|
|
April 28, 2006
Snow at the Podium, Rollback on the Rocks"The White House evacuated spaces where the president can legitimately be questioned because it was Adminstration policy in general that Bush's authority went unchallenged, his descriptions of the world uncontested. This made him more brittle, but they felt strong doing it."“President Bush appointed Fox News commentator Tony Snow as his press secretary Wednesday,” said the report in the Los Angeles Times, “signaling that in its final 1,000 days, his White House plans significant changes in the way it reaches the American people.” Actually we don’t know if the changes will be significant. All we know is that the White House is trying to signal new times in the briefing room; and a lapse back into a more conventional press strategy is being predicted. (Text of Bush’s announcement.) But as Michelle Cottle said at the New Republic site, maybe the White House is just “replacing the plodding, never-quite-up-to-the-job McClellan with a charming, fast-on-his-feet media pro who will appear smoother, more genial, and infinitely better coiffed as he feeds the media (and public) their daily serving of bologna.” Signs of regret During all of Scott McLellan’s time as press secretary, the Bush team charted an historically new course, which I have called Rollback, the decision to starve rather than feed the news beast, and wherever possible disengage from the press, treating it as either hostile or irrelevant, not a conduit to the nation but a special interest group begging for goodies it doesn’t deserve. Back ‘em off, starve ‘em down and drive up their negatives. That was the policy. But in the news about Tony Snow there were signs of regret.
The White House evacuated spaces where the president can legitimately be questioned because it was Adminstration policy in general that Bush’s authority went unchallenged, his descriptions of the world uncontested. This made him more brittle, but they felt strong doing it. In this sense press rollback had a single customer: it’s what Bush wanted. Being questioned by non-believers who knew stuff… he definitely did not want that. The staff got the message, the message became a style and they never realized the impression they left: that Bush wasn’t up to taking questions, except from friendlies in very controlled situations. Doing away with the interlocutor Thus we saw—during the same years as back ‘em off, starve ‘em down and drive up their negatives—the amazing rise of the Bush Bubble. By which I mean not the general insularity that all White Houses seem to develop, but the brazen practice of screening the crowd when George W. Bush came to town so that only supporters could come to the microphone should there be question time. Elisabeth Bumiller, White House correspondent for the New York Times, wrote about it when Bush went to Germany and tried to take the bubble with him. The Germans would not play. The proposed town-hall meeting raised the inevitable issue, said Wolfgang Ischinger, the German ambassador to Washington, of “Do you know what kinds of folks you are going to have at that meeting and what kinds of questions they might ask?” Ischinger said the Germans told the Americans that the guests could not be screened, as White House officials do at similar events in the United States, and so “don’t be mad at us if some nasty question comes up.” In the end the White House abandoned the event, rather than take the risk of an unfriendly European at the mike. As with Rollback, the bubble policy does away with the interlocutor’s position in the ceremony of presidential power. It cuts down on question time itself, which everyone knew the boss wanted. In my previous post, The Jerk at the Podium, I described “a machine for making the executive power more opaque, and the presidency itself less dialogic.”
Battle for world opinion Rollback “worked” in the sense that Bush and company pulled it off and made it stick for almost three years. (They also won an election in the middle of this period.) But what a gamble! They put a Bush loyalist who was weak, under-qualified and ill-prepared—Scott McClellan—into a strong position facing the cameras and the international, as well as the American, press. They then let this pathetic figure defend Bush’s policies before the eyes and ears of the world. He had no fluency, no humor, no gift for making sense of politics, no ease in front of the cameras, no gravitas, no air of authority— and most of the time no information because his job was not to “release” but to withhold. (This is the White House, kid, so get up there and give nothing.) And yet according to team Bush we’re in a war on terror and a battle for world opinion with Islamic fundamentalism, much of which takes place in the media. How do those things square? I asked that of conservative radio host and uber-blogger Hugh Hewitt when I went on his program last week. McClellan “didn’t care that the biggest collection of horses’ asses in the world assembled in front of him,” Hewitt suggested. David Gregory of NBC News could “yell at him all day long, and he just didn’t flinch. That’s why he was there. That’s his talent.” I agreed on the talent part (taking abuse was McClellan’s one skill.) “But does it bother you that he was so inept at explaining Bush policy?” Incredibly, Hewitt said it didn’t bother him. Press secretaries are “not there to disseminate information.” Old think, Jay. “They’re there to feed that particular group of very high strung primadonnas.” But wait a minute. “Aren’t we engaged in a Global War On Terror in which the media itself is a battleground?” Hewitt agreed: we are so engaged. “The image that goes out from the White House briefing room all around the world of an inept, inarticulate, bumbling fool in front of the world— doesn’t that have consequences for America’s prestige?” Hewitt didn’t think so. McClellan