Dick Cheney's shooting skills.

"George Bush killed Kyoto."

That's a damnable, palpable, flat, stinking, baldfaced lie. It is quite true that George Bush pronounced last rites and gave it a decent burial, but the United States Senate killed Kyoto (and did so in a very revealing way, beyond the scope of my thesis at the moment) long before George Bush held any office of national influence.

So when a clique of Greenies gets up and makes that pronouncement, the question has to be what else are they lying about? Sure enough, other things come to one's attention if one looks around. And when the Press sees only a challenge to "power" in the person(s) of George Bush and the members of his administration, and (in its chosen role as interpreters of events, rather than simple reporters of them) supports the attack without any analysis that might point up contrary opinions or data, the result is not that the Administration is damaged, it is that the Press's credibility is diminished. If they support that lie, what other lies do they support?

After enough such episodes we arrive at the present-day situation. Your interpretation of it is plausible from the point of view of someone who begins as an opponent; from the point of view of a proponent, it can be stated as it isn't worth my while to tell the Press anything, and may be counterproductive from both my viewpoint and from that of the health of the Republic, because they'll just get it wrong anyway and make the situation worse. That is, after all,the experience, the "objective conditions".

"Speak truth to power." All in all a good credo, but you always have to watch for human frailty. Including the last two words has led the Press into hubris -- the belief that if something is spoken to power, in opposition to that power, it is necessarily somehow true, and that they are uniquely qualified to point that out. They forgot, first, that the first two words are the strong point -- if truth is spoken it will get to power, and discomfit it appropriately without extra effort; and, second, that adopting that attitude is arrogating power to themselves and thereby making themselves subject to the same slogan. The White House Press Corps, like the Press in general, clearly believes that it has, or should have, power. It equally clearly doesn't care to have Truth spoken to it, especially in the contrarian terms it seems (from here) to regard as the only valid expression of the credo when it is applied to The Administration.

My advice: concentrate on speaking truth as completely as possible. If the truth is discomfiting to Power, power will be discomfited.

From a philosophical point of view, not directly on point: Unanimity of opposition may be suggestive, but it is not probative. The near-unanimous opinion of Americans a century and a half ago was that black people were inherently inferior, unsuitable either to participate directly in the politics of the Republic or, indeed, in society in general; one can easily find quotations from the likes of A. Lincoln to support that. That opinion was wrong, and only the very, very few voices contradicting it (and sneered at, or worse, as a result) were correct. This principle is one of the major reasons societies which are tolerant of views contrary to that of the majority are more successful than those which are not. When the majority is wrong, the minority who are correct are generally in for a tough time -- but they're still correct, and if their views are suppressed everyone suffers in the long run.

Posted by: Ric Locke at February 18, 2006 11:52 PM | Permalink

I created an 8-minute video essay in response to this post that features Chris Nolan, Mindy Finn, Hugh Hewitt, John H. Brown, Don Beck, Steve Rubel, Merrill Brown, Tom Rosenstiel, Congressman Rob Simmons.

Posted by: Kent Bye at February 19, 2006 12:14 AM | Permalink

The administration of course. They have no respect for us and, having no respect, want us kept ignorant.

Of course it's not just Dick, this goes for the entire administration: a democratically-elected administration (OK, more or less so) is playing with the gamebook of the Nazis or any other majorly oppressive regime you choose.

The shame on us for tolerating this and, yes, our apologies to the world for failing our responsibilities by electing these hegemonous crypto-fascists.

Posted by: Mitchell at February 19, 2006 8:58 AM | Permalink

Ric:
-------
'Let us take one example from many, diverting ourselves for a moment from Dick Cheney's shooting skills.

That's a damnable, palpable, flat, stinking, baldfaced lie.'
------
Well, it sure is damnable etc. etc. etc. etc. not to get it right and say "George Bush danced on Kyoto's grave" instead.

But "he did it too miss" hasn't worked for me since first grade, Ric. How come it still works for you?

But you make a good point about Cheney rightly fearing the librul media's spin. I imagine that's why he mixed himself a highball straight after instead of seeking a breath test soonest.

Posted by: AlanDownunder at February 19, 2006 10:08 AM | Permalink

Ric: Please provide a link to the press account that says "George Bush killed Kyoto," or an account that "supports the attack." You're not talking about editorials, are you? What are you talking about? What does "support the attack" mean?

Crazed Bush-hating environmentalists on the left who lie all the time about everything claim, absurdly--because we know there's no truth to it--that Bush killed the treaty (that part I grasp) and the press.... does what? Fails to describe them in news accounts as they truly are, those "crazed Bush-hating environmentalists on the left who lie about everything all the time?" Is that your complaint?

Oh, and the White House press corps--which can be whiny, thin-skinned, defensive and clueless as hell--is 50 times more willing to hear the truth spoken to its (dwindling, almost gone) power than the people in the White House who run the place are willing to hear truth spoken to their massive and exponentially increasing, ever-more opaque and unaccountable-to-anyone-including-you power.

If your point is that slogans like "speak truth to power" and "afflict the comfortable" do more harm than good, well, I might agree with that.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 19, 2006 11:02 AM | Permalink

I still find your assertion about freedom of or from fact unconvincing; the eight links you cite earlier not withstanding.

On any subject it is not just possible, but virtually certain that you can find those that do not agree with the factual premise of key policies and assertions. The mere fact that press members, or a sort of unionized science group, or intelligence officers of various standing - are gathered together as examples from diverse subjects of that non-agreement - does not make the phenomenon any more real. It was already real.

Anyone can gather examples of the non-agreed upon points upon which some administration operates. Howard Zinn comes to mind. Does Howard's work decertify the accomplishments of George Washington and every president since? No, I think the work illustrates that there are alternate voices, and voices of victims, and voices of dissent -- all with their own sets of facts.

This to me does not seem a revelation, or a new phenomenon, or an alarming expansion of presidential power, or evidence of bifurcation of society, or the coming of fascist style control.

I suppose the press may play a role by more actively seeking such stories out, but they play with no more credibility (or less) by reproducing them with greater frequency, or by digging out more examples.

I may be missing some more subtle point of yours, but I remain agreed that Dick Cheney did not make a mistake in not informing the WH PC, and that there is at least among some in the administration something akin to what you term Rollback of the WH PC and certain other parts of the national press. I think we have previously debated these points, and contrary to Steve Lovelady's assertion that "you even gotten wingers to agree;” the point had been made, debated, and accepted (even from wingers); although for entirely different reasons from those you now assert.

Posted by: John Lynch at February 19, 2006 12:54 PM | Permalink

Calm, Jay. I'm agreeing with you -- just trying to go one step farther, OK?

Stipulated: The Bush Administration is trying to cut the national Press "out of the loop".

Agreed for purposes of argument: that their motives are basically obfuscatory, that they don't want accountability.

The question is, then, what to do about it, both from the point of view of maintaining a role for the press and the meta-issue of maintaining (or forcing) accountability on the Administration.

In order to do that, in order to formulate a tactic that will restore or create the situation we want, we need to know what's happening now. It is an axiom of conflict that you cannot counter an opponent's tactics unless you know what they are, unless it is simply by dumb luck. We need to know, to analyze, what Bush's tactics are and why they work, in order to create, promulgate, and deploy a set of tactics to counteract them.

I keep bringing up matters from what you quite correctly call the "culture war" because the Bush Administration is using the culture war, and doing so quite brilliantly, to achieve its ends. In military terms, the culture war is the terrain upon which the battle with the Press is being fought. Like terrain, it extends far beyond the bounds of the present battle; and, like terrain, it provides (or not) footing, advantage, cover, and points of observation to the forces involved.

When I first began commenting here I made the mistake of doing so from the standpoint of one of the battlers in the culture war. That irritated you, with justification, and you are still interpreting my comments in that light. I'm sorry for that because I have changed my mind. The culture war, important as it may be, is not the subject here; the subject here is the Press, its motives, methods, and justifications. But we cannot discuss that subject in the light of the conflict with the Bush Administration without taking note of the culture war, any more than an infantry captain could plan a battle without taking note of the streams, ditches, copses of wood, and hills in the area where the battle will take place.

In the specific instance of my previous post I brought up the Bush vs. Kyoto matter. For purposes of discussion here it doesn't matter whether or not the Kyoto Protocols are a good idea, or whether or not they were issued in good faith. What does matter, here, is that Bush & Co. are using a mistake on the part of the Press as a way to push their agenda. When the Press asserts, or presents without criticism the assertion of another, that Bush killed Kyoto, Bush can then point to that falsehood and say, This is part of a pattern. What else are they full of s*t about? A single such incident doesn't matter much, but each such incident is a chip out of the Press's credibility, and therefore out of its ability to criticize in such a way that its audience will find the criticism credible. This is an example of a Bush tactic against the Press, and one that has succeeded repeatedly. A tactic must be found to counter it, or it will sweep the field.

The point about the slogans is that they, and the way they are applied, represent ground chosen in the culture war upon which to do battle. My point is that the ground so chosen is not defensible; demonstrably, as the Administration repeatedly attacks the position and succeeds in the attacks. The Press needs to choose another point on which to stand. What it thought was walls and bulwarks turn out to be marshmallows and balloons.

I am, in general, an admirer and proponent of George Bush and of his Administration. (This does not mean I find no fault in it.) More importantly, I am a member of the culture which George Bush adopted in preference to his natal one, and from that standpoint I can point out deficiencies in your (or the Press's) assumptions that cause wrong tactics to be adopted. From that point of view I urge you to a mental exercise, based on adopting for purposes of argument something you do not appear to believe:

Assume, for argument's sake, that George Bush does not wish to escape accountability, but feels that the existing Press is not interested in forcing accountability; it is, rather, interested in forcing its own partisan agenda and building its own power. What, then, would be his proper course of action? How would the tactics he might adopt differ from those logical under your "avoiding accountability" hypothesis?

Posted by: Ric Locke at February 19, 2006 1:16 PM | Permalink

I've written about this before, and I will again. There's a rhetorician who I like, William Riker. (Same as the character on Star Trek.)

Anyway, Riker would tell you that withholding, shaping, manipulating information is as old as, well at least as old as Max Weber. Here's what Weber wrote about this about a century ago:

Every bureaucracy seeks to increase the superiority of the professionally informed by keeping their knowledge and intentions secret. Bureaucratic administration always tends to be an administration of ‘secret sessions’: in so far as it can, it hides its knowledge and action from criticism. . . . The tendency toward secrecy in certain administrative fields follows their material nature: everywhere that the power interests of the domination structure toward the outside are at stake, whether it is an economic competitor or a private enterprise, or a foreign, potentially hostile polity, we find secrecy.

Here's a summary of Riker's view of manipulation of information, from his work publishsed about 20 years ago:

William Riker described this as heresthetic, or the art of “structuring the world so you can win.” This type of political manipulation is related to rhetoric, or the art of verbal persuasion, but there is more to it. Successful practitioners of heresthetic “have set up the situation in such a way that other people will want to join them—or will feel forced by circumstances to join them—even without any persuasion at all.”

So what's the difference between now and say, 20 years ago? Back then, the press was the unassailable authority on the political truth. When politicians practiced secrecy or heresthetic, the press would assure us it would get to the truth anyway. We believed the press. But the press has lost that authority, for all the reasons Jay has eloquently listed on this weblog.

So now the press is whining, the public feels betrayed, and the power elites find it easier than ever to play rhetorical games and manipulate information.

What will happen next?

Posted by: JennyD at February 19, 2006 1:19 PM | Permalink

I’m just not getting the whole importance of this “freedom from fact” sidebar. Isn’t it irrelevant whether a particular Whitehouse has a particular “cunning” at managing the news and press? Isn’t “freedom from fact” just what some people do better than others to get what they want? Shouldn’t the time, effort, and focus remain on where it’s most likely to actually further the goal….creating press systems that fairly and truthfully inform the public?

As others have stated, too, for every example that you cite, Jay, of the Bush/Cheney freedom-from-fact theme, someone here could provide similar examples of other presidents/VP’s statements. For example, your “Dick Cheney on tape” example reminded me of that whole “Bill Clinton on tape” thing a while back where he was recorded at a press club luncheon saying something about why he didn’t get Bin Laden when he was offered by Sudan back in 1996. I can’t find the original story but here are a couple of background links…

I don’t want to fight that particular battle, BTW, I’m just using that example b/c it involved something captured on tape that was “explained away,” unsatisfactorily to some. I think it would be a safe bet that there are at least as many people out there who believe Bill Clinton was a Freedom-From-Fact-Guy as there are now Bush believers. So to me that part of this analysis seems irrelevant. I think that “freedom from fact” has always been here, it’s just more visible now that there are means to see it more readily.

I think that press people focus too much on the “uniqueness of Bush” (or they call it lots of other names) and that perception and focus gets in the way of actually perceiving and then solving some of the real problems, because if those were solved what Bush did or did not do wouldn’t matter.

…I just read Daniel Conover’s, “Journalism from a software’s perspective.” This is fascinating and important, I believe, b/c it keeps the focus on what matters—what can the press do?

Have any major newspapers hired consultants who specialize in the field of process improvement? These practical tactics and systems development along the lines of Mr. Conover’s ideas will circumvent anything that any Whitehouse can strategize.

Posted by: Kristen at February 19, 2006 1:50 PM | Permalink

Great piece professor Rosen--I think you are right on the money: The administration has purposely chosen to dis the press corps--it started when they didnt give the crazy old maid of the press corps, Helen, the first question--its the Veep's use of Fox (of course, I think it is the cabe network with largest viewing audience, but I could be wrong)--I could come up with a lot of reaons, but I given the low regard the American public has for the MSM (however defined) it isnt real hard and they score points with their base.

With respect to the Cheney kerfluffle, I find it interesting that consipracy theories aside, very few "reporters" have seen fit to see what Texas law says about the reporting of hunting accidents on private property--just sayin'

And if Drudge is correct, the MSM plans to continue to flog this dead horse next week--dont these idiots GET IT?

Posted by: RogerA at February 19, 2006 3:11 PM | Permalink

Googling Bush killed Kyoto mostly seems to bring up right leaning blogs.

Here's one: Times Watch, a site devoted to "documenting and exposing the Times liberal bias," which applies the "meme" to this 3/03 Times article that never uses that line.

But it's wrong to say that Bush killed Kyoto...because that would leave out the role that EXXON played.

But I'm just trying to help, Ric. I don't have access to Nexis at this moment so maybe you could help find the msm articles that use that "meme."

Posted by: Ron Brynaert at February 19, 2006 3:14 PM | Permalink

> Assume, for argument's sake, that George Bush does not wish to escape accountability, but feels that the existing Press is ...interested in forcing its own partisan agenda and building its own power. What, then, would be his proper course of action? How would the tactics he might adopt differ from those logical under your "avoiding accountability" hypothesis?

Excellent question. :-)

He would reach out to and engage experts from cultures that value objective descriptions of reality - scientists, economists, intelligence analysts, career bureaucrats (not political "spoils" appointees) - and incidentally, they would likely support him, given his and their mutual high regard for objective measurement.

Needless to say, this scenario does not appear to have much correspondence with reality.

Posted by: Anna Haynes PhD at February 19, 2006 3:45 PM | Permalink

Kyoto / Bush:

Other than a bunch of left wing sites, and enviro sites, and a few right wing sites; there are these:

CNN, March 29, 2001
PBS, March 29, 2001
Wired, Steve Kettmann, February 5, 2002

As I'm sure you all know, pulling old news articles is limited thanks to most "acting as a proxy for the public" newspapers putting their archives behind pay walls. Being unable to find articles that one can recall is not evidence that such articles did not exist.

Posted by: John Lynch at February 19, 2006 3:47 PM | Permalink

Hmmmm--Anna: are you telling us that scientists, economists, etc have objective views of reality? If that be the case why, for example, are Paul Krugman's views not the same as Milton Friedmans? And it is quite possible to point out nummerous differing points of view to those you suggest "value objective descriptions of reality." Admittedly some of the groups you mention are trained in the scientific method--but that doesnt mean that the training produces "objective reality."

Posted by: RogerA at February 19, 2006 3:52 PM | Permalink

Dr. Anna,

Do you know that he does not seek and gain such expert opinion, or do you base your assertion that "this scenario does not appear to have much correspondence with reality" on listening only to those that complain? By definition those would be those to whom he did not listen, or did not accept their advice. And if you listen to those who do provide expert opinion and advice: where do you find such reports?

Posted by: John Lynch at February 19, 2006 3:53 PM | Permalink

Professor Rosen--lets assume your analysis is correct (and I think it is): How should (for want of a better word) the MSM respond to it? What your J-school students discussing about this?

Posted by: RogerA at February 19, 2006 4:03 PM | Permalink

My LexisNexus search on General News >> Major Papers gave zero hits for the full-text phrase "Bush killed Kyoto" in the past ten years, after getting no hits for the past five and/or for Headline, Paragraph, Terms(s). Likewise the same parameters for General News >> Magazines and Journals.

I get one hit when searching News Transcripts >> All transcripts:
````````````````````````````````````
THE MCLAUGHLIN GROUP HOST: JOHN MCLAUGHLIN JOINED BY: MICHAEL BARONE, TONY BLANKLEY, ELEANOR CLIFT, AND DOYLE MCMANUS TAPED: FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 2001 BROADCAST: WEEKEND OF JUNE 16-17, 2001, Federal News Service, June 15, 2001, Friday, PRESS CONFERENCE OR SPEECH, 5101 words

MR. BARONE: He said we cannot be sure on the basis of today's science to what extent human activity contributes to global warming; that it may be to some extent that we need further research on it. I think that's a very good statement of where the science stands and it's entirely consistent with this National Academy of Science report.
[,,,]

So I think a restrained response.

Remember also, it wasn't Bush that killed the Kyoto Treaty, it was 95 U.S. senators in 1997 said we won't support it --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Right.
`````````````````````````````````````````

Posted by: Phredd at February 19, 2006 4:21 PM | Permalink

Phredd:

I think that was the point Ric Locke was making earlier. That reporting, as shown with the three links I provided, provide a view that G.W. Bush killed the Kyoto protocols, or at least the U.S. participation in the protocols. The unchallenged reading of those articles would certainly suggest that. A more knowledgeable reader, or a challenging press would have known of and included the senate "sense of the senate" vote (95-0) against.

I think Ric's point was and is that by not doing what Jay terms as Rollback, the administration loses - so why wouldn't the administration so engage?

Posted by: John Lynch at February 19, 2006 4:37 PM | Permalink

Kristen, your everyone-does-it naivete is charming.

John: I think you are very thoroughly in denial about an Administration you support, and it will take years for you realize it. But then you must think I'm a crackpot, so we're even. Still I cannot tell you how complacent you are being about this group in power.

Ric: I agree completely that the culture war is basic to the Bush coalition. I agree that the goal is to escape accountability. Culture war is also basic to the unprecedented--that's right, there are no parallels--attack on science, civil service, the press, professionalism in government, and intellectually honest Republicans who, for whatever reason, recoil from cooking the books.

