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

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 |