was plenty good at his job, which came down to babysitting the by-passed press. That room is just not an important room, he said. In from the cold I doubt that historians would agree, Hugh. In the nineteenth century the center of news in Washington was Congress, which had a big press gallery and a stable pool of correspondents. The White House was inhospitable, opaque most of the time, and barely a beat. The President didn’t make news; he gave speeches. There was no interlocutor. Newspapers reported what was in the speeches. The few correspondents who tried to cover the White House would stand outside in the street, hoping to grab visitors as they left and get word of what was going on inside. Theodore Roosevelt changed it all around. When he became president he brought the correspondents in from the cold, one part of a transformation in presidential power. During a 1902 renovation of the White House, which created the new West Wing, Roosevelt made sure there was a room set aside for reporters to work in. So when you think about the absurdity of today’s briefing room follies think about the logic of bringing the correspondents in. It’s still there. Roosevelt did background interviews, he floated trial balloons, he understood photo ops. He shot the breeze with favored reporters. He told charming tales about his family. (He also controlled who was, and wasn’t allowed in to the press room.) And he made himself the bigfoot in the story of national politics, the man whom Congress would be forced to follow. In the twentieth century and our own time the White House has been ascendant. Scholars of the presidency attribute a lot of it to the modern media interacting with presidents and the symbols of nationhood. The Constitution says the three branches are co-equal. The media system says not really. In the republic of signs the figure of the president clearly rules. Congress is the faceless institution, hard to glamorize, televise, quote. It’s so much easier for the country to connect to the president, whose image and voice are instantly recognizable. Congress has power, but can’t plead its case. Projecting presidential power Presidential charisma in its modern form had to await the mass distribution of images in newspapers and magazines. The president as national protagonist was an artifact of news stories that cast things that way. The president couldn’t dominate the news until news conquered the nation and became part of nearly everyone’s daily info diet. That began in the mid-19th century but it didn’t complete itself until the 20th. Radio tilted things even more toward the president, and then TV even more. Although his predecessor, William McKinley, almost got there, Theodore Roosevelt was the first to see what was happening: the modern media system would project executive power outward to the nation and significantly enlarge the stage on which the president strode. He was about to get a way bigger mike (his famous “bully pulpit.”) The larger stage, the bigger daily audience, made presidential character a bigger part of governing. Roosevelt, the first modern president and the first media savvy one, has often been called a larger-than-life figure, which is our way of registering the same shift. This much he figured out: The presidency itself had been made bigger by media. That’s the real reason he found room for the press in a renovated White House. Bring them in, make them comfortable, feed them information, answer their questions now and then. In the long run you’ll benefit big time. Congress has been diminishing in relative stature ever since. Today no one questions that the news center—and nerve center—of Washington is the White House, not Capital Hill. How much is that worth to presidential power and prestige, worldwide? Here’s what David Sanger of the New York Times reported in last Sunday’s New York Times. For the correspondents, things have been going back to the way they were… before Teddy Roosevelt! In a place this buttoned up, reporting happens from the outside in. The first glimmerings of what is happening come from those whose message the White House cannot control easily: members of Congress who have come in for arm-twisting, former White House staff members and advisers, and diplomats, foreign ministers and world leaders who leave the place confused or angry… Did the architects of Rollback know what they were doing? I don’t think they did. Doesn’t mean they’re going to stop. After-the-fact normalizing Bush camp media advisor Mark McKinnon explained the coming of Tony Snow this way. “The president’s message and vision are firmly in place and are not going to change. But it still helps to have a new messenger. It helps to wipe the slate clean.” I’ll bet it does. Communications director Dan Bartlett was doing some retroactive slate wiping. “I know there is a perception that we disdain the media as a whole,” Bartlett said. (Just a perception, probably started by the media.) “I do not believe that. There have been some issues that strained the relationship, particularly when it comes at a time of war.” This is after-the-fact normalizing. They tried something new, a change in the relationship, that wasn’t thought through. It was Bartlett’s job to do just that— think it through. Now McClellan is gone and a more conventional understanding is being peddled around. Tony Snow is “good at” media. He’s done newspapers, radio, TV: the tools that created much of the aura we call “presidential.” He has the sculpted look of a television host, and a public identity apart from his job for Bush. His quitting might mean something, whereas with the stooge figure… who cares? Open questions “It’s clear they are bringing in someone to do better marketing,” David Gergen told the Los Angeles Times. He’s the former White House “communications” adviser who worked for both Republican and Democratic