All must be assaulted, pressured, ridiculed, shamed, discredited, driven out. The hate for them that radiates from the White House is extreme and palpable. Culture war provides "the reason" that they deserve it.

If it were simply Bush concluding that he faces an unfair and partisan press then we would not see this broader assault on all the instruments of factuality and accountability. For example, bringing career information officers in the government to heel under Bush's political people.

It isn't the press, Ric. It's way way beyond that. It's anyone, and any group that might stand in the way of government's drive to order the world the way Bush and company say it must be. It's a "first the verdict, then the trial" ethic, and it's pervasive among the group in charge.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 19, 2006 5:04 PM | Permalink

That is a tidy dismissal, and non-refutable as those in denial have no view of what they are in denial about.

While I do have significant disageements with this administration, I have none particularly significant in the area of relationship with the press, or with getting and using expert advice, or with the presence of those with whom the adminstation does not agree. I suppose that allows you to categorize me as a supporter of the administration.

However, I am one with whom the adminstration does not agree. At least on the subject of government size, and government spending - I disagree strongly. I haven't written a book on it, or issued a "Union of Concerned Businessmen" paper, so I guess that does not put me in the same category as others whom you cite as more important dissenters.

I'll concede that my view of your position seems to place it somewhere in the crackpot category, but I'll withdraw, simmer for a few years, and see if there is anything worthwhile to add at some other time.

Posted by: John Lynch at February 19, 2006 5:24 PM | Permalink

"But then you must think I'm a crackpot..." Thanks for allowing that possibility :) I am always reminded of the difference between questions of fact and questions of values when I see some of the arguments made in favor of, or in opposition to (almost anything.)

Posted by: RogerA at February 19, 2006 5:37 PM | Permalink

Do you know that he does not seek and gain such expert opinion

On the contrary, we know that he assiduously seeks and gains such expert opinion; for example:

1. On creationism vs. evolution, he sought, gained, and aligned himself with expert opinion that places creationism on par with the thoery of evolution

2. On global warming, he sought, gained and aligned himself with experts who believe that global warming is not a man-made, but natural phenomenon

3. On Iraq, he sought, gained, and adopted the expert opinion that the US troops will be welcomed with flowers

4. On public finances, he sought, gained and implemented expert opinion that good governance is all about cutting taxes; the ensuing deficit will take care of itself through supply side magic

It is not that he does not seek and gain expert opinion, but it is far more damaging than that; it seems that he very deliberately thumbs his nose at reason.

In the end, we cannot blame him. He embodies the fear, intolerance and xenophobia of the population at large. Having elected him, there is no rational way we can disown him now. He is the leader of the tribe and he is intent on showing the other religions, one way or the other, why Jesus is more powerful than their gods.

Posted by: village idiot at February 19, 2006 5:42 PM | Permalink

I'm glad Jay reiterated his proposition that the Bush team's use of Rollback is intended to achieve freedom from the constraints of fact. It and earlier comments are a (perhaps imperfect) illustration of how I believe our friends on the left and their allies in the dominant liberal media often attempt to endorse certain "facts" (and acceptable bounds for confronting them) while coloring skepticism as a retreat from reality or seeking freedom from facts. That is:

1) Posit as "fact" popular ideas about which serious and reasonable people can disagree (e.g. Global Warming or Intelligence Manipulation), and then

2) persistently ridicule as either unserious, ritual denial, or solely partisan or ideological even good faith efforts to confront the assertions of fact.

This is precisely what I've long argued: Many liberal ideas are accorded undue weight and unwarranted currency as a consequence of their endorsement by our dominant liberal media.

Accordingly, the Bush team can be considered to be advancing truth, indeed seeking "freedom of fact", by taking advantage of "Rollback" (the self-delegitimization of the press).

Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 19, 2006 6:03 PM | Permalink

Village Idiot: did it occur to you that there are actually some scientific and economic opinions with respect to your first and fourth points that disagree with your assessment? Please recall it wasnt so very long ago that the weight of scientific opinion agreed that the sun revolved around the earth, that Phlogiston was one of the basic four elements that created fire, and continental drift was crackpot. Just sayin....

Posted by: RogerA at February 19, 2006 6:14 PM | Permalink

Jay, "naivete"? I simply disagree with your theoretical assessment of how Bush operates as compared to other presidents before him.

Just because something is printed in the NYTimes, doesn't make it The Truth for me.

Especially when reasonable, intelligent people whose views I respect offer other scientific research data, and their opinions are so easy to find today on the Net....

Posted by: Kristen at February 19, 2006 6:37 PM | Permalink

Global Warming is not a liberal idea.

It is a scientific idea.

That you can't see the difference proves the point of the post.

I was shocked the first time a student of mine said that the American people were "50-50" on global warming.

I studied geology and climate science at a pretty conservative University.

All of a sudden, George W. Bush becomes president and global warming can no longer be seen as a theory supported by the evidence and models that have played out (and in some cases the models are conservative), but as some liberal claptrap. It is absolute insanity.

I saw a letter to the editor today from a woman who said "I don't believe in global warming."

I've got news for you. Unless you are a CLIMATE SCIENTIST, whether or not you "believe" in global warming is irrelevant. The percentage of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS who attribute the current warming trends to human activity is in the 90s.

The bulk of those few who do not believe that global warming is real and its acceleration human-induced ware in the employ of industries that have a financial stake in doing nothing.

That's the ideological divide on global warming.

Ask a climate scientist about global warming. Any climate scientist. See what she tells you.

Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 19, 2006 6:40 PM | Permalink

This is a great thread, Jay. Who knew where poor Mr. Whittington's misfortune would lead?

The word that keeps coming to mind is authority; I continue to perceive here a rather desperate attempt to find an authority that can stand up to the Bush team's machinations. To the extent that the press might fulfill that role, it seems that Jay would (rather ironically) welcome a return to Walter "That's the Way It Is" Cronkite if he could stop this war, too. Conover's fact-machine would serve a similar purpose -- Bush lies, so an unimpeachible fact-machine would stand against Bush.

However, this quest is much larger, and includes institutions (e.g., "science") that might dispense such unimpeachable facts. Honestly, Jay, I find your naive faith in "experts" and their "facts" to be so charming that it is positively 19th Century. I mean, if a guy from NASA says it, it must be true (did you feel that way in 1986?).

Hayek described well this "rationalist fallacy" at the heart of much thinking on the Left (although fallacious appeals to "science" are not limited to the Left). Coincidentally, President Bush just met with a contemporary popularizer of Hayekian ideas, Michael Crichton. In this 21st Century of massively distributed knowledge and complex systems, rule by enlightened experts seems a very quaint idea, indeed. As I have written before (and here), it is neither coincidental nor probative that members of these rationalist institutions tilt left, and would tend to oppose Bush (and there are institutional/inertial reasons as well).

As WF Buckley said 50 years ago, I would rather be governed by the first 500 names out of the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. And, as kristen said 2 minutes ago, the internet is helping to level that playing field even further.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 19, 2006 6:41 PM | Permalink

"Oh, and the White House press corps--which can be whiny, thin-skinned, defensive and clueless as hell--is 50 times more willing to hear the truth spoken to its (dwindling, almost gone) power than the people in the White House who run the place are willing to hear truth spoken to their massive and exponentially increasing, ever-more opaque and unaccountable-to-anyone-including-you power."

Well, I guess I know whose side your on. Let me leave you with this, I would rather trust the Bar-flies at the Iron Pony than the Whitehouse press corps.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 19, 2006 6:42 PM | Permalink

John Lynch, i'm impressed. a Singer 1997 press release is more up to date scientific evidence than the scientific consensus of the sun revolving around the earth.
science is so anecdotal.

Posted by: polar bear at February 19, 2006 7:07 PM | Permalink

Now Hayek is being employed in the support of Bush? From Lew Rockwell:

Thus does Hayek's point apply to politics, especially to politics, even more especially to the politics of the military machine. The social scientist who believes he has the master plan to run the world is enough of a menace. But the politician who believes this, and is contemplating war, can bring about massive amounts of destruction and death. In these nuclear days – and let us say what we don't like to contemplate but which is nonetheless true – he can bring about the end of the world as we know it. As Hayek notes, a tyrant who carries the pretense of knowledge too far can become "a destroyer of civilization."

Posted by: village idiot at February 19, 2006 7:08 PM | Permalink

Sorry Polar bear, (nice moniker for the subject) the point is that minutes of google yields much less than the concensus Richard speaks of. Here's a bet betweeen scientists.

Posted by: John Lynch at February 19, 2006 7:23 PM | Permalink

Richard Simon: I dont think there is much doubt that it is getting warmer--thats an empirical question--causality (or in this case, correlation) is something all together different-Please (1) dont conflate the two issues, and (2) drop the appeal to authority argument: it is demonstrably true that scientific consensus about any number of topics, is just that: consensus; not truth. There is a large difference. Scientific consensus, whether by climate scientists or any other kind of scientists, only reflects the state of the research today.

Posted by: RogerA at February 19, 2006 7:26 PM | Permalink

Even more to the point:

This solution is particularly compelling in light of the deep political divide in the US. A system that has a bitter and resentful 51% ruling over a bitter and resentful 49% is one that risks blowing up in ways we cannot entirely predict.

Posted by: village idiot at February 19, 2006 7:28 PM | Permalink

When dealing with issues like Global Warming, what do you advocate that the country follow:

a) A consensus of the overwhelming majority in the scientific community?

b) A dissenting opinion of a few in the scientific community?

c) A majority opinion among a sampling of red-staters?

d) wait till the 'truth' of Global Warming gets established firmly (remembering that the laws of gravity are true only as an approximation to this day)

Posted by: village idiot at February 19, 2006 7:47 PM | Permalink

Since you posed the question, VI, I prefer your (d); Why? because it is simply not clear that there are any significant policy initiatives (and I am totally rejecting the Kyoto approach) that would accomplish anything within any reasonable cost. (when in doubt, as a conservative, I generally favor the do nothing option)

Posted by: RogerA at February 19, 2006 7:59 PM | Permalink

Jay
Could you define (in a little more detail) what you consider to be incompetent paraphrasing. In other words tell me, "What are the characteristics that are present in paraphrasing that's incompetent?"

I think I see this happening all the time on blogs and in journalism (in general). I've never had a tidy phrase to label it or a link to reference.

I wonder, is the incompetence deliberate? And do journalism courses teach competent paraphrasing?

Posted by: laurence haughton at February 19, 2006 8:09 PM | Permalink

.... (when in doubt, as a conservative, I generally favor the do nothing option)

Just in the interest of consistency, did you also favor the do-nothing option on Iraq, or did you know beyond doubt that there were WMD there? Since you attribute this 'do-nothing' quality to 'conservatives', you must also believe that somehow 'conservatives' knew beyond a doubt that Mr. Hussein has WMD?

Posted by: village idiot at February 19, 2006 8:12 PM | Permalink

vi:

Even a quick analysis suggests the inadequacy of your question in terms of policy/executive action. At the very least, the problem must be broken down into several further steps (too often conflated on the Left):

1)Is the earth getting warmer?
2)If so, by how much, and over what time frame?
3)If so, to what extent is this caused by human actions, including greenhouse gasses?
4)If so, to what extent is reversal of this trend
desirable?
5)If so, to what extent is reversal of this trend feasible?
6)If so, what are the anticipated costs of such a program?
7)If so, what potential unanticipated consequences need to be considered?
8)To what extent will other global forces (natural and political) offset any attempt by the US government to accomplish its goals?

I have seen too many examples of both scientists and media-types fudging #2 to get the desired answer for #1, and then just helping themselves to a big old spoonful of #3. Most of the remaining questions are best answered in the course of the democratic process, as they are not exclusively technical in nature. Again, watch out for that old is/ought fallacy.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 19, 2006 8:12 PM | Permalink

Neuro, you seem to believe that the scientific consensus has come about without 1, 2 and 3; not to mention the 'liberal' 'spoonfuls' of 'fudge'. I would have a hard time arguing coherently with anybody who has such a poor opinion of the scientific community in general.

So, do nothing, it is, then.

Posted by: village idiot at February 19, 2006 8:23 PM | Permalink

from today's issue of Time, Has the Meltdown Begun?:
"The usual argument put forth by global-warming skeptics for why we shouldn't rush to do anything yet is that the science behind climate change is uncertain...[But the study released last week reported that Greenland] Glaciers ... have nearly doubled their rate of flow over the past five years...dumping icebergs and meltwater into the already rising ocean faster than anyone expected....

No computer climate model anticipated that increase, which means that all current predictions about how much sea level could rise...will have to be revised upward. 'If [Greenland's ice cap] all melted or otherwise slid into the ocean, sea level would rise by 20 ft. or so'..."

reality is that which, when you refuse to believe in it, doesn't go away. (pkd)

All other things being equal, it's better to have leadership that resides on the same planet as the country.

p.s. thanks, idiot.

Posted by: Anna Haynes at February 19, 2006 8:26 PM | Permalink

The rollback is extensive, and as Jay notes, the press is the least of it.
The attempt at rollback is targeted at the press, the scientific community, the academy, and any stray administration officials (Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke) who dare to raise a hand and say, "Hey, wait just a goddamned a minute ..."
The rollback is, to quote the good professor, "an attack on science, civil service, the press, professionalism in government, and intellectually honest Republicans who, for whatever reason, recoil from cooking the books."
Fortunately, there is beginning to develop a nascent pushback to the rollback.
The war in Iraq -- posited on a rationale that required a cooking of the books -- has a little bit to do with that.
In that sense, it may yet serve a purpose.
Can anyone imagine a better example of utopianism sliding into nightmare ?
People -- as the polls indicate -- do eventually pay attention to that sort of thing.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 19, 2006 8:28 PM | Permalink

new to me, from a comment over at polar bear's post:

"There is a saying that goes like 'you can always wake up a person who is sleeping. But you can never wake up a person who is acting sleeping.' "

Posted by: Anna Haynes at February 19, 2006 8:41 PM | Permalink

Can anyone imagine a better example of utopianism sliding into nightmare ?

For starters:

1) The USSR
2) Jonestown
3) Jefferson Airplane / Starship

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 19, 2006 8:43 PM | Permalink

Considering the drive for accountability, how do we hold career information officers to account? The intelligence agencies and the careerists in them let us down in several instances. Perhaps there were some that needed to be brought to heel, even if they don't agree.

Furthermore, Michael Scheuer, author of Imperial Hubris and strong Bush critic, heavily criticized the CIA careerists for launching a political war against Bush.

How does an outside observer choose a side in such a war?

It isn't the press, Ric. It's way way beyond that. It's anyone, and any group that might stand in the way of government's drive to order the world the way Bush and company say it must be.

This is why Kristen's point was important and shouldn't have been dismissed as naivete. If one agrees with the way the government is pushing to have the world ordered- or is happy with the status quo and therefore no push for change, then one sees such a drive as not objectionable. It's true now, and it's always been true.

Posted by: MayBee at February 19, 2006 8:43 PM | Permalink

John: I agree that my dismissal above is not refutable, and that a man in denial can hardly be expected to see the light issuing from that which he is denying.

Nonetheless, sometimes people are in denial.

If you disagree strongly with the Administration on federal spending and size of the government then you must appreciate the intellectual honesty of the Bush people on that particular subject. They really take responsibility for their actions, don't they?

Kristen: "Just because something is printed in the NYTimes, doesn't make it The Truth for me." Me neither. But what does that have to do with anything? I didn't argue that if it's in the New York Times it must be true, end-of-story. Nor do I believe that. Nor do I behave, as a critic, like I believe that.

What I said was naive is your breezy "everyone does it" attitude. Though one can't prove anything with anecdote, you don't have any Clinton anecdote that is actually like the Cheney on CNBC anecdote. Why suggest you do?

This might be a good time to acknowledge that while I have presented a kind of theory to explain conduct in the Bush Administration, and offered examples and evidence for it, I do not think I have proven the case, or even come close to that.

Neuro: "governed by the faculty of Harvard?" Good god, where did you get that? And to repeat myself: what does that have to do with anything? I'm talking about a galling and intellectually corrupt pattern in the Bush Administration in which it goes to war with every group, profession, institution or counter-vailing force--regardless of party, position or political philosophy--that could offer an independent account of reality, and possibly show how the Bushies cook the books.

It could be the General Accounting Office. It could be a NASA scientist. It could be career State Department people. It could be the CIA. It could be the press. It could be a Pentagon public information officer. It could be a Treasury Secretary.

The alternative to that pattern is not government by college professors, which would be a disaster. The alternative is less hubris in the White House. A less radical Adminstration that does not operate in a "first the verdict, then the trial" fashion because it realizes how corrupt and reckless such conduct is.

You're very wrong in leaping to your conclusion that I have some deep faith in experts, or believe in the general wisdom of my fellow academics, or imagine there's some unimpeachable fact dispensary somewhere that will give us truth. All these cartoons come from your imagination alone, and having nothing to do with me or my writing. Play on with them if you like.

Buckely's phone book image is good. I prefer the original, from Jefferson: "State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules."

I agree with Tom on that.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 19, 2006 8:56 PM | Permalink

NeuroCon cites Buckley's "first 500 names" against the kind of scientific and, yes, factual authority that I also believe is in the cross hairs of this administration. Time to note that the "first 500 names" are polled as in favour of withdrawal from Iraq, a universal government health scheme, and distrust of Bush.

Another of the freedoms from fact claimed by this administration is freedom from polled reality. The mainstream media appears to claim this freedom as well.

Posted by: AlanDownunder at February 19, 2006 8:58 PM | Permalink

First of all, that Time article is a classic of the alarmist genre:

Greenland's ice cap covers more than 650,000 sq. mi. and in places stands nearly 2 miles thick. "If it all melted or otherwise slid into the ocean, sea level would rise by 20 ft. or so," says Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton. [emph added]

We go from one set of datapoints about one specific region to: If it all melted! We're doomed! When these guys can't just let the data at hand speak for themselves, it inspires skepticism in this scientist. [Note that I am constantly sick at similar kinds of "forecasts" for progress in my own field.]

But even granting, arguendo, my points 1-3 above, the policy implications are still debatable. See here:

The final game-changer was Bush's successful initiative to launch the Asia-Pacific Partnership (APP) last summer... The APP emphasizes as its first priority economic development and the eradication of poverty. It also struck notes of realism about energy use, observing that "fossil fuels underpin our economies, and will be an enduring reality for our lifetimes and beyond." The partnership members pledged more resources for advanced energy research, but also for work on making current fossil-fuel energy cleaner. The real game afoot behind the APP is probably to accelerate the transfer of advanced technology to India and China, whose greenhouse gas emissions are expected to soar in the coming years if they use current fossil fuel energy technology.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 19, 2006 9:01 PM | Permalink

Jay -- A small point, and a larger one:

First, I think you are on shaky ground when you argue the uniqueness of the Cheney example. As just one example, the Clinton/Bin Laden quote is very popular on the right, as are others that were catalogued in the 90's. Moreover, I think the ultimate declaration of freedom from fact was the classic statement: "It depends what the meaning of is is."

More broadly, I see the same contentious pattern you identify; however, I see it as a two-way street of push and pushback. I too have been struck by the way politics have turned over the last three years, but I view it as an intensification of the larger culture war between VRWC and VLWC. I believe that as the Bush Administration began the march to war in Fall 2002, the VLWC began a relentless campaign to hammer, hammer, hammer at any perceived weakness, a campaign that continues to this day (viz: Cheney's shot heard 'round the world).

I'm not suggesting it's merely one-sided and Bush is only playing defense. I am saying that the comity essential for the kind of civic exchange that you might prefer has been lost, due in no small part to Bush Derangement Syndrome. As has been suggested earlier in the thread, try to view that phenomenon from Bush's POV. And try to examine the ways in which your own tone might be contributing.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 19, 2006 9:29 PM | Permalink

You argue dishonesty and intellectual corruption where I see none. I guess that is my denial area, from which I cannot escape.

I see a president who argues for and submits budgets. I see a House (which decides government spending) tacking on 14,000 earmarks on a budget already 100s of billions above the suggested budget. I see a Senate that gets tied up in partisan bickering instead of debate and resolution of known long-term issues such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (real financial concerns.) I see a judiciary deciding financial matters on government spending that no legislature has or would pass. I see the President asking for (tongue-in-cheek during SOTU address) line-item veto authority. I see a party mechanism that is more concerned with rallying the troops for the next short-term election than getting the message out about real governance actions necessary. I see an opposition party unraveling and offering no coherent counter-vision or progress on the issues I deem substantive. I see a press consumed with themselves and incompetent to address any major issue. All of this is overlaid with real-world events such as Islamic fundamentalist rioting, Iranian nukes, and natural catastrophes. I do not see (again blind spot possible) intellectual dishonesty on behalf of some group termed "Bush's people."

Posted by: John Lynch at February 19, 2006 9:33 PM | Permalink

I prefer the original, from Jefferson: "State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules."
I agree with Tom on that.

How about if we state a moral case to a certain Texas oilman and a certain Johns Hopkins professor, a case involving thousands of lives and a certain dictator that controlled large amounts of oil.

Posted by: village idiot at February 19, 2006 10:03 PM | Permalink

Jay, I see we have a number of people fighting the Culture War regarding the issue I brought up. I must say that, having had you criticize me (with perfect justification, I agree) for culture warring, it's a bit disappointing to see you stake out a position in the battle and start defending it.

I say again: the question is not the culture war; the question is not whether or not Bush wants to cut the Press (and those you view as credible advisors) "out of the loop". I, as a rightist, agree that that's what's happening. It isn't a question any more, and debating Glowball Worming is a waste of your bandwidth.

The question is what to do about it, and the question that has to be answered before that one can be addressed is why is Bush successful at doing that? If all the right (in the sense of correctness), not to mention truth, beauty, mother-love, and the astral conjunctions are on your side, why are you losing? And if the second Flood is imminent if something isn't done, it would seem to me there would be some urgency in figuring it out, rather than wasting time battting minutiae back and forth or engaging in Calvin-eyed denial.

The correct antidote to such machinations would be a strong, respected, credible authority that could speak out to correct misstatements. In the ideal, that's what the Press is for -- but at present the Press is neither credible nor respected, and as a result it is not strong and its opposition is ineffective. How did that circumstance come to be, and how can it be reversed? It is crystal clear that the presently employed tactics to gain credibility and respect are not working; there are many on my side of the aisle who are crowing in triumph about it, and the tone of desperation in the Culture War posts, above, is clear to me if not to you. What to do?

One of the first principles a green Lieutenant learns about "battlespace management" (the military being not at all immune to buzzspeak) is to think like the enemy -- put yourself in the opponent's place, imagine yourself with the opponent's knowledge and motivations, and build a plan based on that. With that plan clear in your mind, shake your head, resume your normal persona, and build a counterplan to frustrate the one you just made. If you are truly able to think like the enemy, your counterplans will always work. Doubling the effort for a near-guarantee of success is a good trade.

Clearly the Bush Administration has you figured out with virtual completeness. Just this week they took a chance occurrence that should have been a fairly severe loss for their side, gathered a scratch force, and executed an impromptu flanking attack that drove their enemies back in weeping disarray. David Gregory might as well resign; he is and forever will be tarred as a petulant elitist whining about loss of privilege, the equivalent of the self-important rich asshole expecting to jump the line at the restaurant -- "Don't you know who I am?" The Press lost big. Isn't it time you figured out how to fight back?

Posted by: Ric Locke at February 19, 2006 10:09 PM | Permalink

Ric makes some excellent points. Two additional:

Bad Tactics: The attack on Cheney not only redounded against Gregory but also may have saved Chertoff's job.

Bad Strategy: As an early member of FreeRepublic (Jan 1998) and someone whose first thought upon hearing of Vince Foster's death was "murder," I can say that personal demonization of one's political opponents (especially a focus on their "uniquely evil" qualities) is bad politics, bad policy, bad statecraft, bad history, and just plain bad for one's mental health. Impeachment, which I supported avidly in 1998, was a terrible idea. Better to keep the focus on the issues, and help create an environment in which "facts" can emerge relatively unmolested for debate in the public square.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 19, 2006 10:23 PM | Permalink

Anna --

I have been reading the actual Greenland article in Science. You might sleep better tonight knowing that the current ice discharge was measured in the summer 2005, and was compared to rates from autumn 2000 and winter 1996.

What was that Twain quote again, you know, the one about statistics?

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 19, 2006 10:27 PM | Permalink

From News Max: "After being told that his remarks were on tape, however, the ex-president changed his story, saying instead that he had 'misspoken' during the 2002 speech."

After being told his remarks were on tape, Cheney stuck with his story. That is the remarkable thing I am trying to point out to you, Neuro. Those who would understand Cheney should understand that. He could have said he had misspoken. He went for infallabilty instead.

I'll go a step further: I believe it is part of the strategic thinking of the Bush Administration that in order to fight Al Queda executive power not only has to be enlarged; it has to be made more opaque. Cheney is in charge of that, and the first sphere in which he executed that policy was himself. See this post for the details on it. Cheney is famous within the government for not saying what he thinks while wielding enormous influence. What do I mean by more opauqe? I mean that.

Government power, executive action, made more opaque for strategic reasons, in order to increase uncertainty for Al Queda, and gain back some of the edge they have because they don't operate in an open society, where there are (were) accountability demands, unavoidable disclosures, a belief in transparency, a free and inquisitive press that screws up your plans. We do have those handicaps. Unless we change our society (or at least the executive branch) and re-write the rules on what is permitted.

And this is why we see wars between the Bush people and the verification troops. They are necessary wars if executive power is to be expanded by being made more opaque, so that executive power can use stealth to keep us safe from an enemy unlike others. (My post used a different word: "With these changes, executive power has grown more illegible under Bush.")

I listen carefully to what might be called the "national security right" when it starts talking about what how we need to change things to fight an enemy like Al Queda. If you're looking for why the Bush administration is being accused of being... different...like, going beyond what was tenable before, what's wrong with starting with Al Queda? Isn't that where national security conservatives start?

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 19, 2006 10:42 PM | Permalink

The networks will do fine, with or without Mr. Gregory. The press will go from moribund to dead, but the bean counters will find other ways to feed the advertisers.

The folks who voted for Mr. Bush (and those that did not) can suffer Mr. Bush for three more years, and maybe even four more after that if they are feeling particularly masochistic. Democracy is inherently regressive; it is also only as good as its most pervasive fears are. In this race to the bottom, apparently the right is crowing that it is setting the pace, and Mr. Locke wants us to devise a strategy to outpace them.

Nice try, but no, thanks. A better option would be to split the country into two pieces, one a liberal democracy, and the second a christian theocracy, and both sides can then happily tend to their floods, raptures, and whatever else strikes their fancy.

Posted by: village idiot at February 19, 2006 10:45 PM | Permalink

They are supposed to report that the claim is false. They are not supposed to say "Greenpeace accused President Bush of killing Kyoto today, and Presient Bush denied it", they are supposed to say "Ignoring the Senate's 1998 93 - 0 vote against the Kyoto treaty, Greenpeace today accused President Bush of killing the Kyoto treaty."

IOW, if you're going to claim to be honest distributors of the news, you have to actually BE honest distributors of the news. Which means you don't play "He said, She said" when there are actual facts that speak to the situation.

Over and over again, when given the chance to point out that members of the Left are liars, the MSM repeatedly plays "He said, She said" instead.

You folks aren't willing to do the job you claim that you have. You have a world view, and an agenda, to push, and you refuse to publish that which violates your desires. So three cheers to President Bush for figuring out how to get around you, how to attack your power, and hopefully how to break it. You've abused your power for long enough, it's time for you to go.

Posted by: Greg D at February 19, 2006 10:51 PM | Permalink

Successful practitioners of heresthetic “have set up the situation in such a way that other people will want to join them—or will feel forced by circumstances to join them—even without any persuasion at all.”

So what's the difference between now and say, 20 years ago? Back then, the press was the unassailable authority on the political truth.

You know, Jenny, you got it entirely backwards. he Press were the "heresthetic" group. Bush, however, figured out that they didn't have the power to actually force him to play their game, so he doesn't.

The American People win, the President wins, and the Press loses. Great deal all around. (oh, yeah, the Democrats also lose, because they've been relying on the Press to do their heavy lifting for them. Which makes this path 4 for 4).

BTW, Jay, your TypeKey validation isn't working (it works fine for me everywhere else).

Posted by: Greg D at February 19, 2006 11:02 PM | Permalink

Jay, if your Cheney example keeps you warm at night, please do not let me interfere, but do think about my prior admonition.

As for the larger issue, count me in with the "national security right." Many things the government does in this war should remain opaque. But that is true in any war. While I agree that AQ is an enemy like no other, no nation in wartime benefits from seeing its signal intelligence methods blasted on the front pages of the NY Times.

Perhaps it will shock you to know that my personal preference would be to see Bill Keller tried and ultimately handed a blindfold and final cigarette. But I also recognize that that is a fantasy, and would represent a vastly unnecessary and counterproductive overreach. I also recognize that nothing the Bush Admin has done remotely approaches the Executive power extensions of Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR. I think the historical difference between Bush and those examples is not in his degree of overreach (except that his is far less), but rather that there is no longer a patriotic consensus about national goals and priorities, due to the long-term ramifications of the New Left ideology.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 19, 2006 11:09 PM | Permalink

ROFL.

Thanks, that was a good laugh, I needed it.

You know, I'm just trying to wrap my head around the concept of "career bureaucrats" as people who "value objective descriptions of reality", as opposed to valuing the ability to build their bureaucratic empires and personal power.

Like I said, thanks for the laugh. If you really believe that those people aren't people

, with agendas, desires, preferences, and differences of opinion, then you really need to get out more often.

Posted by: Greg D at February 19, 2006 11:09 PM | Permalink

A better option would be to split the country into two pieces, one a liberal democracy, and the second a christian theocracy, and both sides can then happily tend to their floods, raptures, and whatever else strikes their fancy.

Why, Village Idiot- where would the anarchists go? So maybe we need three countries. Oh but wait! What about the pacifists and the liberal hawks- who gets control of liberal land? Maybe we need four separate countries? Who would give Hitchens a green card? Where would David Gergen, professional moderate live?

Democracy is not inherently regressive, but it does require some ability to recognize the limited importance of your own personal opinion.

Posted by: MayBee at February 19, 2006 11:10 PM | Permalink

Laurence Haughton: Jay, Could you define (in a little more detail) what you consider to be incompetent paraphrasing. In other words tell me, "What are the characteristics that are present in paraphrasing that's incompetent?"

No one has ever asked me this question. Instead, I have had to peddle the answer without the advantage of having been asked.

By my definition, a competent paraphrase is where I tell you what you said, you read it, and you recognize it: yeah, more or less... "I wouldn't use those words, but yes."

Ever been in that situation? Then you know what an in-competent paraphrase is.

My first test of whether I am capable of having a serious discussion with you (not you, Laurence, anyone...) is not what you think, or what "side" you are on, but whether you are competent in paraphrase. If you are, I can immediately warm to what you are saying.

I do think it's a skill, mostly lacking.

And, if there's anything Web discussions are spectacularly lacking in--everywhere--it's this. But then journalism isn't so good at it either. (However, some reporters are.)

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 19, 2006 11:16 PM | Permalink

Greg, I disagree. The Press doesn't have an agenda. It looks like it only because they're lazy. Never claim malice when sloth and ignorance are sufficient explanations.

"Speak truth to power". Instead of thinking that through and acting on it, the Press has chosen a simplistic formulation: opposing the incumbent in all things constitutes "speaking truth to power". It's simple, easy, requires little or no ratiocination or planning, and involves no exertion.

And if you're being contrarian there's a ready source of thoughts and arguments opposed to the Administration, namely, the party out of power. Just grab the Opposition's rhetoric, file off the serial numbers, and Bob's your uncle.

Bias, to the extent it exists, is contributory rather than causal. The fact that most members of the Press are Democrats makes Democratic Party Thought readily available and comprehensible, so it gets used by default -- more laziness. That same effect mitigates the nihilism somewhat when Democrats are in power, or has in the past; things have changed a bit since Clinton, and we don't really know whether the braying pack of nay-sayers will change their behavior any if a Democrat gets elected next time. Myself, if nothing else changes I expect the next Democratic President to have a much harder time than he or she anticipates. Habits get ingrained.

Posted by: Ric Locke at February 19, 2006 11:19 PM | Permalink

Maybee: Five countries, it is, if you please (or is it six, that you prefer). As for me, I think I might be able to live with two. The differences that I see with some of the red staters and Bushites are so great that I do not even want to attempt to bridge those. It is like a third world country that one visits every once in a while. I am sort of curious, but if I can help it, I want to stay away from it.

Posted by: village idiot at February 19, 2006 11:22 PM | Permalink

"...if your Cheney example keeps you warm at night, please do not let me interfere."

I do think about it at night. Just the way I am. But what it keeps me is cold.

"Perhaps it will shock you to know that my personal preference would be to see Bill Keller tried and ultimately handed a blindfold and final cigarette."

Nope.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 19, 2006 11:38 PM | Permalink

Unless there's a working climate scientist in this thread, nobody here is really qualified to critique the science behind the global warming debate. And this is the root of the problem that science faces in 2006: Science works by its own rules, and those rules really just don't give a damn how you feel about that.

Science doesn't ask your opinion about pentaquarks. It doesn't stroke your wounded little ego when it comes to evolution. Science loses politically because it just doesn't make nice.

Science makes some people feel really small. Makes them feel bullied by reason and academic titles. What's more, science has a habit of telling people that what they desperately wish to be true isn't, and some of us simply cannot exist without our most cherished illusions.

I was raised on the same anti-intellecutalism, but I was lucky: When I was 17 a teacher asked me if all opinions were equal. Being a good little anti-intellectual American boy I said yes, they were.

So the teacher asked, "If your doctor told you you had cancer and your bus driver told you you didn't, would you say that both opinions were equal?"

We're not going to settle global warming by taking a poll of lay people, but here's the situation, and you can like it or dislike it: The vast majority of working climate scientists agree on the following basic statements: 1. The world is heating up; 2. Greenhouse gases generated by human civilization are contributing to this trend; 3. Even if we stopped producing those gases tomorrow, this this warming trend would continue for decades.

And no, I don't agree that we can agree to disagree on this topic. You can either accept these circumstances and join the conversation (which, by the way, includes all SORTS of interesting discussions on flawed data, radically different outcomes, competing theories, etc.), or you can stay in denial and talk amongst yourselves about how arrogant I am because I won't let you pretend that your non-qualified opinion matters. I don't care, because science doesn't care.

And here's the blunt, non-scientific part: We're not going to "fix" global warming. We can't solve this problem because we are the problem, and despite all our advancements, human beings as a species haven't changed all that much in 5,000 years. We can't save ourselves because that would require cooperating, and we won't cooperate because, deep down, the majority of us are driven by fear, not love or reason.

Which is why global warming has become an issue in the culture war. People who couldn't recite Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics talk about hard science as if it's some contestant on American Idol. "Oh, I don't believe that." They're not talking about climate science -- climate science is just another proxy for the way they feel about themselves and the world around them.

To wit (close eyes, click heels together, repeat in unison): "There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like home."

Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 19, 2006 11:41 PM | Permalink

Thanks. I like that: (a competent paraphrase is where I tell you what you said, you read it, and you recognize it: yeah, more or less... "I wouldn't use those words, but yes.")

So the person being paraphrased is the judge and the person doing the paraphrasing needs to understand what was said and what was meant? And anything less, from any point of view is not competent?

That's a great journalism lesson.

Posted by: laurence haughton at February 19, 2006 11:42 PM | Permalink

Daniel C -- Science works by its own rules, and those rules really just don't give a damn how you feel about that.

Why do you view science as a monolithic entity that operates utterly independently of petty human foibles? Have you ever seen the sausage get made?

climate science is just another proxy for the way they feel about themselves and the world around them.

And you are immune from any such projection, Mr. Science guy?

BTW -- I have more academic titles than I know what to do with. At my institution, they hand them out in lieu of pay raises.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 19, 2006 11:54 PM | Permalink

I think there's a meta-meta-story here, which is how far the story got from the facts, and how quickly it happened.

Folks, check out the Smoking Gun copies of the various reports. According to the police reports, (1) there was a local constable on the premises when it happened, who did the first investigation; (2) the Secret Service notified the Sheriff at about 5:40PM (not the next day); (3) the Sheriff sent someone the next morning because Constable Medellin was already there when the accident occurred; (4) a beer at lunch doesn't constitute "alcohol being served" at 5:30PM.

By the way, Jay, I agree with you nearly completely. This is unusual enough that I thought I'd note it.

Posted by: Charles Martin at February 20, 2006 12:14 AM | Permalink

Steve, see the police report. This never happened. Since it didn't actually happen, what would your point be --- other than the unreliability of the reporting of people in the mainstream press?

Posted by: Charles Martin at February 20, 2006 12:20 AM | Permalink

David Conover,

Please consult the list in this post, particularly Item 4 and subsequents.

Then take a deep breath, consume whatever mood-relaxant suits your personality and metabolism, and consider what (if anything) the following have in common:

--Eric the Red and his son, Leif;
--The Roman Empire;
--The Biblical Patriarchs;
--The rise and fall of the Harappan civilization.

After that, if you feel it incumbent upon you to continue your present course, do feel free. It's entertaining, and sock puppets are cheap.

Posted by: Ric Locke at February 20, 2006 12:35 AM | Permalink

I'm not a working climate scientist, but I am a working computer scientist who specialized in simulation of complex systems, and from that point of view I can tell you there are two things that keep cropping up in the discussion of global warming.