presidents. “Whether they are bringing in someone to bring more complete information to the public is very much an open question.” It’s an open question whether more complete information is the Bush strategy— ever. The regime seems to have concluded that if more of the story is withheld it has increased freedom of maneuver in dealing with the enemies of freedom. That regime could be strengthened with a slicker Tony Snow out front. Whether actual persuasion will make a comeback in this White House while the bizarre expectation of democracy-by-assent declines… open question. It’s an open question whether the rollback of open government under Bush and Cheney will continue or meet reversal in his government’s final years. It’s an open question whether the people in charge leaned anything from the mistake their first-term strategy was kinda sorta said to be. The news is Tony Snow will rectify it, and don’t ask us what we were thinking. After Matter: Notes, reactions & links… Bag the briefing? New Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten on Fox News Sunday: Bolten said it may be worth considering whether to end the daily televised press briefings where reporters and the press secretary frequently air disputes in front of the cameras, but he will leave that decision up to Snow. “What kind of power player he really is?” Hmmm. What do you suppose Bolten is saying? I think David Broder had it right (April 27): Unless the president comes to understand that it is in his interest —as well as the country’s— to conduct a more open governing process, the new press secretary, Tony Snow, will find himself inevitably as much of a punching bag as McClellan became. Only George Bush can signal to the White House staff and administration that he wants a government ready and eager to explain itself to the people it is trying to lead. I would ask Broder: What if Bush thinks he cannot afford openness, and really, he can’t because of what would come out, especially about the run up to Iraq but other stuff? Peggy Noonan: “Mr. Snow’s White House press briefings are going to be nice to watch. The press does not want to appear to be ungracious and oppositional. They have an investment in demonstrating that the tensions each day in Scott McClellan’s press briefings, with David Gregory’s rants and Helen Thomas’s free-form animosities, were the fault of Mr. McClellan, not the press.” Richard Miniter, New York Sun: “Mr. Snow is expected have an unusual amount of access for a White House press secretary. Like other men in his position, he will be able to walk into the Oval Office to talk to the president. More unusually, it is part of his job description to sit in on high-level discussions that shape Bush administration policy, not simply to strategize on how to spin those policies to the press.” George Stephanopoulos at ABC’s World Newser: “For Snow, the biggest adjustment is psychological. He’s been out of the White House on his own for more than 15 years, voicing his own opinions, building his own audience. Now he’ll have to learn to squelch his private views and deliver the party line with conviction. I went through precisely the opposite process when I left the White House to join ABC. Not sure which move is more difficult, but I do know that neither one is easy or automatic.” Oliver North pens an open letter to Tony Snow: “It is time to re-claim the podium and put the press in its proper place.” More Michelle Cottle: “Admittedly, the storyline the White House is feeding journalists is genius in its appeal to their sense of self-importance and wounded pride: We’re so sorry we were mean to you. We know better now. Give us another chance and we’ll be ever so much more open and honest and respectful of your needs. See! We’re even bringing in one of your own to tell us how to make this relationship work.” Deroy Murdock at National Review: “McClellan, surely a nice man who loves his country and his family, looks pained and frightened at his briefings. Sniffing blood in the water, reporters chomp into him like sharks devouring a walrus. This leaves McClellan with little to do but meekly repeat his lame talking points. My contacts among the president’s conservative base uniformly pity his performance. I shudder to imagine how much McClellan’s haplessness has weakened America’s image overseas during wartime.” Dan Kennedy at Media Nation takes issue with something I said: I think Rosen’s on to something, although I disagree with his contention that McClellan represented a departure from Fleischer, who, Rosen claims, was unwilling to play the role of being ‘the jerk at the podium’ — and who, besides, had an unacceptable (to the White House) ‘twinkle in his eye’ when dissembling. I don’t see how you can say that McClellan’s act was much different from Fleischer’s, just a whole lot less competent. Here’s how they’re different, Dan. Some of the things the Bush team forced McClellan to do were unprofessional, not to say embarrassing. They made him go out “with little to do but meekly repeat his lame talking points,” as Deroy Murdock put it. Or their plans were so contrary to good practice that one of the problems higher-ups would have is finding a press secretary who would swallow doubts, shut his mouth, listen well, and go along at the cost of his own reputation. There’s only a certain number of people willing to do that, Dan. You need a stooge, or as Michael Wolff put it, a “kick me” figure. The yes man times ten. Ari Fleischer was never going to be one of those. I’m not saying Ari was less willing to dissemble for Bush. Like you, I see no differences there. As a flak, he had the normal coating of professional pride. They needed someone they could roll over. The price for getting that was weakness, lameness at the podium. It was a colossal error. Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times loses his column and blog.