(1) the notion that global warming is anthropogenic ("caused by man") is supported primarily by highly abstracted models of complex systems that are known to be sensitive to inital conditions; these models don't deal at all well with some observations, eg, that there is global warming occurring on Mars of comparable magnitude to what is observed on Earth. This is based on measurement, not simulation; it considerably weakens the case for anthropogenicity.

(2) all the modeling, and all the statistical studies of proxy data from which the models are generated, show one very consistent regularity: it invariably points to the author of the particular study having been Right All Along. This is always a suspicious sign.

Posted by: Charles Martin at February 20, 2006 12:51 AM | Permalink

I really don't think that arguing the science of global warming is going to get us anywhere in a PressThink way, which is why I have not been participating.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 20, 2006 12:56 AM | Permalink

Hi, my name is maria Zuppello and I'm the first Italian reporter getting alone, with a small digital camera, without a crew to Antarctica.
I'm writing from New York where I'm working on a documentary about bioweapons with Danny Schechter. Former CNN and CBS producer Danny won 2 Emmy Awards and he's famous all around the world to be "the news dissector": every day he criticizes the American Media System.
I have been creating a blog about my experience with him
htttp://videojournalist.blogs.it
and he still has his own blog
www.mediachannel.org
You can write in Italian as well as in English
Keep in touch!
Maria

Posted by: maria zuppello at February 20, 2006 1:04 AM | Permalink

I really don't think that arguing the science of global warming is going to get us anywhere in a PressThink way

I agree; I was trying to use it as an example of something else.

David Conover got my goat. Sorry. I'll try to do better. Right now, though, I have to get the dogs in and the cat out and go to bed.

Posted by: Ric Locke at February 20, 2006 1:10 AM | Permalink

But before we leave global warming.....

I think Daniel's got it right. The earth is warming. And greenhouse gases producd by humans and their contraptions are contributing to that.

But whether the warming is actually statistically significant--that is, outside the bounds of normal temperature variation within a 100 or more year period--is not yet known, I think.

Nor is it known how much of this is simply normal climate change. The earth has gone through several warming/cooling phases.

The other thing is I think everyone who wants to write about global warming needs to list the cars they own, the square footage of their house, the BTUs consumed to heat the house, and the kilowatts spent to power it. Also, number of computers, since manufacturing them is a big polluter.

Posted by: JennyD at February 20, 2006 8:51 AM | Permalink

I watched Meet the Press in the re-run last night. Mary Matalin was on representing Cheney, with David Gregory of NBC News, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, and Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal.

Matalin was given most of the time to defend the VP (probably in a deal with Russert to get her to come on his show, rather than ABC, or CBS.) The other panelists mostly sat there and listened to her hold the floor.

Sneering, eye-rolling, contemptuous of the questions she was asked, ridiculing the press corps at every turn, acting like it pained her to be there, laying it on thick as her eyeliner with the culture of South Texas vs. the "parallel universe" of the Washington press, and stonewalling to the hilt (no one ever said it was Harry's fault!...) she completely dominated the proceedings.

Gregory started out apologizing for his very testy exchanges with Scott McClellan (good example of Rollback working perfectly) and it was downhill from there. Representing the White House press, he was inarticulate, unsure of his ground, on-the-run, unable to make good arguments. Here's a sample:

GREGORY: The vice president's office doesn't feel an obligation to disclose that to the American people directly. You do it through a ranch owner in Texas? It just -- it just strikes me as odd.

MATALIN: It strikes you as odd because you live in a parallel universe....

GREGORY: If you thought he did everything right... why did you do a big national interview this week?

MATALIN: Because you went on a jihad, David. For four days you went on a Jihad.

GREGORY: And that's an unfortunate use of that word, by the way. This is not what that was.

MATALIN: "Oh, OK. All right. How -- were you saving up for that line?"

"Saving up," as if Gregory knew ahead of time that Matalin would be bringing jihad into it. But that's the way she played it.

Maureen Dowd ("diva of the smart set," according to Mary) was starved for time by Russert, but she did get a few cuts in when allowed. ("We don't know his schedule. We don't always know where he is. We don't know what democratic institution he's blowing off at any given minute...") Paul Gigot chuckled about how there were more important things in the world. Aren't there more important things in the world? There must be more important things in the world.

Bottom line-- a wipe-out, no contest. Matalin began as the aggressor, stayed aggressive, practically spat at her opponents, spoke as much as the other guests put together, and did "let's play culture war" like a total pro.

Transcript here. Some of the video here.

On the lighter side, I have to present this summary from Rob Cordry, the guy who interviewed me when I was on the Daily Show:

“The Vice President is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. Now, according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be a 78-year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr.Whittington in the face.”

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 20, 2006 10:04 AM | Permalink

Mr. Cheney went on Fox and Friends because Mr. Gregory went on a jihad? Is Mr. Gregory that important in Mr. Cheney's worldview (some call it a bubble)? Mr. Gregory lives in a parallel universe? which one is that? is it the one in which the Iraqis are going to welcome the troops with flowers? or, is it one where between 65% to 70% of the country think that Mr. Cheney's shooting incident is newsworthy, and that Mr. Cheney should have been more forthcoming?

Going by Ms. Matalin's attitude during the interview, it seems like she may have confused 'Meet The Press' for 'The Jerry Springer Show'.

Separately, all these questions about Global Warming have been asked and answered as thoroughly as possible (a thousand times more thoroughly than is being discused here) during the past two decades by the scientific community (proponents and opponents included), and after all that, there is no doubt today that an overwhelming consensus exists in the global scientific community on the nature of the problem and the direction the solution would have to take. That we are rehashing the issue here for the umpteenth time is indicative of the extent of the rot that has set in.

Posted by: village idiot at February 20, 2006 11:02 AM | Permalink

Further, it seems like Mr. Gregory was on the panel so that he could (was he encouraged by the NBC brass to do this?) apologize to the powers that be for his petulant comments at the White House the other day. His presence on the show was not intended to provide a counterweight to Ms. Matalin. She just used him for her rant and he, being a journalist, was constrained from offering an equally combative response. A news reporter could never be effective in countering partisan hacks.

Posted by: village idiot at February 20, 2006 11:29 AM | Permalink

Jay, I belive you are in error when you paraphrase events in the following manner:

"After being told his remarks were on tape, Cheney stuck with his story." - Jay, above.

According to the transcript, Gloria Borger did not tell Cheney his remarks were on tape:

BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohammad Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."
Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.

BORGER: OK.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Never said that.

BORGER: I think that is...

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down.

BORGER: Well, now this report says it didn't happen.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: No. This report says they haven't found any evidence.

Indeed, in the post-mortem of this event, to which you linked, Borger explicitly indicates she could not exhibit to Cheney the exact quote for technical reasons:

Q. Let's talk about your recent interview with Vice President Cheney. Your "pretty well confirmed" quote of the Vice President was accurate yet Cheney denied it...
A. ...twice...we were at a remote location so there was no opportunity to put up the quotes.

...A. Yes. I did not have the exact quote with me and there was no way to display the quote like Tim Russert does on Meet the Press. That's what makes Tim Russert so great, the quote or video tape is displayed for everyone to see, so the discussion can move from there.

So we're at the same place on Cheney's misremembered quote as this place on Clinton's misremembered quote:

"In his April 2004 testimony before the Commission, Mr. Clinton was confronted with his 2002 comments on the Sudanese offer.
Initially he claimed he had been misquoted, according 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey."

Jay has placed a lot of weight on this event as supporting his "freedom from fact" thesis thesis - - I hope he'll reconsider it now that one of it's main pillars has evaporated.

Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 20, 2006 11:34 AM | Permalink

I respect that, and it is your blog Jay, but I like the using global warming debate as an example because it can actually progress independently of politics.

As lay people, we're not independently qualified to render a meaningful opinion on global warming, and that's not a slam on the intelligence of lay people. And yet we're asked, politically, to make decisions based on scientific claims related to global warming. So how do we connect these two realities? As journalists? Citizens? Voters?

How do we make intelligent decisions based on incomplete information? How do we evaluate claims? Which facts are most meaningful?

Science coverage is a great laboratory for press ideas, because the field has standards to which you can apply your comparisons. You can't say the same thing about politics, so politics is -- to me -- a poor choice for studying the principles of journalistic practice. Science may be a flawed human endeavor, but at least it doesn't suffer from "truthiness." Not for long, anyway.

Why do you view science as a monolithic entity that operates utterly independently of petty human foibles?

Great question, neuro, but wrong assumption. Science is famously subject to all the weakness of humanity. What separates science from journalism, though, is that science -- as a process -- operates based on transparent, published standards that are self-defining. What makes something scientific isn't whether it's ultimately proven correct or incorrect, but whether the people who created it followed the process correctly. On the other hand, what makes something journalism?

climate science is just another proxy for the way they feel about themselves and the world around them.
And you are immune from any such projection, Mr. Science guy?

Absolutely not! Bingo! None of us are. Which is why we need some process that accounts for these flaws in our communications, or eventually we all wind up just choosing our echo chambers. The PressThink of the White House says that's what we should do. I think Jay is wrestling with an alternative.

It may interest you that scientists working within the field of global climate studies debate these issues constantly. As I tried to indicate, global climate researchers are far from monolithic -- for example, there is no consensus on whether the effect of this warming will lead to a prolonged warming trend or a sudden cooling event. Pretty big deal, but they really just don't know.

So "GW is real" does not equal "Vote for Kyoto," and I never said it did (and personally I couldn't care less about Kyoto, since I don't think we have a chance in hell of reversing the CO2 problem).

If the subject is Cheney, then you line up the partisans and everybody's opinion is equal and you choose sides and squabble. Fair enough. But do you need another kind of journalism when a fair representation of the field would look like 97 scientists in agreement on the basics and three scientists (one or two of whom is funded by oil industry) calling the work of the other 97 "junk science?"

I think you do. And I think people will probably hate it.

Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 20, 2006 11:51 AM | Permalink

Daniel, Neuro-Con raised you academic titles.
Come on, you have to up the ante!

We trust NASA scientists to put a man on the moon, drones on Mars, but their take on climate science is bunk? Let's trust a guy who wrote novels about recreating dinosaurs from DNA, that's real science.

For the record, I drive a 98 mustang, which gets 24 mph on a good week. My house is 1700 sq ft with no solar panels, don't know the BTUs it takes to heat ir. I have 2 computers, one is a lap top. I guess Michael Dell can't talk about global warming since he makes computers.

Charles M, was Medellin working in a security capacity for the ranch or the Kenedy County or the state of Texas on that Saturday? What was Medellin's official capacity on Saturday night, ranch hand or constable? Once Whittington was at the hospital Saturday, Cheney was too tired, too shook up, felt so much remorse that he can't talk to his press office to put out a release, even to the Corpus Christy paper? Did Cheney sit down with Medellin on Saturday?

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 20, 2006 12:13 PM | Permalink

Charles Martin:
Thanks for the Smoking Gun documents.
But you need to read them more carefully yourself. They reveal that Ramiro Medellin is in no way, shape or form "a local constable." He is, rather a former member of the Kenedy County sheriff's department who is now employed by the Armstrong ranch.
(Side note: Despite its vast acreage, Kenedy County has a population of less than 500 people. In all likelihood, the Armstrong Ranch is its largest employer.)

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 20, 2006 12:23 PM | Permalink

TA: After the exact quotes were dug up, the VP's office was contacted the next day and asked about the discrepancy, and whether Cheney wanted to revise his claim that he had never said "it was pretty well confirmed." He declined. Source is an ex-student of mine who worked at CNBC. Thus: "After being told his remarks were on tape, Cheney stuck with his story." I don't know if they reported that on the program, "Capital Report," the next night. They may have.

Daniel: I think at this point the matter is troll bait. Conservatives, so-called, know that people like you consider the science of global warming, and the consenus among climatologists, a kind of totem of candor, or marker for seriousness in debate, along the lines of "if they deny this, they'll deny anything." They know it drives liberals crazy when they say, "actually there's no consensus on...."

I think your "97 scientists in agreement..." is too juicy, too tempting.

And so they do it, just to delight in the "can you believe this?" reactions, just to show that everything can and will be disputed, and of course to clear Bush of anything his opponents can charge him with. It's basically troll behavior. Fun, in other words.

If you really press them, they just switch to a different claim: that there's no consensus on what to do about global warming, which of course is true.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 20, 2006 12:57 PM | Permalink

I also like science as an example because it raises a very sensitive point for me: Appeal to authority.

I hate it when someone says "Well, the senate subcommittee report didn't find any evidence of that, so your question is pointless." And I've been in meetings with social scientists and experts who clearly didn't know their asses from a collective hole in the ground, but were sure as hell directly flaunting their titles. I understand the resentment that comes from asking anybody to believe something "because I said so, and I should know." It sets my teeth on edge.

But at some point, that's what advanced hard science requires of lay people, and for whatever reason, I've been able to make my peace with that.

So how can I square that with my general belief that rule-by-superior-credentials is a recipe for disaster? How can I get from specific statements (I trust this authority, but not that one) to a general principle?

And the truth is, I still can't square these things. I have not found a principle I can state in positive terms.

Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 20, 2006 1:02 PM | Permalink

Conceded. I'll let it be.

Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 20, 2006 1:07 PM | Permalink

Steve,

Ramiro Medellin is still a constable...as well as the ex-sheriff of Kenedy County (a position he was elected to whilst living at Armstrong Ranch...a Dem no less). But...obviously...Medellin can't be considered an impartial witness.

And there are a few Medellins who live on Armstrong Ranch.

Posted by: Ron Brynaert at February 20, 2006 1:11 PM | Permalink

I find this discussion fascinating in that "the press" is bestowing themselves more power than most people think that they should have. The White House press corps is assuming that they should be notified first because of a prior aggrement made with a prior administration.

Guess what, things change and sometimes there are losers. This time it is you. If you want to ask about change talk to the thousands of former AT&T employees throughout the country.

The real question is what now. I agree that the Administration needs to be looked at by the public for some of its secrecy. If we need a press to do that how do I get to choose who asks the questions? Who guards the gatekeeper?

With the advent of new tools the "central authority" and its distribution system are under attack. With this phrase I include not only the White House, but the White House Press room. After all if the notifing the press meanhy any member of a news organization, isn't Corpus Christie enough?

And if not why not?

Posted by: Tim at February 20, 2006 1:20 PM | Permalink

I am in broad agreement with Daniel's last several posts, which I think provide a sharp and urgent challenge to today's press. I have written about this here and here, for example. I would love to see a full-throated discussion of science reporting here.

In particular, I think that Daniel hits the nail on the head on the problem of appeal to authority, which is all-too-pervasive in political PressThink as well as science reporting, and which has been a major subplot on this thread. bush's jaw said it worst:

not coincidentally, bush's jaw also wrote:
Daniel, Neuro-Con raised you academic titles.
Come on, you have to up the ante!

As I hope was obvious from the context, I am not the one putting any great stake in my titles.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 20, 2006 1:32 PM | Permalink

Agreed. For the record, I have a BA in journalism, and that's it. The only personal appeals to authority that I can make with are related to experience, not education.

I can say this, though: My instructor in my first J-school class was the great Jim Schumaker. And if Shu were alive today and caught me talking all this high-minded theoretical jive, he'd likely call me on the phone and cuss me out for putting on airs and acting like an g-d egghead. And he'd probably be right, god bless him.

Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 20, 2006 1:45 PM | Permalink

It would be interesting to know how far up Cheney's press office your former student's question got. Do you or your former student know if Dick Cheney is yet aware a tape of his remarks exists (like Clinton was made aware)?

If your former student's inquiry was simply ignored, and especially if Cheney wasn't explicitly told that his words were on tape (as Clinton was) and had them exhibited to him, I don't believe one can fairly say:

"After being told his remarks were on tape, Cheney stuck with his story."

... rather than he simply misremembers it, as Clinton did.

It seems like you're in danger of relying on an approach to verification previously followed by 60 Minutes II on the National Guard story (CBS took as confirmation of the documents' authenticity Bartlett's non-challenge of their authenticity), and by Newsweek on the Guantanamo-Bible-flushing story (one official declined to respond, and one official didn't dispute it) - - where a declined offer to confirm is taken as confirmation (very bad form).

I think a main pillar of support for your (grand) thesis about Cheney's (as an example of this Administration) regard for facts requires more than an unconfirmed assumption about what Cheney supposedly knew and did.

Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 20, 2006 1:51 PM | Permalink

I told you how I know; you aren't impressed, fine. Apply the appropriate discount rate to my story, and to me. You sound like some oppo research man with orders to destroy. ("If I can topple this, I can topple his whole argument!") By the way, it's an anecdote, an illustration, not a pillar of anything. In my post the story gets a line of dialogue, with a link.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 20, 2006 2:04 PM | Permalink

Daniel -- I think that the current pace of scientific change, combined with the degree to which science increasingly impinges on our personal and political decisions, requires a re-thinking of the mission of our science press. I strongly believe that it is essential that we not yield aspects of our citizenship to an unelected elite of scientists. To that end, a critical mass of the citizenry must rise above innumeracy/scientific illiteracy (I would like to coin a single word for that), and our current science press seems incapable of assisting.

Reconciling current discoveries with a common-sense conservative worldview was a primary mission of my (now-dormant) blog. In the long run, I hope to provide at least a few new templates for filtering science news in a more civic-minded fashion.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 20, 2006 2:07 PM | Permalink

Professor Rosen: since I was one of the participants on the question of global warming, I would like to assure you my participation in the discussion wasn't trolling--In fact, as Daniel and neurocon have noted, we have a serious problem with science reporting in this country (not to mention serious illnumeracy on the part of the population as a whole). One of the best science reporting efforts is on NPR on Fridays I(Ira what's his name); but the inability of the mainstream writers to put scientific concepts, and worse, basic statistical concepts, in layman's terms is lacking. Worse yet, as many have noted, that irrespective if warming is occuring, what are the policy implications? and at what cost? It one thing to know the sea levels might rise; but what does that mean from a policy standpoint?

I really believe the science writing media has dropped the ball on explaining all sides of the debate. So no, Professor--global warming isn't a "totem of candor" used by conservatives to smoke out liberals---It is a metaphor for the failings of J-schools to teach their students how to explain science and its policy implications to a lay public.

Posted by: RogerA at February 20, 2006 2:40 PM | Permalink

Whether Cheney is a liar or operates with an alternate view of reality has yet to be proven… the jury is still out but working furiously. On the other hand, Bill Clinton has admitted to being a liar so why not take him at his word? (Isn’t this equivalent to “bias makes you dumber”?)

My point, however “breezily” I said it, is what real difference does it make to what the Press has to do to play its role adequately? We can agree that they all want to have “freedom-from-scrutiny” no matter who they are and what their reasons. The Press is not in trouble b/c of Bush and Cheney so is it not a lot of time and effort wasted to focus so much on that?

I’m just impatient, Jay. I can only take just so much theory (although it is fascinating) before my application side kicks in and I think, My Gosh, why don’t they just have the last page of every paper be a rebuttal to the news stories from the day before…or why don’t they have reporters have pay raises based on the accuracy of their reports (least complaints, anyway…?) , or why don’t they have hiring quotas based on political demographics as well as race, or why don’t they just require every reporter to post their full interviews or tape transcripts online, etc. etc. It’s always just talk, talk, talk but not enough or fast enough CHANGE. Arghhhhh.

Plus, I mean, come on. I’ve sent two of several kids so far through this darn school and the school newspaper is doing WHAT? Suspending editors and no blogs? In 2006, in the US of A? Arggghhhhhh.

Oh... and while we're speaking anecdotally, it's 0 degress here today at my house so all this global warming stuff is just plain silly. :)

Posted by: Kristen at February 20, 2006 2:52 PM | Permalink

Many things the government does in this war should remain opaque.

Such as what? The names of CIA Case officers or Pakistani agents?

Posted by: Alice Marshall at February 20, 2006 2:54 PM | Permalink

upping the ante on academic titles was tongue in cheek.

many commenters on the Right frame the press debate as a war between the WH press corp and the WH. and that the press is losing and how it will fight back?
i don't think the press views the administration as the enemy. there is no battle plan to fight back.
the relationship is adversarial by nature, but enemies? the power is in the control of the information, not the messenger.

as far as future administrations, if the strategy is rollback then they can use this WH's playbook and be very effective. i doubt that future WHs will be so disciplined where no one leaks like this one. McClellan as the prototype spokesman for the future? Gawd help us all.

as far as technology forcing changes between the press, sources and news consumers, i defer to Jay.

moreover, debating the quality science reporting would represent the debate of the sociology of a certain sector of the media community today?

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 20, 2006 2:59 PM | Permalink

"Do you or your former student know if Dick Cheney is yet aware a tape of his remarks exists (like Clinton was made aware)?"
-- Trained Auditor to Jay Rosen

He does if he or any of his minions watched the Daily Show that week.
Jon Stewart was the one "newsman" I know of that explicitly juxtaposed the new clip -- Cheney denying he ever said it -- with the old clip -- Cheney actually saying it.
It wasn't that hard to dig up the old clip; after all, Cheney said it on Meet the Press, right to Tim Russert's face.
Which, of course, raises a whole other question: Why did only Jon Stewart go to the trouble to actually fetch and air the tape ?

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 20, 2006 3:02 PM | Permalink

"I agree with Jay 100% that there is a pattern of de-credentialing anyone who opposes the Administration and its policies."

Might be so, but I didn't argue this, Richard. I argued that the Adminstration sets out with unusual zeal after what I called (with only partial phrase-making success) "the verification troops," those who are in the business of depicting reality, describing the world, and determining what are the facts on the ground-- anyone who can audit the Administration and be a check on its descriptions of how things are.

These might include (and this is one of the striking things about it) people who support the Administration's policies, but dispute the Administration's picture of what happened. They become the Bush team's "opponents," but opponents of what? This is the mystery my post is about. Many in the intelligence community would fit this description.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 20, 2006 3:07 PM | Permalink

Sorry, yes, Jay. I did (and did not mean to) mischaracterize what you wrote (as well as what I thought).

Their attacks on the credibility of those who oppose are clear and above-board (see Kerry, John; McCain, John; Richards, Ann, et al).

But it does look like they treat those who oppose; those who question; and those who are able to verify equally -- they attack the credibility by calling it into question.

Hence my confluxion.

I'm waiting to see what they have to say about this disgruntled former Homeland Security Chief.

Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 20, 2006 3:16 PM | Permalink

Professor Rosen: Sounds like your SERP program is a dynamite program--good on you, and good on NYU--I really like the colloquia approach to education. Would be very interested in the program evaluations by your graduates (I suspect they are very rewarding to you and the rest of the faculty). If I wasnt 65 years old, I would love to sign up for it, but I am still paying off student loans from earlier educational efforts.

On a related note, I think your "rollback thesis" is right on the money--and I am one who thinks a free press is a pretty good idea--so what strategies are available to counter the administration effort to weaken (at least) the White House press corps? What are the media's policy alternatives so to speak--

Posted by: RogerA at February 20, 2006 3:18 PM | Permalink

Thanks to everyone (Neuro, Daniel, V.Idiot, Jenny D. Jaw etc.) for the side dialog on science. I'm trying hard as a layperson to understand competing claims and the reliability of those claims in these climate debates.

As a novice it was suggested to me that I read what Karl Popper had to say about the subject:

"Thus I may be utterly convinced of the truth of a statement; certain of the evidence of my perceptions; overwhelmed by the intensity of my experience: every doubt [and doubter] may seem to me absurd. But does this afford the slightest reason for science to accept my statement. The answer is, 'No'; and any other answer would be incompatable with the idea of scientific objectivity." (from "The Logic of Scientific Discovery")

That seems to say that science doesn't want anyone to "believe" in it. Real science is politely open to challenge, calm when confronted, and scientific (not personal or illogical) in it's counterarguments. (Is that a competent paraphrase?)

Posted by: laurence haughton at February 20, 2006 3:33 PM | Permalink

That seems to say that science doesn't want anyone to "believe" in it. Real science is politely open to challenge, calm when confronted, and scientific (not personal or illogical) in it's counterarguments.

I think that's probably fair in the abstract, but as others have pointed out, the practice of science is often as ugly as our other endeavors.

Peer review? Great process -- but who gets peer reviewed? I wrote a story on science heretics -- fully credentialed experts who knock down big-time research grants yet can't get their most radical ideas peer-reviewed. Want drama? Look at archaeology -- these guys build entire careers around arcane theories, and they're not going to give up their life's work without a fight just because new data challenges their assumptions.

Scientists are people, and they're not always calm or polite or fair to each other or to new ideas. But science, as a process, does tend to be self-correcting over time. Accordingly, science progresses.

The same cannot be said for politics.

Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 20, 2006 4:09 PM | Permalink

By the way, Jay, I think it's great that y'all have that SERP program.

Here's one anecdotal indicator of the state of professionalism in the media. About a year ago, having developed a science beat at my paper where none had existed before, I applied to join a professional organization of science writers, in hopes of attending some seminars (on my own dime) our joining some professional-development discussions.

Problem was, the organization requires that all new applicants must be sponsored by a member. And I didn't know any members.

I followed a link that promised to take me to a person who would help applicants who didn't have friends in the group get sponsorship, but I received no reply. Weeks later I wrote back saying "You know, I'd really like to join your group and give you my money, but you're going to have to write me back." This prompted an apologetic e-mail from some guy, who promised to get back with me soon. He never did. I lost interest.

Readers suspect we're an elite club more interested in keeping them at bay and enjoying the personal perks of access and power. I don't know what we are, really. Whatever it is, it isn't quite a profession -- and if it was, I probably wouldn't qualify anyway.

Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 20, 2006 4:21 PM | Permalink

> Real science is politely...

that's the ideal. See Mr. Conover above.
At least the endeavor's structural biases aren't susceptible to PR, or at least not anywhere near as much as, say, the opinion pages of a newspaper.

Apologies to Jay for my contributions to the global warming sidetrack - we should have moved that discussion to the climatologists' blog.

It's funny...we KNOW better...but still feel that we can get through, so hit the Post button, with all too predictable results.

Here's a procedural suggestion (which I think I've made before, but given that the Theme du Comments is "do the same hopeless thing over and over again expecting different results"...):

How about if, purely in the spirit of scientific inquiry, you designate one (future) PressThink post as requiring on-topic comments? and then use a heavy hand - yours or a minion's - to delete any comment that strays from the topic? I know that if I knew my 10 min. of composition would be immediately wiped from the planet, I wouldn't write it. (At least not a 2nd time)

Posted by: Anna Haynes at February 20, 2006 4:30 PM | Permalink

I'm not all the way through Popper's book but I don't think he was writing about "the abstract."

As for your comment that "scientists are people" I'm sure you must mean something more than that. Popper is drawing a line between scientific thinking and thinking that is incompatable with science, I think.

Posted by: laurence haughton at February 20, 2006 4:38 PM | Permalink

Daniel is pretty much on the money with respect to science--in the abstract, its great; if you, however, are a doctoral candidate you chose your committee based on their personal politics and their ability to get along with your idea; if you are junior faculty, you have to be careful to suck up to the tenured folks as your name comes up for tenure (would they do THAT?--in a friggin second)--Scientists have big egos for precisely the things Daniel cites---

Think about it: they are highly trained folks, often having gone through a rigorous academic program, and even more often bereft of genuine social contact--they are wedded to their theories and their research--they spend their lives on their hypothese and research; and if someone publishes something that casts doubt on what they have done--well, the respond like most people would.

Then there is the grant seeking business (which more resembles classical economic rent seeking)--most scientific efforts are supported by grants; you have to suck up to the grantors--they have the money. And if you want a well paying job in science, you have to either become a nobel laurate (tough) or work for a national science lab for the feds--

OK--I have painted the scene harshly, but if there are any untenured faculty out there reading this--how far am I off the mark?

Posted by: RogerA at February 20, 2006 5:00 PM | Permalink

Here's my buddy Matt Stoller at My DD:

- Jay Rosen has a fascinating post, in which he mentions that John Harris, editor of the WaPost, refused to allow Jay to put up a Q&A Jay had done with him earlier. I don't know why Harris didn't let him; I do wish Jay would describe the ground rules by which he did an on-the-record interview and then allowed Harris to retroactively make it off-the-record. Unless I'm missing something?

As I said in my post, I don't know why he changed his mind, either.

The only thing Matt's missing is that my Q and A's have different ground rules. I define them as co-authored blog posts; and anything co-authored has to be approved by both. The way I do them requires collaborative editing.

The goal is to make it say exactly what we--the interviewee and I--want it to say; and to give the person I'm doing the interview with a chance to go into depth, make complex but careful arguments, and achieve fine distinctions with their words. After all, it's writing, not talking. And it's writing that is broken up and done over a period of weeks, 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes at a time.

A telephone interview or an interview in the Oval Office is an event, though staged, and the article made from the interview ought to reflect what happened during that event. Here, the "event" is the entire process of crafting the Q and A to say exactly what Jim Brady or Bill Grueskin have to say.

I send you some questions, you send back the answers. I read what you wrote, think about it, send some follow-up questions; you send some more answers. I think about it some more and ask another round of questions, you send some more answers. If I have to I will ask a final Q.

Then I put it all together into one Q and A. Of course the person who put all that work into the exchange--10, 15 e-mails--will want to see it; and the agreement I make beforehand is that they will see it, and they can change it, too. If the whole point is to make it say exactly what they want it to say, this creates maximum accountability for their words.

Thus one of the goals is to make "I was misquoted!" or "out of context, out of context!" not applicable. That's an advantage. There are disadvantages. The spontaneous outburst, the unguarded moment don't happen. The last minute sinking that my Q and A with Harris suffered shows another disadvantage. (First time that's happened, and it was pretty disappointing.)

Nonetheless, for my purposes--exploring in detail the press think of key journalists--this is a sound method. It creates not an adversarial situation but a "we're doing this together" situation. There are other interviews of this type; PressThink didn't invent the form by any means. The Paris Review Writers-at-Work interviews available online, are the most well-known.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 20, 2006 5:06 PM | Permalink

We've witnessed on this thread why Conover's idea won't work---those who throw up Ramiro Medillin as a valid source will be dismissed by others. We can'
t even agree on who tells the truth.

As to the question as to why John Harris refused to permit Jay his Q & A----don't you think that that Angry Firedoglake People may have something to so with it? Why would any rational person choose to endure the wrath of the Angry Firedoglake People as Brady and Howell did? Doesn't this remind you of the journalists who caved to the Angry Islamists when they rationalised that the "public's right to know" didn't include the cartoons that have have caused deaths worldwide? So much for Our Fierce Watchdogs, who don't want to hurt anyone's feelings except those who they know can't hurt them.

I'm so impressed.

Posted by: abigail beecher at February 20, 2006 6:27 PM | Permalink

Hell, Jay, I'm not sure it gets anywhere in the science blogs, but I hate seeing these declarative pronunciamentos saying things I don't think are nearly as settled as all that.

Posted by: Charles Martin at February 20, 2006 6:41 PM | Permalink

Gregory started out apologizing for his very testy exchanges with Scott McClellan (good example of Rollback working perfectly) and it was downhill from there.

Jay, it's your theory so perhaps you understand Rollback better than I do (kidding!), but is this really a good example?
Earlier you discussed the decades-old agreement between the press and the WH, starting with Kennedy. There has definitely been a press roll-forward during those decades. I can't imagine a WH reporter throwing a fit to Salinger demanding to know the whereabouts of JFK on the night Monroe died and why the press wasn't told immediately.
Gregory apologized not for pushing a story, but for bad behavior that was a poorer reflection on him that on the WH. His fit would have been inappropriate under Kennedy, Reagan or Bush, and had he not pushed the relationship/behavior forward, he wouldn't have had to walk back.

My thinking is more along the lines of Paul Gigot on the same panel. The national press dials every Bush story and sub-scandal up to a 10. Had this story stayed around a 5, where it probably belonged, this wouldn't have become an unneccessary front on the rollback wars.

Posted by: MayBee at February 20, 2006 6:46 PM | Permalink

Unfortunately, even science has become so politicized that we can't trust it.

I recall during the 04 election that a group calling itself "Scientists for Truth", or some such, denounced GWB. But far from being neutral scientists, when some digging was done, it was revealed that said "scientists" were financed by one of the many trusts of Mrs. John Kerry.

Sorry, but even "science" isn't neutral anymore----follow the money!

Posted by: rgrafton at February 20, 2006 6:56 PM | Permalink

Steve, re Medellin, as noted above he was both currently a Constable and was previously the County Sheriff. That link is to the current county directory. Give him a call, and see what he thinks of being told his sworn statement isn't reliable.

In Texas, a Constable is a licensed and bonded Peace Officer, a police officer in fact. I found that link in approximately 0.992 seconds via Google (measured by the Firefox page load clock).

I don't think my reading skills are at question; perhaps you should look to your own.

Posted by: Charles Martin at February 20, 2006 7:02 PM | Permalink

In the the spirit of temporarily swinging the truly bizarre climate conversation back to the question of the moment -- Dick Cheney, the art of stonewalling and Katharine Armstrong -- permit me a response to Charles Martin:

Call me a romantic, call me a cynic -- hell, call me a romantic cynic -- but Charles, it seems to me that you are dodging the larger point here.
No one is calling Ramiro Medellin a liar. But, as Ron Brynaert points out above, neither Medellin (nor any other employee on the payroll of the Armstrong Ranch) can be considered "an impartial witness" -- not when Katharine Armstrong, the boss lady, has already issued her version of events.
In a vast county (approximately 30 miles by 50 miles) with a population of only 414 souls --down from 553 in 1980 -- jobs are scarce. Most of them are going to be availabe only at the 50,000-acre ranch that dominates the county.
Feudalism, anyone ?
No wonder Cheney likes the place. What's not to like ?

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 20, 2006 8:19 PM | Permalink

Steve, you've got the phone number. Give the Constable a call, and ask him if he thinks you're suggesting he's lying.

Or, better yet, withdraw the libelous suggestion that Constable Medellin has committed perjury and caused a false report to be filed.

Posted by: Charles Martin at February 20, 2006 8:39 PM | Permalink

Ramiro Medellin didn't make a sworn statement. He was quoted in Sheriff Salinas' report.

Medellin was also quoted here, if we can trust the MSM:

Ramiro Medellin, a county constable who also works at the ranch, said he had no doubts it was an accident. But it did not surprise him that Sheriff Salinas did not question anyone the evening of the shooting. Secret Service agents told the sheriff that it was an accident, and he trusted their word.

"This is the federal government, and they run the show," Constable Medellin said Tuesday. "They say who comes and goes. They are in charge. I know from experience."

The incident report of where Whittington was standing relative to Cheney.

Mr. Cheney told me he and Pam Willeford had walked approximately 100 yards from the first location and met up with Oscar Medellin and the hunting guide Bo Hubert. There was a single bird that flew behind him, and he followed the bird by line of sight from counter clockwise direction not realizing that Harry Whittington had walked up from behind and had positioned himself approximately 30 yards to his west. Mr. Cheney said the reason Harry Whittington sustained injuries to his face and upperbody was that Mr. Whittington was standing on ground that was lower than he (Cheney) was standing on.

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 20, 2006 8:48 PM | Permalink

BJ, if you read the actual report, you'll note that Medellin's statement is referred to as an "affidavit". That is to say, "a sworn statement".

Posted by: Charles Martin at February 20, 2006 9:02 PM | Permalink

This is a remarkable analysis. I think no-one has said that this approach is only possible if the Administration has abandoned the notion of public service altogether.

Posted by: anwaya at February 20, 2006 9:21 PM | Permalink

Charles, my links were to the same incident report. Ramiro Medellin was not an eyewitness to the shooting.
I'm not a lawyer, but the affidavit is Salinas' not Ramiro Medellin's. Unless, Medellin can provide a statement or affidavit by relaying information from the Secret Service. And that would make Ramiro Medellin a Kenedy County constable in his official duty Saturday?

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 20, 2006 9:26 PM | Permalink

Steve, you've got the phone number. Give the Constable a call, and ask him if he thinks you're suggesting he's lying.
Or, better yet, withdraw the libelous suggestion that Constable Medellin has committed perjury and caused a false report to be filed.
Posted by: Charles Martin

Fortunately, Charles, I have never said he was either "lying" or "commiting perjury" (which he could only do in a court of law, which has yet to be convened. And I think we both know it will not come to that.)
To the contrary I said, "No one is calling Ramiro Medellin a liar."
So stop putting words in my mouth.
And try to pay attention.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 20, 2006 9:28 PM | Permalink

Global warming aside for the moment, the press' use of science is miserable. You will recall the NYT's hysterical announcement that some of the Arctic Ocean was melting (in the summer). It hadn't done so for fifty million years.
Remember the Alar hoax?
The NYT neglected to tell us which of their foreign bureaus had been watching the Arctic for the last fifty million years, and that the Arctic Ocean always melts--partly--in the summer. They had to haul that one back.
They wouldn't have, absent the nasty know-nothings who lack j-degrees but think they still know something.
But the suspicion remains that they'd have run with it as long as they could because remaking the economy with global warming as an excuse--plus getting Joe Lunchbucket to live in rabbitwarrens as he should--needs such support.

You certainly wouldn't expect the NYT or other MSM outlets to tell us about the Norse running cattle in Greenland a thousand years ago, or that it couldn't possibly have been anthropogenic, and that it was not a disaster anywhere that we know of, and that it was warmer then than now.

Since it's clear what they will tell us--true or not--and what they won't, I guess we will have to look elsewhere.