Posted by Jay Rosen at April 28, 2006 12:25 PM
Comments
Well, there's two ways to starve the press: Don't feed them at all or give 'em only junk food. Whatever Tony Snow does, it will be better and appear more sustantive than McClellan's actions. But I'm not really expecting a significant opening up the Administration to public scrutiny. Let's not forget that however inept McClellen appeared to be, his performance sastisfied the White House for many years. What will happen? We'll see. How nice if the White House opted for a more open approach. Nice but unlikely. As I've mentioned elsewhere, when Bush announced Snow's appointment, they both gave brief statements that were relaxed and informal. And both left the room without answering questions. The more things change; the more they stay the same. Posted by: Dave McLemore at April 28, 2006 12:51 PM | Permalink It is not much of an exaggeration to say that the WH makes PR moves, not policy moves. Does everyone remember that big shift in Iraq strategy at the end of last year, the one that featured a Power Point document and the word "victory" repeated over and over? I hope we can acknowledge now that was simply a PR move, not a policy change. I see no reason to think that Bolten and Snow are going to truly change how the WH interacts with, or does not interact with, the press. This WH lacks the credibility to even suggest this. It's an open question about whether or not the press will buy into it. I keep coming back to what Mike Allen of Time magazine wrote earlier this week, not about Snow, but about Josh Bolten, the man who dispatched and replaced McClellan. He described Bolten as "extremely guarded around reporters, but he knows them and, unlike some of his colleagues, is not scared of them. (Emphasis added.) Administration officials said he believes the White House can work more astutely with journalists to make its case to the public, and he recognizes that the president has paid a price for the inclination of some on his staff to treat them dismissively or high-handedly." Not scared of them ... Part of McClellan's ineptness was the vague feeling he inspired that he was indeed on some level "scared," experiencing something almost close to dread as he did his daily imitation of a castle gate hammered by a battering ram. The man came to personify flop sweat. "Not scared" might change the daily equation all by itself. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at April 28, 2006 1:53 PM | Permalink I've been not scared of a lot of things, but being not scared of reporters never struck me as particularly noteworthy, considering some of the other things I'm not scared by. Normal people can't possibly be scared by reporters. So, if I'm right, those not scared of reporters are confident of their ability to say things which cannot be misrepresented without substantial and obvious effort, and of their ability to avoid being sucked into saying things they'd rather not say. If this is the case, things aren't going to be any better for you guys. For all his stumbling, McClellan really didn't give you all that much, did he? How do you think smooth is going to be better? Posted by: Richard Aubrey at April 28, 2006 2:45 PM | Permalink I wonder how many of the WH reporters remember the WW2 slogan -- Loose lips sink ships? Roosevelt would not allow some reporters to enter the press room, Bush takes questions from friendlies--so what else is new? Posted by: richard siegel at April 28, 2006 3:44 PM | Permalink "Normal people can't possibly be scared by reporters"? I'm wary, and everyone I know in business and in sports feels the same. Do I only know not normal people? Posted by: laurence haughton at April 28, 2006 4:14 PM | Permalink everyone I know in business and in sports feels the same reporters are above or below lawyers? Posted by: bush's jaw at April 28, 2006 4:19 PM | Permalink Sports? Business? Politics? If you have something to hide from the public, you have a healthy fear of reporters. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at April 28, 2006 5:54 PM | Permalink When McClellan's exit was first floated, it occured to me that the Bushies could use the opportunity to further close down the news flow. My first thought was, by not really filling the job -- maybe putting in some functionary as "acting" press secretary, thereby reducing his authority as a spokesman. The appointment of Tony Snow would seem to show that idea up as a little bit paranoid. But I wonder if the plan is still to reduce the news, and to catapult the propaganda even more than before. And so, here's my new (paranoid?) idea of what could happen... The main goal of the Bushies is to have a one-way flow of information, totally controlled by them -- with as few questions asked as possible. Suppose that the big change under Tony Snow is to increase that information flow from his side of the podium -- by changing his presentation from talking head at a podium to TV commentator, with the visual support that goes with that. It's been suggested that press secretaries incorporate Powerpoint into their announcements. How about going beyond powerpoint, to slick TV-style graphics and video roll-ins? Hey, maybe even the slogan du jour on the curtains! Far from a rollback, this would steamroll right over the press with their quaint little notebooks and quaint little