It is those little things, like measuring rate of melting by summer figures versus autumn figures, or forgetting to tell us of the shrinking ice(?) caps on Mars that cause one to think about dumping the MSM.

It's a scientific magazine threatening to sue a writer for quoting them too extensively when he was defending himself against their charges--he quoted the charges--that makes you wonder even if "science" is pure and clean. See Bjorn Lomborg--The Skeptical Environmentalist.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 20, 2006 9:34 PM | Permalink

I wonder if poor Medellin, working at the feudal Armstrong ranch, was ever forced to call himself Lucy Rameriz and meet with Bill Burkett?

Some 'facts' are more believable than others, eh?

Posted by: MayBee at February 20, 2006 9:59 PM | Permalink

BJ, the report says (on page three) that Medellin "dictated to me as I wrote his affadavit" then notes that affadavit as being attached. That would be Medellin's affadavit. As far as if Medellin was acting in his official capacity, I think you'll find that the description of a constable's duties I linked doesn't say "when on duty." I realize it's different back East, but out here a county cop on the scene can't say "I'm not on duty."

In any case, though, the report makes it clear (by, for example, calling out the fact that Sheriff Salinas relied on "Constable Medellin's report") it's clear he was acting in his official capacity.

Steve, are you seriously trying to say that you're suggesting that Medellin's affadavit is not truthful and that he's caused a false police report to be filed, but you're not saying he's lying?

With a straight face?

You might also want to look back at all those discussions of perjury that happened during the impeachment trial. I think you'd find that lying about a material matter in an affadavit is perjury, and that causing a false police report to be filed is another crime.

Posted by: Charles Martin at February 20, 2006 10:03 PM | Permalink

Richard Aubrey, not everyone who understands that global warming is a real and human-exacerbated threat gets their understanding of the science from reading the New York Times.

Come to think of it, that's what Inhofe's man told me, that global warming is a liberal media issue.

This is the real problem with decertification.

Once the press (and other knowledge professionals) have been delegitimized, then there is no longer any such thing as verifiable truth.

Now why would a One Party Government want that?
I think Anwaya nails it.

Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 20, 2006 10:19 PM | Permalink

No, Charles, I'm not saying that "Medillin's affadavit is not truthful" nor am I saying that "he caused a false police report to be filed."

Those are your words, ascribed to me.

For the third time, what I did say -- listen closely, now -- is, "No one is calling Ramiro Medellin a liar."

What part of that is it that you don't understand ?

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 20, 2006 10:25 PM | Permalink

Page 3 is the third page of the report by Deputy Sheriff Gilberto San Miguel who wrote that he spoke on Feb. 14 to Geraldo Medellin who dictated to San Miguel his affidavit. Do we have a copy of Geraldo's affidavit? on Page 2, San Miguel said Geraldo helped him ID the other people in the hunting party. San Miguel did not refer to Geraldo as constable.
Are you saying that Geraldo is constable Ramiro Medellin?

In the supplemental report, Sheriff Salinas mentions his call and conversation with Ramiro Medelline.

In the East and everywhere in the country, police officers moonlight as security guards etc. and when they do, they don't act in their official duty if there is an incident on their moonlighting job.

In constable Medelline's case, it is not clear if he answered Salinas as Armstrong's employee or Kenedy County constable.

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 20, 2006 10:26 PM | Permalink

Jay. Ref Norse et al.

Book review. Op ed. Not news. The function of an op ed is to dissent from the paper's prevailing wisdom, hence "op" ed instead of merely "ed".

The review was of Diamond's book and the op-ed was by Diamond, the mention buried. That the NYT considered it news as in facts it would be nice to know in conjunction with us all burning up in an unprecedented heatwave....nothing.

Nice try. Scratch that. Lousy try.

BTW, I read "Guns, Germs, and Steel", and even reviewed it for Amazon. I didn't think much of it, spotting several cases of special pleading, planted axioms, and logical bullstuffs.

So I'd be interested in a news or analysis piece where the NYT actually looked at the Medieval Warm Period as a matter of some import in the current discussion.

Got any?

P. S. The Medieval Warm Period is also known as the Little Climactic Optimum. It appears to have been a world-wide phenomenon, contrary to the wishes of those for whom it is so inconvenient that the fallback position is that it only affected the North Atlantic.

Of course, the Holocene Maximum was warmer still, the Roman Warm Period was kind of copacetic, while the Dark Ages Cold Period and the Little Ice Age were pretty grim.

You have to think....Aubrey got a modest GPA at Enormous State University so he could get a degree for OCS, was a grunt and now sells....
If he knows this stuff, how about all the smart people, which is practically everybody else? Think about that. The press is telling people stuff they know better than. What do you think the effect is?

Maybe somebody's busted.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 20, 2006 10:34 PM | Permalink

While I think it is commendable that NYU has the SERP program to which Jay pointed earlier, it appears that the program's scientific curriculum is heavily geared towards specific content areas, rather than scientific reasoning, statistics, methods/research design, etc.

It is also interesting that "Environmental" reporting gets its own billing in the Program's title, as against all other domains of science. Why is that? Is the study of the environment fundamentally different from all other disciplines at the scientific level? Or is there a cadre of young, eager J-students who are specifically drawn to environmental reporting? I wonder why that might be, and what impact that might have on their reporting?

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 20, 2006 10:47 PM | Permalink

Oh, good, Steve, then you do believe Medellin's affadavit is truthful and reliable. Well, that pretty much settles it, then: it was an accident.

I don't know what all that feudalism stuff was about, then, but what the hell. (Actually, I do: you not only are saying in so many words that Medellin isn't a reliable witness, you think that we mere mortals can't tell a prevaricating weasel when we see one.)

BJ, as far as I can see Medellin's affadavit isn't in the stuff at Smoking Gun, but that doesn't change the fact that the report specifically notes that Medellin dictated an affadavit, that he was on the scene, and that the Sheriff acted on his report. In city-boy terms, he was the investigating officer. It's a helluva sight better source than the Dallas Morning News stories.

Seriously, now, though, let's consider what we're being offered here. We have an accident that is probably the most common kind of bird-hunting accident; we have a sitation in which the police report, the reports of various eye-witnesses, and even the report of the guy who got shot all say it was an accident. On the other side, we've got one incompetent "ballistics" test --- in which they only got every significant detail wrong about the weapon --- and a bunch of wink-wink nod-nod about Texas constables and "feudalism".

You just end up looking like fools, guys.

Posted by: Charles Martin at February 20, 2006 10:59 PM | Permalink

that doesn't change the fact that the report specifically notes that Medellin dictated an affadavit

except that Geraldo Medellin dictated an affidavit, not constable Ramiro Medellin.

Geraldo is likely the same person as Jerry Medellin, (scroll down on the link) who was with the hunting party.

While I enjoy splitting hairs, it's a dead horse. the Cheney shooting story is over. could have been over that first Sunday.

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 20, 2006 11:13 PM | Permalink

Case in point.

Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 20, 2006 11:16 PM | Permalink

I don't find any "scandal" in what Cheney did. I find the elements of a political style that can and should be criticized. I have tons of questions about it.

Making a "gate" out of this is, I think, a bad idea. To a certain extent I agree with our friends calling themselves conservatives who say the press hands overplayed the incident, blew up so they could vent frustration, not because there's so much to get to the bottom of here.

Maybe something nefarious went on after the shooting; can't say I know. Could be the story changes, and bad stuff comes out. Right now I think moving on is the best idea for everyone, but it won't happen for all.

I'm struck by McClellan's role. In my view he's the key to it all. One thing: He keeps the old rituals running so that the picture looks familiar enough to disguise the new logic that's in place and working.

The press doesn't grasp it yet: they closed the briefing room by putting McClellan up there. He's the angel of death, information-wise. The dead podium has a live person "manning" it, and so the press is tricked into thinking its world is basically entact. But it has to exist in a constant state of rage at a system designed to frustrate the search for information.

McClellan tells unbelievable stories on purpose, stoking the rage. He insults the press corps non-stop, and refuses legitimate and not legitmate requests for information on the same basic principle of always saying no deal.

The strangest part to me, and the part where the novelists ought to take over, is that all the regulars--David Gregory, for example--say Scott is such a "nice guy." They say how much they like him.

There stands the angel of information death at the White House podium: a nice person!

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 20, 2006 11:43 PM | Permalink

Jay -- Why do you insist on portraying the WH PC as hapless victims of rollback? Do you not acknowledge any prior pattern of roll-forward by the press? Or the patterning of the most relentlessly anti-administration series of news cycles since 1974? Your reasoning is curiously analogous to the Chomskian view of foreign affairs, in which the evil US is the only prime agent, and helpless 3rd worlders can only react in fear and anger to the behemoth.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 20, 2006 11:53 PM | Permalink

You mean after all the gaseous blather about Constable Medallin, affidavits and whatever hell else Mr. Martin was talking about, Ol' Charles didn't notice that Geraldo and Ramiro were different names?

Can't wait to hear his take on global warming. Actually, I can. So let's don't.

I knew when the shooting event happened that it would take about 10 minutes before it became another rallying point for the partisans. Apparently I was a little generous.

As it turns out, it's been more interesting for the way the White House used it to bolster it's policies on the media. Ignore them. Or use them.

Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 21, 2006 12:01 AM | Permalink

Oh, for heaven's sakes, Jay's not saying the White House press are 'helpless victims.' They don't have to be provoked. And they don't have to decertify themselves. But they do. That doesn't mean the White House isn't trying its best to make it happen.

And I'm not buying the "most relentlessly anti-administration series of news cycles since 1974" schtick. Bush didn't get the Patriot Act and the current war in Iraq despite the press, you know. If the media are paying more attention now (and I'm not really convinced that's true) then it's beause even some conservatives are getting a little nervous about this White House.

Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 21, 2006 12:23 AM | Permalink

Neuro: I never said the White House press corps were hapless victims of rollback. Once you again--fourth or fifth time this thread--you prove yourself incompetent at paraphrase.

But if you doubt me, or don't like the sound of that, you are welcome to find the passages where I describe the press as helpless victims and circulate them so that others may know where you come by your wacky summaries.

I do portray the White House as very active in Rollback, perhaps you are reacting to that. I say McClellan "provoked." Only in your fevers does that mean the press is off the hook. Being provoked takes two; even a five year-old knows that. Like any partner in an abusive relationship, the press is a participant all the way.

So I would say the press is deeply complicit in the action of Rollback and also the object of the action; that's part of the reason I asked John Harris about it. And to me it is a legitimate subject of debate whether the news media got too incorporated, too far into the White House.

Here's a post I wrote a year ago about changing course.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 12:26 AM | Permalink

Jay, Jay.

If villains all looked like villains life would be easy. Stereotypes are useful shorthand in fiction, like the prisoners' stripes that used to be common for bad guys in cartoons, but they don't help in real life.

If all corporate villains were heavy-set and bald, and smoked cigars while compulsively stroking a long-haired white cat, it would be easy to pick them out of the crowd. If all muggers were dirty-faced guys with disheveled hair and bad teeth it would be easy to cross the street instead. And we wouldn't need a Press at all, would we?

Posted by: Ric Locke at February 21, 2006 12:45 AM | Permalink

Bloggers craft notes: for your files on the syndication era in blogging.

For the Huffington Post, I split this piece and made it two.

PressThink, Dick Cheney Did Not Make a Mistake By Not Telling the Press He Shot a Guy (Feb. 16)

became

It Was Not a Mistake When Dick Cheney Routed Around the Press. Just the Cheney analysis. (HP, Feb. 18)

"What if Bush Changed the Game on You?" My 1,107-Word Question to the Political Press. Just the question to Harris, with a new introduction. (HP, Feb. 20)

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 12:47 AM | Permalink

Jay -- I can now see why so much of journalism is mere stenography. Eminent J-School professors seem incapable of appreciating the difference between a paraphrase and an inference. Are you really that dense and pedantic, or is it just an act?

Hypothetical example:
Blogger: I know this guy-- let's call him S -- he always seems to reek of paint thinner. You can practically see it radiating out of his pores.
Blogger (subsequent post): I saw S today. Man, he was staggering and slurring his speech.
Blogger (comment, later in thread): Nothing S says ever makes any sense. And whenever I see him, he is pulling out a hip flask. He's been fired from three jobs in the last year, and I even heard he was arrested on an airplane once for disorderly conduct.
Commenter: Wow, you're really painting a picture of an alcoholic!
Blogger: What are you talking about?! I never said any such thing. Show me a quote -- Here are a bunch of links! Where did you get such a wacky idea?!?

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 21, 2006 1:02 AM | Permalink

Difference between a paraphrase and an inference... hmmm, well I guess there's no problem, then. It's your inferences that are incorrect.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 2:09 AM | Permalink

Rollback hits the National Archives.

Money Quote:

Anna K. Nelson, a foreign policy historian at American University, said she and other researchers had been puzzled in recent years by the number of documents pulled from the archives with little explanation.
"I think this is a travesty," said Dr. Nelson, who said she believed that some reclassified material was in her files. "I think the public is being deprived of what history is really about: facts."
blockquote>

Rollback=Memory Hole.

Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 21, 2006 2:12 AM | Permalink

Why wasn't this the money quote:

The restoration of classified status to more than 55,000 previously declassified pages began in 1999

or this:

Experts on government secrecy believe the C.I.A. and other spy agencies, not the White House, are the driving force behind the reclassification program.
"I think it's driven by the individual agencies, which have bureaucratic sensitivities to protect," said Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, editor of the online weekly Secrecy News. "But it was clearly encouraged by the administration's overall embrace of secrecy."

National Archives officials said the program had revoked access to 9,500 documents, more than 8,000 of them since President Bush took office.

----

You will note that depending on when in 1999 the reclassification program started, the number of documents reclassified each year under Bush and Clinton could be almost identical.

Finally, the question left unanwered is this: are these the trusted career intelligence officials that ran this program under two different administrations? Or the political intelligence guys?

I won't even bother to make a Sandy Berger joke.

Posted by: MayBee at February 21, 2006 3:34 AM | Permalink

Jay. Still quick on your feet, I see.

The point about the links to the NYT's mentions of the Medieval Warm Period was that I had asked for something like using the information as part of a news story. Sorry I was unclear when I asked about "mention", but I figured the import was there, considering the path of the discussion.

You ostensibly were showing me where the NYT considered it news rather than spending a penny's worth of ink on somebody else's mention of it. But you were wrong. The NYT still hasn't, then.

Back when the SDI was first proposed the Concerned Scientists of America--I believe that was the name--opposed it because of the cost. Turned out they'd overstated the cost by about 1400%. To their credit, they corrected themselves in Congressional testimony which had already been scheduled. Needless to say, other SDI opponents didn't bother with the correction.
Two interesting things resulted. One was that several observers suggested that scientists never make calculation mistakes of that magnitude. Never. Never by mistake, that is. So one is left to think they lied, but were sharp enough to figure out a lot faster than journalists the effects of being caught at it. Or perhaps there were opponents of SDI for some other reason which was so powerful that, all by accident, the finger hit the zero button on the calculator a couple of extra times out of sheer nervousness.

The other curious thing was that, having been publicly deprived of their ostensible reason for opposing SDI, they continued to oppose SDI.

So even appeals to the authority of scientists can be dicey.

But, as I say, see Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist".

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 21, 2006 7:33 AM | Permalink

Someone is going to need a long, long article some day to explain how conservatives, so called, became the post-modernists, doubtful about the possibility of establishing anything as fact, chuckling about the authority of science, and generally acting as if there is no truth, only politics.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 10:03 AM | Permalink

That's funny, Jay. Conservatives as post-modernists.

But, science is one of the new religions. Just like the press is a religion.

And that's a nice seque into this column about the press religion breaking down. A writer at the Merc News says this:

I suspect I speak for many with whom I share this building when I say that I like the paycheck, but that the Mercury News is more than a job. When we came to work here we came with a mission. We wanted to shine light in dark corners and make the world a better place. We wanted to expose corruption. We wanted to provoke thought, debate and, yes, laughter.
Sure, some of us are arrogant. Yes, we make mistakes.

But at our best, we knit together a community. We tell stories that help you live your life. We expose chiselers who put political expediency above those they serve. We write about your kids' dance recitals or your favorite restaurant. We cover your sports team. We find the heroes at your local school and the villains in your local neighborhood.

Of course we're worried about our hides. But we're also worried about you and the loss of quality journalism that might occur under owners who care little about such matters.

Posted by: JennyD at February 21, 2006 10:46 AM | Permalink

Excellent essay. At the end of your questions to Harris, you write, "And why shouldn’t you guys—the Post and the press corps at large— change the game on Bush and company?"

I'm curious -- what could/should they do to change it? Thanks

Posted by: Ken at February 21, 2006 11:25 AM | Permalink

"...neither Medellin (nor any other employee on the payroll of the Armstrong Ranch) can be considered "an impartial witness" -- not when Katharine Armstrong, the boss lady, has already issued her version of events.
In a vast county (approximately 30 miles by 50 miles) with a population of only 414 souls --down from 553 in 1980 -- jobs are scarce. Most of them are going to be availabe only at the 50,000-acre ranch that dominates the county.
Feudalism, anyone ?
No wonder Cheney likes the place. What's not to like ?" Wow Mr.Lovejoy--you must be a journalism school professor--Feudalism? What part of private hunting party do you have a problem with? Because the VEEP was hunting one a private ranch he should have had impartial witnesses along lest he pepper one of his companions and we can get someone other than the "serfs?" I assume you would not believe the secret service guys or anyone else in the VEEPs entourage: they are, perforce, all "partial."

If you are involved in the training of journalist, I can see what the profession is in disrepute--Continue to pump out your J-school graduates with the snotty attitudes that you exude, and the press approval rating will be even lower than it is now.

Posted by: RogerA at February 21, 2006 11:25 AM | Permalink

Heh.

I was thinking this yesterday -- that the sense I get from trying to have a discussion with some of these folks is like trying to understand deconstructionism.

The great irony is, indeed, that they are deconstructionists and probably understand it better than most of the wimpy bluestate city dwellin' academics.

Cause you don't really get it until you're doing it. Every time you think you might know something, you pull the floorboards out from under your own feet ... on purpose! Whee! All facts are relative!

It's the newest expression of American Postcolonialism -- only it's procolonialist, rather than anticolonialist (oops, there goes the floor again).

Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 21, 2006 11:48 AM | Permalink

i like the yarbg tag team style.
different people rotate in with "Prof. Rosen, your thesis on Roll Back is dead on, yada yada yada then later whammo.
i'm twisting your words (i.e. don't buy your thesis) and this proves journalism is mere stenography?
global warming doesn't exist because science reporting sucks.

didn't Robert W. Palmer write this song?
Your lights are on, but you're not home
Your mind is not your own
Your heart sweats, your body shakes
Another gallon is what it takes
"might as well face it, you're addicted to oil"

just because some of us believe in climate change, we don't necessarily agree to join Kyoto.

where does Lovejoy teach?
incidently everyone has been Sheriff or constable at one time in Kenedy County.
2000 election results, Sheriff Ramiro Medellin and constable Gerardo "Jerry" Medellin.