questions. It would make them even more irrelevant to the Bushies' needs than they are now. The questions can still be deflected, Scotty-style, while the graphics and videos A multimedia press room is not that wild an idea -- remember the multi-million dollar Shock & Awe media center, which we kept hearing was designed "by a Hollywood set designer?" (I've always wondered who that designer was... A-list, soap opera, game show...?) Maybe the rollback theory is true. I hope so. But I'll be interested in seeing if there are any big changes in the press room besides the empty suit behind the podium. Posted by: woid at April 28, 2006 7:16 PM | Permalink DANG, a little of my post went into a black hole... 3rd graf from the end shoulda said... The questions can still be deflected, Scotty-style, while the graphics and videos can be dangled as catnip to news directors. What would they go with? The Q & A, or the White House eye candy? (Not to be confused with the White House nose candy, which is kept under wraps.) Posted by: woid at April 28, 2006 7:21 PM | Permalink The article is an interesting combination of Bush bashing - attacking him for secrecy - which is becoming quite a common thing here, and talking about press issues. I'll ignore the Bush Bashing, but I do thing the comments on the "double standard" on leaking are poorly reasoned. Of course, friendlies let friendlies leak stuff that is beneficial. As to the congressman who leaked, he has congressional immunity, and furthermore is an elected official. Since this situation is dramatically different from frustrated bureaucrats who have access to sensitive information, the response is of course different. The Plame leak has been turned into a gigantic issue by the media (and their friends, the Democrats) in hopes that it will become another Watergate. Its significance in terms of harming national security, however, is zero. Nada. Zip. In fact, by getting out the information that nepotism played a part in Wilson's silly trip to Africa, it may have helped the war effort. No wonder journalists are so miffed. As stated before, when bureaucrats leak, they are subverting democratic government. But that argument has never been answered here. Instead we hear all sorts of complaints that Bush, an elected official, is doing that - even though his actions are well within his power. So once again, I see a double standard - on the part of the liberal elite (MSM, etc). .............. Many conservatives have been after Bush to do a better job of communicating - listening and talking. He is not only at odds with the left (which is almost inevitable if he is to stay true to his principles), but he is at odds with his own base. If Tony Snow has the access described, that would probably be a very good thing. He may be able to let the president know in a direct way where some of his problems lie. Whether the strategy of "rollback" (i.e. not cooperating with those who are out to get you) is effective, we shall see. The "Bush Bubble" complaint is silly. Of course he screens his crowds, as does any politician aware of the power of the media, especially TV, to inflate a few dissenters into the main story. Conservative politicians have to beware of the press more so than liberals. Sure, the press won't let the libs get away with everything - especially if it salacious (Monica, etc). But the coverage is certainly strongly biased - as shown very strongly during the election year. Posted by: John Moore at April 28, 2006 7:22 PM | Permalink Same lies. Different liar. As the deck chairs on the S.S. Titanic are rearranged once again. . . Posted by: David Ehrenstein at April 28, 2006 7:24 PM | Permalink Sports? Business? Politics? Gets back to the maxim of Lord Northcliffe, founder of the London Daily Mail,first uttered 100 years ago: "News is something that someone somewhere wants to suppress. All the rest is advertising." True then, true now. As McLemore has said, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." Which, when you think about it, is a reassuring thought. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at April 28, 2006 7:33 PM | Permalink If there's one thing that Jay accomplishes with these discussion, I hope it is this: to get rid of the false and reductive term "MSM." As he once wrote himself, "Actually, 'major media' doesn't talk, think, have feelings, or put forward ideas. Specific news organizations do, the people who work for them do, the people who run them do, and sometimes committees of journalists do, but Media, Big Media, MSM, Major Media-- these abstractions do not have the ability to speak. They exist so people can say any damn thing they want about the media. Just as no one takes responsibility for what the MSM 'does,' no one has to take responsibility for what is said about the MSM. Yet there is magic in our deceptions and after a while we start to think that things like 'MSM' actually exist, and have intention." Posted by: Steve Lovelady at April 28, 2006 7:44 PM | Permalink |