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 21, 2006 12:00 PM | Permalink

Ric, Richard Aubrey, etc.:

I'm interested in continuing our science discussion off-thread, so as not to hijack a comment thread that wants to be about something else. I don't see a way to contact you via your handles, so if you're interested, e-mail me at xark@bellsouth.net.

Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 21, 2006 12:05 PM | Permalink

bush's jaw: "incidently everyone has been Sheriff or constable at one time in Kenedy County."

Untrue. I can't find any record of Oscar Medellin ever being constable.

Posted by: Ron Brynaert at February 21, 2006 12:14 PM | Permalink

ron, i didn't mean literally. geez, i take it back.
i'm just saying it's a small town, and people run and held office and (or then) work at the Armstrong ranch.

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 21, 2006 12:17 PM | Permalink

JennyD

I feel so sorry for this Cassidy guy at the SJ Merc.

Then I think about the tens of thousands of others in the Valley who went through these same worries and pain during his tenure.

You'd think after investigating their situations, empathizing with their plight, and telling their stories he'd have noticed that the same freight train was coming for him and his industry.

Posted by: laurence haughton at February 21, 2006 12:41 PM | Permalink

i was in San Francisco from the late 90s to 2001. the gold rush was fun while it lasted.
B2B and B2C was not business to business or business to consumer, it was back to Boston, back to Cleveland.
there was also greed and euphoria before the worries and pain.
the Merc had trouble recruiting journos during the boom because a reporter back East could afford to sell his or her $200k house to buy a 2-bedroom fixer in the Valley that was going for $800K.
that's capitalism at work. Cassidy's column is about press religion breakdown or economic/employment uncertainty?

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 21, 2006 12:56 PM | Permalink

Jay, it's not that conservatives are "...doubtful about the possibility of establishing anything as fact...".

Instead, it's that conservatives toady are compelled by our dominant media's malpractice to be skeptical about press-endorsed assertions of "fact", which all too conveniently advance the politics those who mistake their political ideology for enlightenment.

Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 21, 2006 12:57 PM | Permalink

TA: You could find "dominant media" bias in a dish of rainbow sherbet. If you're not someone's operative at the RNC or Grover's joint, you should be. You think like one.

New book by conservative and supply sider Bruce Bartlett (like Fitzwater he worked for Reagan and Bush) notices some of the same things I have been pointing out, and it shows why most conservatives have become relativists. They are covering up for, and justifying after the fact, the most relentlessly anti-empirical president in the modern age. So facts have to become extra flexible because of the manner in which Bush makes decisions. To wit:

Reviewin this morning's Times:

[Bartlett's critique] extends well beyond the economic sphere. He argues that "Bush has driven away and even humiliated the few intellectuals in his midst, preferring instead the company of overrated political hacks whose main skills seem to be an ability to say yes to whatever he says and to ignore the obvious." And he declares that the president's "unwillingness to properly utilize the traditional policy development process" lies "at the heart of the failure of his Social Security proposal and possibly the Iraq operation as well."
"One of the hallmarks of George W. Bush's approach to policy that is disturbing both to friends and foes alike," Mr. Bartlett writes, "is an apparent disdain for serious thought and research to develop his policy initiatives. Often they seem born from a kind of immaculate conception, with no mother or father to claim parentage."

Mr. Bartlett argues that the failure of "the administration to chart or articulate a consistent economic policy" stemmed, in large measure, from "Bush's disinterest in serious policy analysis" and his sidelining of people with genuine expertise. He writes that Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and his successor, John Snow, were treated as "little more than errand boys," and that the Council of Economic Advisers was accorded little influence as well. It became clear, Mr. Bartlett writes, that the main job of the Council's chairman, R. Glenn Hubbard, "was not to devise economic policies, but only to offer support for those Bush had already decided upon."

The key is already decided upon. First the verdict, then the evidence. And this, according to a loyal Republican who's disgusted with it.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 1:31 PM | Permalink

Jay
You might be surprised to learn that leaders in many types of organizations (for profit, not for profit, government, industry, even academia) follow that same decision-making pattern. It's not a good thing, but it's common.

Posted by: laurence haughton at February 21, 2006 1:42 PM | Permalink

In my hunting parties, all shooters walk abreast of each other in plain sight and it is considered careless, if not downright stupid, to whirl to one side and start blasting away. But then again, we "hunt," that is we pursue wild birds, while this was a "shooting" party where the participants merely waited for clipped-wing birds to be released. This seems to me to be even more telling about someone who shoots wildly when there are more than enough birds thown up before his guns. The news was salivating at what was obviously a stupid mistake by a man who is incapable of admitting them. It took him all of four days to realize that and just say he was wrong and he was sorry. Meanwhile, so many reporters got their drawers in an uproar that they and not Cheney seemed to be emotionally distraught.

The professor's thesis is excellent and on the money. The fourth estate has been coopted, put in its place, politicized, bought and sold, and finally, diminished. What do they do about it?

Now there is a real question.

Posted by: Marylin Able at February 21, 2006 1:51 PM | Permalink

Ah yes, the old angry conservative who didn't get his way writes book pandering to the Leftwing media so he can get good press. Happens every three or four months, has no effect except to feed the Leftwing media's religious devotion that they are the only purveyors of truth and the Bush Administration is evil. Beyond parody.

"First the verdict, then the evidence."

Nice. That will go on the tombstone of the Leftwing media.

Posted by: joe at February 21, 2006 1:52 PM | Permalink

Yes.

No criticism of Bush that can't be delegitimized with a simple Rovian-Homeric Epithet.

Old angry conservative
Liberal media
Groupie-crazed meteorologist (!)
Disgruntled former Administration official
Activist judge
Revisionist historian

If Reagan himself returned from the grave to offer constructive criticism, I suspect it would be:

Alzheimer's-addled ghost

More than once, I have seen this phrase used to describe the Conservative variants: "he's fun."

As in, Reagan is fun, but he's an Alzheimer's-addled ghost.

Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 21, 2006 2:13 PM | Permalink

From Bruce Bartlett, Jay's new go-to guy:

One of the things that drives Republicans crazy is the media’s enormous double-standard in how it covers various scandals. While day after day we read on the front pages about how awful it was that a Republican congressman played golf with some lobbyist—as if that is the epitome of unethical behavior—cases of actual criminality by Democrats are buried on the back pages...
The reason is that the liberal media harp on Republican misdeeds monotonously because to them the subject never gets boring. By contrast, Democratic wrongdoing tends to be treated in a perfunctory manner with no follow-up. This imbalance of coverage, which is unrelated to the seriousness of the charges, naturally tends to make people think Republicans are more corrupt, when a reasonable person reviewing all the evidence would have to conclude that Democrats are much more likely to be corrupt.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 21, 2006 2:31 PM | Permalink

Amazing, isn't it Dave ? It's enough for someone to call him a "prevaricating weasel" -- if this were the sort of place where anyone but Charles himself used language like that.

As for Charles' companion in crime, the hapless Roger A, let me straighten a few things out:

My name isn't "Lovejoy," I'm not a "professor," I don't "teach" journalism or anything else, I'm not involved in the "training" of anyone and I don't "pump out" J-school graduates. Other than that, you're statement holds up really well.
And, while I'm not sure, I think you may have set a new East Coast landspeed record for maximum number of errors in a minimum number of words with that post.
But fear not; it may not last long; other strong contenders are in the wings, and they all have itchy keyboard fingers.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 2:31 PM | Permalink

2 + 2 = 5
the MSM would have us believe that 2 + 2 = 4. But mathematicians are biased. they slant research because they need grants, don't they? the MSM can't be trusted because journos are not math experts. i have serious concerns about math reporting.

we have these mathematicians whose study shows 2 + 2 = 5 and we have Michael Crichton.

math is just more evidence that the MSM loses again!

The fourth estate has been coopted, put in its place, politicized, bought and sold, and finally, diminished. What do they do about it?

is this partly why Harris bailed on the Jay's Q&A. the MSM doesn't have answers for roll back? meanwhile, from the left flank, charges the MSM are nothing but WH stenographers.

so what will happen with a Dem WH? the sides will switch (Froomkin's column becomes WH DeBriefing, the inside scoop?) and the Left accuses the MSM of being conservative attack dogs, and the Right which cheered the demise of the WH press corp will say see, the MSM is giving the WH a free pass.

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 21, 2006 2:38 PM | Permalink

Uh oh, Joe has accused Bruce Bartlett of ... of ... of ... well, of Press Think!

That should expose the "old angry conservative" for what he is -- a post-modern relativist ! Oh, wait -- that's not Bartlett, that's the conservatives in this thread.

Never mind ...

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 2:43 PM | Permalink

On the subject of disillusioned people, of which both parties, both "sides" have lots of....

"Leaving the left--I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity
by Keith Thompson (from SFGate.com..very well said, I thought)

Also…

"Why a Democratic Liberal Became a Republican Conservative" By Joan Swirsky

(For the record, and to make it easier in the future for someone to put me into the appropriate group, I’d have to say that I’m a sometimes liberal, sometimes conservative libertarian who happens to have voted for Bush. Twice. Oh, and I’m an American.)

Posted by: Kristen at February 21, 2006 2:44 PM | Permalink

So, Bartlett is credible when he is criticizing "the media" but not credible when he is criticizing the Bush administration.

That makes sense.

Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 21, 2006 2:48 PM | Permalink

I'll try again. Despite evidence that there are those who are critics of the administration, and G.W. Bush in particular, (and that some put them in genus and phylum) do you have evidence that he does not have people that he does listen to and use their input to formulate his "verdict?"

In order to avoid the dreaded incompetent paraphrase, I'll try to use your quote directly: "First the verdict, then the evidence."

The assertion that there are critics is accepted. The assertion that he does not have input prior to his decisions is not. Your argument depends on having both parts true. If you have evidence, you should present it. The assertion of those who are excluded from decisions does not provide evidence that there were others that were not included. Their statements they were excluded, or that they did not witness input, does not generalize to "all are excluded."

The “freedom from fact” argument requires more than lists of those that disagree, or find fault. It also requires some means to conclude that there are none that participate and have meaningful input.

This seems a variation on the “bubble” discussion. I think some might question who is really in the “bubble.”

Posted by: John Lynch at February 21, 2006 2:55 PM | Permalink

Richard B -- Exactly not my point. My point is that Jay is reaching for another argument from authority, in this case trying to use a respected conservative as a totem. I was merely pointing out that this form of argument is dangerous. So far, the only "fact" for which Jay has actually attempted to make an empirical case is the Cheney MTP quote. I suggest that he selected that one because he would have a much harder time defending his more controversial insinuation that the Atta/Prague story itself lacked empirical foundation.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 21, 2006 3:00 PM | Permalink

Thiscould serve as a piece of evidence:

In the book, [Former Treasury Secretary Paul] O’Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate.
At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president might think."

This is what O'Neill says happened at his first hour-long, one-on-one meeting with Mr. Bush: “I went in with a long list of things to talk about, and I thought to engage on and as the book says, I was surprised that it turned out me talking, and the president just listening … As I recall, it was mostly a monologue.”

He also says that President Bush was disengaged, at least on domestic issues, and that disturbed him. And he says that wasn't his experience when he worked as a top official under Presidents Nixon and Ford, or the way he ran things when he was chairman of Alcoa.

But, of course, it's a Disgruntled Former Administration Official, as reported in a Disgraced Liberal Media Outlet.

Does that mean that Bush is not listenoing to someone, somewhere, who is giving him advice? No. But it does mean that the people whom he hired and Congress approved to give him advice are not those people.

Maybe the Great Gazoo?

Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 21, 2006 3:06 PM | Permalink

the Disgrunted former Administration official was CEO of Alcoa and president of International Paper. the man obviously a Leeeberal masquerating as a conservative. what else can be his motivation?

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 21, 2006 3:34 PM | Permalink

What O'Neill described is eerily close to what Richard Clarke described which is eerily close to what Bartlett now describes:

" ... preferring instead the company of overrated political hacks whose main skills seem to be an ability to say yes to whatever he says and to ignore the obvious."

Joe is right when he says a new one of these guys pops up every three or four months. He might do well to ask why that is.
And why nothing of the sort happened to Clinton, or to Bush Sr., or to Reagan, or to Carter, or to Ford ?
The last time we saw anything like it was with Nixon -- and even then only after he had left town in disgrace.
It does dovetail with PressThink's thoughts on rollback and de-certification.
But it's a very real phenomenon worth deconstructing, on some level more useful than just brandishing it just to score political points.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 3:46 PM | Permalink

I'm sure one person's "over-rated political hack" is another person's "trusted advisor."

You are right to examine the phenomenon though. Do you really think it true that there were not dissenters in previous administrations who left and then went public with their dissent?

Aaron Burr comes to mind, but I suppose other more recent examples could be found with a few minutes of Google, or Press Club title searches.

Posted by: John Lynch at February 21, 2006 3:56 PM | Permalink

"Do you really think it true that there were not dissenters in previous administrations who left and then went public with their dissent?"

There may well be, John, but I can't recall any with the sort of scathing detail-in-support-of-a-damning-hypothesis supplied by an O'Neill, or Clarke, or a Bartlett.
(In fact, my recollection of the various inside-the-inner-sanctum memoirs that emerged from the Reagan administration is that they were mainly adulatory.)

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 4:34 PM | Permalink

Neuro-conservative:

If the Atta/Prague story has empirical foundation, why did Cheney backpedal so hard from his earlier statement that it was "pretty much confirmed" -- to the point that in his interview with Borger, he denied ever saying it ?
That's one hot potato that Deadeye Dick tossed in the air faster than the eye can follow.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 4:57 PM | Permalink

"But it's a very real phenomenon worth deconstructing, on some level more useful than just brandishing it just to score political points."

Agreed.

What I have tried to describe is, from my point of view, of equal interest to Republicans invested in the success of the Bush White House, and conservatives whose priorities are getting heavy rotation on the Administration's playlist.

If you cared about Bush's legacy or agenda you would be very alarmed by the retreat from empiricism, which is a recipe for hubris and disaster. That's what I think. If what you care about is your own bitching at the get-Bushism of the other side, you might miss the alarm that is ringing for you:

The public visibility of the presidency itself is under revision. More of it lies in shadow all the time. Non-communication has become the standard procedure, not a breakdown in practice but the essence of it. What Dan Froomkin calls the Bush Bubble is designed to keep more of the world out. Cheney himself is almost a shadow figure in the executive branch. His whereabouts are often not known. With these changes, executive power has grown more illegible under Bush the Younger.

The question I asked 200 comments ago was: why is this happening? One answer is simple: the President wills it. And that accounts for a lot. But why is this happening also means why is this happening now?

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 5:00 PM | Permalink

"Joe is right when he says a new one of these guys pops up every three or four months. He might do well to ask why that is."

Leftwing media creates a narrative. Leftwing media ignores or downplays evidence to the contrary. Leftwing media finds about a half dozen or so disgruntled conservatives who didn't get their way in the Bush administration and have books to promote. Leftwing media says "see, even Republicans are saying the same things which proves that we've been right along." Leftwing media promotes disgruntled conservatives as paragons of virtue (which of course they wouldn't on any other topic). Leftwing media repeats cycle of self-parody 2-3 times a year. Leftwing media loses annual amount of readership/viewership as it slides into oblivion.

Posted by: joe at February 21, 2006 5:07 PM | Permalink

The question I asked 200 comments ago was: why is this happening?

And yet you do not allow yourself to consider the possibility that any of these other institutions (press, bureaucracy, CIA, etc) have themselves done anything to Bush that might warrant such treatment (even from his point of view).

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 21, 2006 5:08 PM | Permalink

Joe -- A similar thing even happened here last summer. Jay invited some commentary from conservative milblogger Austin Bay. Some of Bay's comments were critical of the press, some were critical of WH press relations. Jay largely ignored the former while blasting the latter from the tree-tops. The thread later took a bizarre turn, but that's another story...

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 21, 2006 5:15 PM | Permalink

Joe --
I see. A conspiracy whose very practitioneers assure their own demise.
So -- nothing to worry about right ? The machine contains the roots of its own destruction.
Except ... except for that nagging report in Investors Business Daily last Friday that "even in hard times, newspapers ... are the biggest recipient of local advertising on the Web -- the fastest growing part of the online market." Last year, they captured $1.64 billion of it, or 41% of the total.
No other medium came remotely close.
Dang -- back to the drawing board.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 5:28 PM | Permalink

The Chicago Tribune Washington bureau has a group blog, The Swamp, which is a good way of doing it.

Cheney's penchant for keeping a low-profile fit the requirement to not have a vice president who outshines the president. But his lack of desire for the presidency removed from Cheney an incentive to be responsive to the public, Republicans included.
By making Cheney so powerful, Bush created an alternative power center in the White House, a factor which clearly played a role in the White House's botched handling of the shooting incident.

...The White House reaction to the hunting accident was all about Cheney's independence. Bush aides left it to Cheney to report the accident to the American people instead of taking charge themselves and notifying the media immediately as they have with past incidents involving the president.

Cheney's grudging initial response, two press releases three days after the shooting, didn't match the rapid response the Bush people had expected and created a public-relations headache for the White House. That’s kept the media focus on Cheney instead of the president's domestic agenda the White House had wanted Americans to focus on this week.

Where I'd question the Trib bureau is "media focus." There's an assumption that a.) we know what that is, b.) we know it matters, c.) Presidents must worry about it. Those are the automatics of a previous era.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 5:31 PM | Permalink

Neuro --

All that link tells me is just how inconclusive (in November, 2003) the picture was to Edward Jay Epstein.
Good comments section, though!
As for the thorougly discredited Douglas "Stovepipe" Feith, as channeled by Stephen Hayes -- puh-leeze.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 5:36 PM | Permalink

Steve L. You may be right that the reason you "can't recall any with the sort of scathing detail-in-support-of-a-damning-hypothesis supplied by an O'Neill, or Clarke, or a Bartlett" is because this kind of flawed decision-making process is something unique to GWB among modern presidents.

But seeking confirming evidence, avoiding disconfirming evidence, remembering one's hits, forgetting one's misses, surrounding oneself with yes men /yes women and all the other factors that add up to what Jay labeled a "recipe for hubris and disaster" is tragically common among decision makers and opinion givers in business. And from what I've studied, the history of military decision making is rich with examples as well.

So if he is unique (and this is true) he is only unique in a small subset of all people in leadership. That's not written to justify the flaws, just to put them into perspective.

Posted by: laurence haughton at February 21, 2006 5:43 PM | Permalink

Steve -- I have no desire to convince you that Atta was in Prague. Besides, it's happy hour now anyway.