But a fundamental question remains as to why taxpayers are forced to pay for a President's personal, partisan publicity-agent -- in the hiring of a "White House Press Secretary". If a Scott McClellan, Tony Snow, Dee Dee Myers, etc. A White House Press Secretary's client & employer is the American public -- not the temporary occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Posted by: CollinsJ at April 28, 2006 7:49 PM | Permalink Same lies. Different liar. Succinct; wish I said that.:-) It is beyond anybody's control now, not Snow's and not Bolten's; it is all unraveling like in a Greek tragedy. Having said that, as hard as I rack my brain for a parallel from the classics, I cannot come up with one. For sheer incompetence, Mr. Bush is nonpareil. Posted by: village idiot at April 28, 2006 7:54 PM | Permalink It's just a guess, but perhaps they dumped Scotty when they did because they are expecting more indicitments and they're going to need someone to explain these in an effective way, a pro, an enthusiastic new pro not yet tainted from a long association with Bushco. Someone who criticized Bush in the past and thus has credibility (among conservatives) independent of the administration. The goal will be to hold onto the base (and the conservative pundits) through the mid-term elections. They can't afford to rely on rollback if Rove or Cheney gets indicited. The vacuum would be filled by others if they don't fill it, and there's not much positive to say about indicitments or pardons issued to sitting administration officials. I bet Snow is going to be an aggressive advocate for the admin and will do his best to set the frame and tone for coverage of the coming bad news. He will have to be the anti-Scotty to do that effectively. Posted by: steve schwenk at April 28, 2006 8:08 PM | Permalink Fine thoughts all ... but as a fashionista, I have to ask: Has everyone forgotten that this is also about appearances ? (I mean, come on, the press secretary is the public image of the administration.) I know it's trivial, but let's face it, trivial defines politics. Scott McClellan was and is a fat little guy with a perpetually sweaty forehead, a bad haircut and a shirt collar and suit jacket that were always one size too small. (How fun can that be in the swamp of a Washington summer?) As Robin Gihvan put it in the Washington Post, "Watching him stand there on one side of Bush with Scott McClellan on the other, it looks like "before" and "after." Sad but true. Posted by: Ann Kolson at April 28, 2006 8:12 PM | Permalink Why should the tax payer pay for the President's press secretary? Wow. Perhaps so the President has time to do his duties, which are those of a generalist, while the press secretary (and all the other secretaries, etc) focus on their own work? Apparently the obvious need to be stated. The Presidential office, and all other elected office, are inherently political. The President has a duty to those who elected him, and to the democratic system, to use his office to advance his policies. That includes political fighting. And, of course, we also pay for Teddy Kennedy's people, John Kerry's people, etc. Heck, we even pay for flacks at the bureaucracies. Sheesh. Posted by: John Moore at April 28, 2006 8:28 PM | Permalink I suspect that in my prior posts in which I argued that Judy Miller and Bob Woodward were participants in a criminal conspiracy by high officials in the U.S. Govt., some people rolled their eyes. Well, I'm happy to read that the judge, Judge Hogan, who sent Miller to jail agrees with me: Miller wasn't an innocent bystander, Hogan said. "She was an actor in the commission of a crime," he said. "She was part of the transfer of information that was a crime." Bob Woodward is still a participant in that crime. He is still providing political if not legal cover for one of the chief perpetrators. If Rove rats Cheney out, as Billmon suspects he might have, Bobby is going to look even more disgraced and discredited than he already does. Posted by: steve schwenk at April 28, 2006 8:33 PM | Permalink MSM... folks don't like the term. That's just so sad. Like most generic terms for large groups of people, it is useful and it is inexact. Controlling the language has long been more the province of the left than the right. Control the nouns and frame the debate in favor of your cause. But the blogosphere is another culture. And, of course, it is developing its own jargon. MSM arose from there. After all, the blogosphere is often at odds with the MSM, but is dependent on media. Shall we rail against Islamofascist? NeoCon? Trickle down economics (yeah, I'll complain about that one)? Liberal? Ironically, the modern illiberal left really doesn't like that one, even though it was expropriated by the left. So it goes. Posted by: John Moore at April 28, 2006 8:35 PM | Permalink Interesting that Judge Hogan has judged the transfer of information to be a crime, without having a trial, and with the prosecutor already having declared that it wasn't a crime. But the press should take note... What ye sow, so shall ye reap. Crusading against Libby's leak has brought the power of the courts down on reporters in a very public way. Shall we see what the NSA and CIA leak investigations lead to? Criminal conspiracy charges? Sounds like it to me! Unauthorized leakers of very highly classified information need to be punished. That's the democratically enacted law. The irresponsibility of the media in this regard is apalling, and in these cases, criminal. Posted by: John Moore at April 28, 2006 8:47 PM | Permalink Whereas Tony Snow is a lean guy, great haircut, slick and a very sharp dresser. .... as long as he does not have to open his