My purpose in linking was twofold:

1) To establish that there was at least some evidentiary basis to the Admin's claims, contrary to Jay's assertion that "You need Atta in Prague you can have Atta in Prague. Whether he was there or not is a ultimately a negligible factor in your powers of assertion and documentation."
2) To bolster my original assertion from 2-17, 8:53PM, that "The problem with our current situation is that intelligence matters are now at the core of our daily survival. These matters are necessarily secret to the public (sorry Mr. Risen, but I don't want to know whether we cracked the Enigma code), and are murky even to those in the know. This problem underlies many of the issues addressed recently by PressThink, including Plame, Miller, NSA, Risen/Keller, and Rollback."

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 21, 2006 5:46 PM | Permalink

Jay, you answer your own question at the start of the thread, but then ask again, “why now?”

“Cheney has long held the view that the powers of the presidency were dangerously eroded in the 1970s and 80s. The executive “lost” perogatives it needed to gain back for the global struggle with Islamic terror. “Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam both during the 70’s served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area,” he said in December.

Some of that space was lost to the news media, and its demand to be informed about all aspects of the presidency, plus its sense of entitlement to the star interlocutor’s role.”

That’s the essence of your answer. Why do you complicate it? I could grab similar Bush quotes since 9-11 but what’s the point? Every speech he gives reflects his belief that right now the War on Terror is paramount to our survival. Period. There isn’t any more. Not everyone agrees with his methods but why try to overanalyze why he and Cheney do what they do? Everything they do starts from that spot.

Posted by: Kristen at February 21, 2006 5:51 PM | Permalink

Laurence: isn't a better question to ask whether Bush is running the White House in a way that is fundamentally different from White Houses past?

To wit: how to make sure the president hears from a wide range of advisors without making chaos the takeaway is a perennial problem in the White House. What to do when the president has no desire for a "range" of voices at all is not.

There are parallels I suppose, but I would be very careful about comparing President of the United States to other CEO positions.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 5:52 PM | Permalink

Yes Jay that is a great question. I would love to read an email interview you do with someone you believe knows the answer.

And I will be careful about the comparison between business executives, military leaders, and politicians. As I said I've never studied the latter so I am not aware of the significant differences.

Posted by: laurence haughton at February 21, 2006 6:13 PM | Permalink

Louis Freeh has a book out.

Mary Jo White (no book, just memos)
George Stephanopolous- not quite as scathing. But not embraced.

The book, All Too Human, released this week, provides an intimate portrait of life inside the Clinton White House. It is unflinching in its critique of both the President and First Lady. The book's release has sparked debate on the propriety of former White House staffers criticizing a president while he is still in office. This past Sunday, Sam Donaldson questioned his colleague about that on ABC's "This Week."

A president betrayed?

SAM DONALDSON: If it runs true to form now, there are various parts of this book that are not a very good read if you're President Clinton or Mrs. Clinton, I suspect they are going to denounce you in some respect, or say that it's a bunch of hooey. What do you say to people who say, well, you're now the betrayer, oh, you should not have written this book? Did you vet this book with them?
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I did not vet it with them. What I - and I understand that, and if people want to say that, they'll say what they say - what I tried to do is write an honest book, and I think a fair book, that showed all sides of the Clintons, of the White House at that time, and not really try to make too many hard judgments, let people make the judgments for themselves as they read the book and they see the experience unfold. But, you know, criticism comes with the territory.

Robert Reich, Locked in the Cabinet (although a personal friend of the Clintons, and his criticism isn't directd at the man. Is that good or bad?):

No wonder. Reich found himself the sole ''progressive liberal'' among a cautious, deficit-hating, bond-market-worshiping cadre of Presidential economic advisers who couldn't wait to rescind Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign promises.

How about former adviser Dick Morris?

Posted by: MayBee at February 21, 2006 6:31 PM | Permalink

Unbelievable. PressThink--and this post--made it into one of Bill O'Reilly's rants, and I became some left wing ranter. Hilarious too. This is from Media Matters.

O'Reilly would fire "rabid dog" Gabler for Fox News Watch comments.
Summary: In a discussion with Fox News Watch host Eric Burns, Bill O'Reilly said he would fire "rabid dog" media commentator Neal Gabler as a Fox News Watch contributor. O'Reilly accused Gabler of promoting "an idiot conspiracy theory" from a "far-left blog," [hey, that's Rollback, that's us] suggesting that it was "not bad PR" if the Bush administration dragged out the story of Cheney's hunting accident to deflect attention from more substantive news. O'Reilly added that "this is the second time this guy did this -- the first time he smeared me about the Christmas controversy."

Who's "this guy?" I didn't write a word about the Christmas controversy. Anyway, there's more if you click on the link. The only thing I have to add is that I know Neil Gabler, and he did send me a note about how much he liked the post.

Just shows you how close the culture war is. Like right outside the door.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 6:50 PM | Permalink

This is what Steve Lovelady said: "I'm not a "professor," I don't "teach" journalism or anything else, I'm not involved in the "training" of anyone and I don't "pump out" J-school graduates. Other than that, you're statement holds up really well."

This is what I said: "If you are involved in the training of journalist, I can see what the profession is in disrepute--Continue to pump out your J-school graduates with the snotty attitudes that you exude, and the press approval rating will be even lower than it is now."

Now, Mr Lovelady: Please compare the two statements. You simply misrepresented my post.--First--I started my post with the conditional word "if"--so one might reasonably think that if that doesn't pertain to you or what you do, you needn't comment. If fact, your paraphrase (something that Professor Rosen has been carping about on this thread) is quite inaccurate; well, thats the gentle version: you lied about it by introducing into my post things I didnt say; things that you have inferred, and then you do the ad hominum crap--Is that how you edited news and news magazines? Damn, no wonder you are in academe--its the last refuge of incompetence.

Let me know how you parse the two quotes I put up there, Steve. My basic point is that hapless folks like you are why most Americans think journalists are slightly lower in esteem than trial lawyers.

Posted by: RogerA at February 21, 2006 7:24 PM | Permalink

Just a reminder: the Office of the Vice President is a constitutionally separate office from that of the President. The Vice President does not report to the President except through courtesy. The vice president is an elected official in his own right and owes his allegiance to the people and the constitution, not the president. He has his own house and his own budget. He can be termed part of the White House only by blurring the lines of his authority, or by the practice; not by his actual line of authority.

Posted by: John Lynch at February 21, 2006 7:30 PM | Permalink

May I please return to the thesis of this thread: Professor Rosen--contrary to what some posters have said I said, I think you are right on target. The Bush administration feels they can dis the press and get away with it; and they are doing it. It started with Helen Thomas, and as you refer to him, the Angel of whatever--bottom line, the administration really and truly doesnt give a damn about the MSM--and they are riding off popular discontent with the media (or at least the discontent of some 50% plus one)

So--What does the media do Jay Rosen?

(and for the record, I do believe a free and independent press is pretty damn significant in our country)

Posted by: RogerA at February 21, 2006 7:33 PM | Permalink

Jay, I believe O'Reilly was referring to Gabler as the "guy" who smeared him about the Christmas controversy. But you're right, O'Reilly does credit you as from "one of those nutty far-left blogs." For my part, I would concur with Hugh Hewitt, placing your blog on the center-left of the political spectrum.

Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 21, 2006 7:42 PM | Permalink

Jay-
via Media Matters, O'Reilly says:

But look, you should have come back and said to Gabler, ...But you got a guy like Gabler, and this is the second time this guy did this -- first time he smeared me about the Christmas controversy. We called him up, he's too cowardly to come on. You let him slide with that. And now you got him coming in here with this insane conspiracy thing.

The "this guy" he is referring to in regards to the Christmas controversy is Gabler himself. Not you.
Second, I believe the use of the word 'conspiracy' in this instance, in talking about the Cheney incident and rollback makes it sound as if someone is floating the idea that Cheney actually shot the guy as part of an attempt to keep other issues out of the Press. Which is indeed wacky, but not at all what you are saying.

Posted by: MayBee at February 21, 2006 7:51 PM | Permalink

Roger A:

You are an original.
I've been around a long time, but I think that's the first time I've ever seen a retraction of an apology -- not to mention one posted only 34 minutes after the apology itself.
And stop playing games. You're out of your league. "If" doesn't get you off the hook. No more than it would get me off the hook were I to write, "If you mean what you say, Roger, you are a jackbooted Nazi."
Never try to slur someone with a hypothetical, son.
It'll blow up in your face every time.
You'd have been better off sticking to the apology.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 8:11 PM | Permalink

Thanks for that, TA.
Jay, you been anointed -- described by O'Reilly himself as "one of those nutty far-left blogs."
I'm jealous.
Meantime, Hugh Hewitt, who describes himself as "center-right" describes Jay as "center-left." Jeez, sounds like they're kissing cousins, doesn't it ?
Ummm, I don't think so.
It's NeoCon World -- anyone to the left of Dick Cheney, with his 29% approval rating in the most recent poll, is "far-left." That's quite a hefty group.
I confess, I enjoy accompanying Alice to Wonderland -- but I always make sure I have a return ticket in my pocket.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 8:31 PM | Permalink

Listen Steve--I have been insulted and harrassed by experts--save your sophomoric crap for newly hired correspondents--Lets multitask this: I was quite sincere in my apology: dissing a man's name, purposely or not--and it wasnt purposely, deserves an apology; not knowing what he does is a failure of my part to find out more about you--not that that is important. So that apology stands.

Calling a man on misrepresenting what he said is another issue altogether, and I not you really havent addressed that--In fact, you respond with a nice slur (backhanded of course) "if I said you were jackbooted nazi..." Nice try Steve--I am not a jackbooted nazi, and you really didnt address the fact that you misrepresented what I said--

Let get this clear "son"--Stop playing asinine word games with people who are at least as smart as your are.

Again, Steve--you are an exemplar of journalism at its finest.

Posted by: RogerA at February 21, 2006 8:43 PM | Permalink

Apologies to Jay Rosen for letting personal issue impinge on his blog--

Steve--if you want to continue calling each other assholes, lets take it off line. You have my email address, and I have yours. Somehow I think that you and I are not going to come to any mutual accommodation on this particular issues, and it is disrepectful to our host to continue a personal squabble on his dime.

Posted by: RogerA at February 21, 2006 8:49 PM | Permalink

Maybe you should challenge him to a duel, Roger.

Otherwise, you're taking this - and yourself - a little too seriously.

On to other matters: Is there anything less useful than the right/left characterizations. Isn't everyone left or right to someone else?

Just imagine. There's someone out there who is to the right of Cheney.

I think he posts here from time to time.

Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 21, 2006 9:12 PM | Permalink

Roger:

On one level, I couldn't agree with you more about the idiocy of continuing this conversation on Press Think. But if you think you have been misrepresented, you haven't gone back and read your own words.
As for email, forget it; my inbox is already filled with enough spam.
So, apologies to Jay, but if you want to say it, say it here.

Steve

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 9:31 PM | Permalink

Mr. Lovejoy, I'm sorry to jump in on your thing here with RogerA.

we've seen posters such as these yarbg fellas RogerA, Neuro, Charles Martin before.

Here is RogerA's entire entire Lovejoy post:

Wow Mr.Lovejoy--you must be a journalism school professor--Feudalism? What part of private hunting party do you have a problem with? Because the VEEP was hunting one a private ranch he should have had impartial witnesses along lest he pepper one of his companions and we can get someone other than the "serfs?" I assume you would not believe the secret service guys or anyone else in the VEEPs entourage: they are, perforce, all "partial."
If you are involved in the training of journalist, I can see what the profession is in disrepute--Continue to pump out your J-school graduates with the snotty attitudes that you exude, and the press approval rating will be even lower than it is now.

i have this pseudonym from time spent in the HuffPo comment section, which is gutter polititcal combat. i don't think you and Jay have been there, because if you were disappointed with the Austin Bay comments, that's everyday at Huffo. i even run up against a fictitious newspaper editor, Michael Hagan, who created a fake email address of a publisher.

RogerA says he's 65 years old but doesn't appear to take offense of you calling him son.

these are paid trolls on shift work. (i have no proof, just a hunch, there is something phony about them.) Neuro clocks out and RogerA clocks in. they start out politely, then ...

and that's the conclusion of Columbo.

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 21, 2006 9:35 PM | Permalink

Jeez--here we are--I dont, suppose, bush's jaw, the the fact I put quotes around son, suggests any thing otherwise--and in the interests of full disclosure my birthday is 9/26/41--Sit down boy, you dont know what you are talking about.

Steve; clearly political discourse has come to this--dont wish to continue this whole conversation--the posts are up for every one to read as they wish--good luck with your efforts--I will pursue mine.

Take care, be safe, and long life (even if you are a f*ing liberal (sorry--couldnt resist))

Posted by: RogerA at February 21, 2006 9:43 PM | Permalink

Roger --
I didn't say I "don't wish to continue this conversation."
What I did say was don't gum up my email with this shit.
Big difference.
As for bush's jaw -- nice work, Columbo.
Somebody's gotta keep track of the orchestrated trolls.
I'm just glad it's you, not me.
;-)
Mr. Lovejoy

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 9:50 PM | Permalink

Steve--I do admire your panache; it is something else-and as for Harry, damn--I checked his huffington website--this is the guy that did the three best indy movies(not counting cohen brothers stuff): spinal tap, a mighty wind, and best in show--Harry, my man--it isnt really important to me, but if you want more info about me personally, it might really surprise you--

Steve--you and I are going to continue to disagree, my man; and honestly, if you think this is a case of "orchestrated trolls," you are wrong--but thats your perception.

You know, sports fans, its amazing what a glass (or three) of Myers rum does to ones hostilities as the night wears on.

Posted by: RogerA at February 21, 2006 10:04 PM | Permalink

B-jaw -- I have news for you. Not only are we well-orchestrated trolls, but everything you know is false. You are actually unconscious in a pod in the Matrix, and even when you wake up, you will be in a TV show where everyone else is a paid actor. I can't believe you've figured it all out. You must be the Chosen One.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 21, 2006 10:06 PM | Permalink

I would request that you discontinue it, Steve and Roger. And so you don't have to agree to disagree, you can just honor my request-- separately.

As far as I know, I didn't argue that Cheney engaged in a conspiracy to get other issues off the front pages, which is what Gabler said, then O'Reilly. See what I mean about competent paraphrase?

But check this out: O'Reilly actually had on his show his own network's guy--Fox News Watch host Eric Burns--specifically to attack him for having Gabler on, and specifically for letting Gabler float stuff gotten from far-left blogs like mine. Too funny. And then Burns apologizes because other panelists wanted to jump in and refute GablerRosenKrantz but there wasn't time.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 10:18 PM | Permalink

RogerA, bush's jaw is not Harry.

and i like the jaw thing for the comments by both sides diagnosing the video. i have no idea what the jaw thing is, but apparent many people across the political spectrum can diagnose the president's condition from that video. (a Frist-like job on Schiavo.) it's the viewers who bring the bias.

here is Harry answering my comment. my comment was on Feb. 7, 11:09 p.m.

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 21, 2006 10:20 PM | Permalink

Neuro, Roger:
Nice try, guys.
But I think bush's jaw nailed it.
This isn't the first time Jay has been spammed by the night shift orchestra, and it won't be the last.
The fortunate part is that it's getting easier to spot -- even without Myers rum.
And speaking of Myers rum -- c'mon , Roger. Do you think I'm communicating from some cushy outpost in Jamaica ?
No such luck. Here I am, a Wyoming boy stuck in New York City, capitol of the liberal conspiracy, with dirty snow piles still on the streets and nothing in the fridge but my wife's leftover Thanksgiving white wine turned to vinegar.
I concede, this absence of spirits is an intolerable state of affairs and something must be done about it. (But I suspect that Dick Cheney is way ahead of me on that count, don't you think? But that's another story for another blog, isn't it?)

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 10:51 PM | Permalink

Sorry, Jay. I didn't see your request until after my most recent post.
When it gets zany, I can't resist.
My apologies.
Roger and I will meet on other fields, I'm sure -- as long as it isn't my email.

Cheers,
Steve

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 11:02 PM | Permalink

Okay, thanks for halting, Roger and Steve.

Yes, conservatives, so-called, agree with me on this one up to a point. And it makes sense that they would: they support Rollback. As I said in the original Rollback post: "Back ‘em up, starve ‘em down, and drive up their negatives: this policy toward the press has many strengths as a working piece of politics, and supporters of it abound within the Bush coalition."

I should have said earlier that, while I don't agree with Thomas Sowell on many things at all, I think--well, as a student of this history I know--he was completely correct when he said:

There is nothing in the Constitution or the laws that says that the media have a right to be in the White House at all, much less to have press conferences.
This has become a customary courtesy over the years, but courtesy is a two-way street.

What he calls a two-way street I called a "consensus understanding," which only works if both sides understand it. Conservatives believe there was no reason to remain in that consensus. The real genius of Rollback, however, is not that.

It's what I said to Harris. The White House correctly guessed that "if it changed the game on you, you wouldn’t develop a new game of your own, or be able to react."

Many people have asked me since this post was posted: "what do you think the new game should be?" I do not have a good idea of that yet, so I tend to say nothing. But I know where I'd start.

First, the press has to realize that Sowell is right: "There is nothing in the Constitution or the laws that says that the media have a right to be in the White House at all." There is nothing that says they have to be there either.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 11:10 PM | Permalink

Steve, please elaborate. Exactly how do you think our conspiracy operates?
Posted by: Neuro-conservative

Neuro: I don't think you'll find the word "conspiracy" in any of my posts. But permit me to defer to bush's jaw for your answer. It's not a "conspiracy" so much as it is an orchestrated swarm.
As he so acutely noted, "we've seen posters such as these yarbg fellas RogerA, Neuro, Charles Martin before."
And we will again, won't we ?

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 11:17 PM | Permalink

Neuro, nice Matrix comeback.
the Chosen One? nah more like the schmuck driving the ship.
now if this were a movie, i should be doing something other than debating press coverage of politics. that said ...

Jay, i'm not a press historian, but we didn't always have this so-called "speak truth to power" press. didn't the US have a history of tabloid press?

so what will drive the future press, capitalism, technology? i had the displeasure of working for a Gannett paper. Gannett is profitable but i wouldn't want to live in a community with a Gannett paper.

and Jay didn't boot Steve and RogerA off the site as posted as yardb. what is the color of the sky over there? while Neuro is here asking what conspiracy, RogerA is there admitting to the coordinated attack. you can't make this up.

Posted by: bush's jaw at February 21, 2006 11:27 PM | Permalink

Sorry Steve,
You've been purged from this site. Roger A says so.
Posted by: SpinMD

SpinMD:
It's almost tomorrow, but you just made my day. I'm committed to not commenting on poor Roger, so I won't -- but that link is really funny.
;-)
Steve

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 11:34 PM | Permalink

listen folks--Jay asked me and stevie whats his name to drop it

I have done that; I assume Stevie has done that--are there other issues that should come up?

Let me be blunt: somehow I dont think that Stevie or I give a good goddamn if either one of us lives or dies.

I think t