mouth, maybe. But since the job requires him to be yapping non sequiturs everyday, it will probably wear thin pretty quickly. Posted by: village idiot at April 28, 2006 9:19 PM | Permalink The swiftboating of Neil Young has begun with the internet release of his new album, which includes the hit, Let's Impeach the President. Fox News' Banner notes "Album Atacks America" and "Canadians Bashing Americans." See it here. The realisty, of course, is that the album attacks Bush and his misadventures, not America. Bush's media puppets always try to conflate criticizing Bush with bashing America. But the album really is not anti-american. It is patriotic, if you listen to it. And pretty good, too. Youngs Album was released for free listening on the internet, here Posted by: steve schwenk at April 28, 2006 9:40 PM | Permalink It is beyond anybody's control now, not Snow's and not Bolten's; it is all unraveling like in a Greek tragedy. Having said that, as hard as I rack my brain for a parallel from the classics, I cannot come up with one. For sheer incompetence, Mr. Bush is nonpareil. -- Village Idiot. I agree, Village Idiot, that historical imperatives cannot be denied. And that it is all unraveling, as these things always do ( Joe McCarthy ... Vietnam ... Iran-Contra ... Watergate ... Monica ... Enron ... the Iraq misadventure). But no parallel from the classics ? Have you forgotten King Lear? Posted by: Ann Kolson at April 28, 2006 9:41 PM | Permalink But no parallel from the classics ? Have you forgotten King Lear? I did think about King Lear, but as flawed as Lear is, it seemed unfair to compare a tragic figure like him with the one ruling us currently because, to my mind, incompetence is the dominant character flaw (if it can be considered a flaw) of Bush. Posted by: village idiot at April 28, 2006 10:14 PM | Permalink Ah, VI, I envy your optimism -- you must be young -- and I devoutly hope that you are right. In an ideal world, incompetence would be punished and competence rewarded. Imagine such a world. Alas, imagine is the operative word. It's late, so forgive the pessimism. Who knows -- tomorrow I may be as perky as Katie Couric ! (It's been known, however briefly, to happen.) So let's hope! Posted by: Ann Kolson at April 28, 2006 10:49 PM | Permalink Ann -- Is there ever a new story worth reporting (i.e., actually learning something about)? Imagine such a world. Or are we forever doomed to the same old Procrustean PressThink, eternally fitting all of reality to the same handful of tired narratives forged between 1968 and 1973? When do the Baby Boomers retire? Posted by: Neuro-conservative at April 29, 2006 1:12 AM | Permalink Not sure about the relevancy of your time frame, neuro, but you question does raise a question: who do we report for? Is there a responsibility to report to a wider general audience? Do we only report to your particular standards, politics and education level? The reality you wish to see is not necessarily reality as everyone else sees. Do we report only for your tastes and write off everyone else? Posted by: Dave McLemore at April 29, 2006 1:33 AM | Permalink I just overheard on a radio some analyst suggesting that when Tony Snow faces the press in his new job as White House press spokesman, he will no doubt know what the Christians felt like when they faced the lions in ancient Rome ... CODA: LtCol Oliver L. North is a nationally syndicated columnist and the honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance. An educational and charitable foundation, the Alliance was founded in 1990 by LtCol North, who now serves as the organization's honorary chairman. The committee works to promote freedom and liberty, support the American military and educate American youth on the military. Open Letter to Tony Snow Terry Teacher has a great post on spin meisters: 'I hate spin. Really, really hate it, with an Orwellian passion. I bristle whenever I see it in print or hear it on TV: Lets imagine any general under Bush saying: 'I claim we took a hell of a beating. We got run out of Burma and it is as humiliating as hell. I think we ought to find out what caused it, and go back and retake it' Posted by: Jozef Imrich at April 29, 2006 1:41 AM | Permalink IMHO, Snow will be just as "useless" to the legitimate working press as McClellan was. Snow's function will be to provide daily "official" soundbites for right wing radio, and "official" television footage for FauxNews --- he'll be all spin, all the time, and real media organizations will recognize that --- the value added that Snow brings is the "White House" is now saying "officially" as "factual information" what FauxNews commentators and Rush Limbaugh and his radio ilk have been saying for years. Jozef, Spin by the press is far more disturbing to me than spin by politicians. The politicians, for various reasons, HAVED to spin. The press does it to further their own political viewpoints, which is fine on the editorial page but grossly improper (but ubiquitous) in "reporting." Posted by: John Moore at April 29, 2006 1:58 AM | Permalink Dave -- Can you elaborate on your question? Why does reporting for "[my] tastes" entail "writ[ing] off everyone else? Posted by: Neuro-conservative at April 29, 2006 2:04 AM | Permalink John Moore, That's more truth than most US media will take responsiblity for. For as long as I can remember (which goes back to the late 1960s) major US media outlets have been afraid to say true things like that. More importantly though, for anyone who was conscious at the time and had the barest whiff of familiarity with world history (like the East coast elitists in small town central Illinois where I was born and raised) the Cold War was defined by spin and the Soviets had nothing on the US media. The idea that you would be surprised by surreal spin in any US media outlet in spite of the Cold War is a shocking confession of gullibility. If you were sentient at the time you would have expected it because of the Cold War. Because that's what we got, start to finish. You may as well tell us you were shocked that Sesame Street repeatedly referred to letters and numbers so you had to give up listening to Soviet educational TV. Wow. Repeated reference to numbers and letters on program after program. Damn. How did you cope? Posted by: Mark Anderson at April 29, 2006 2:49 AM | Permalink aye aye aye...the song remains the same..... Posted by: Calboy at April 29, 2006 3:05 AM | Permalink Yes, history is stubborn like that. History and facts clearly aren't an obstacle for Tony Snow in depicting a revisionist GOP fantasy world, however. Looks like he'll be a perfect spokesman for the teetering funhouse that is Bushworld. Posted by: Mark Anderson at April 29, 2006 3:36 AM | Permalink Apparently psychosis was included as a minimum criterion in the Bush II White House search for a new press secretary. From Rollback to Baghdad Bob? My question is, what will Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert have left to parody if Tony Snow does all the work for them on the White House's nickel? Posted by: Mark Anderson at April 29, 2006 3:44 AM | Permalink OT: I was directed to this by one of the links on this board, and I cannot believe what I see on the CNN screengrab. Is this a photoshopped image, or did CNN's news ticker really say that? If true, that must have left some real scars on Mr. Roberts.;-) First, he gets accused of leaking classified information to reporters, and then he is refused R&R by Cunningham's prostitutes. Washington D.C. must be a fun place. This is turning out to be a memorable week .... Posted by: village idiot at April 29, 2006 10:13 AM | Permalink From the Oliver North open letter to Tony Snow Jozef helpfully linked to, which is quite a good document for understanding why the take-no-prisoners right is lately so frustrated with Bush: I'm confident the President believes that victory in this war is vital, and I'm sure you do too. But the conviction with which that message has been delivered lately has been lacking. It is part of a string of communications gaffes that have emanated from the White House. From the Dubai port deal to the treatment of terrorist detainees, the President's opposition has inflamed the media, framed the issue, and taken the lead. That's rich. About the only political justification the risky policy of Rollback had was to deliver a satisfying put down of the liberal media for the likes of Ollie. The whole point was to put the press in its place, play to the base, and sail through with "never apologize, never explain, never admit an error." He was the constituency and now he's all mad. But now North realizes you need a media-savvy put-downer and place-put-er. Rich. My homework: According to the National Archives publication the first White House Press Secretary was Cabinet member George B. Cortelyou, who invited the press into the White House, over the shooting of President William McKinley at the Pan American Exposition in Buffalo, NY. A photo from there has him standing next to the President. Nine days later, VP Theodore Roosevelt, rushed down at night on a series of jitnies, would read the telegram in North Creek, NY (he had been at Tahawas climbing Mt. Marcy, please help save) that the President was dead, before boarding a special train for Buffalo, NY from the railhead. George B. Cortelyou, a shorthand teacher in NYC, secretary to three Presidents, held three Cabinet posts under McKinley and Roosevelt, was later a CEO of ConEdison in NYC, and the Chairman of the Republican Party. His house in Washington was recently featured in "Victorian Homes". Historians should look closer at his role in the events of the times. Posted by: George Myers, Jr. at April 29, 2006 11:39 AM | Permalink (OT -- Schwenk, good news, the swifting of Neil Young. Good news for record sales, that is. The music biz doesn't work like presidential campaigns. All publicity is good publicity. Especially "controversy." In this case, the work speaks for itself. (The album is brilliant and patriotic, and catches the spirit of our time the same way Lou Reed's New York nailed NYC in the late 80s.) ON topic, when Ollie North says: a free and independent media is vital to American liberty it is a throwaway line, totally hollow. Especially when it is followed by a plea to "put the press in its proper place"! I suppose a "free and independent media" is "vital to American liberty" when it can be used to submit a handsome young Colonel in uniform as the sympathetic public face of an illegal White House policy. When Oliver North says: But you also know, and must explain to the press, that using the power of the presidency to prosecute a global war against terrorism is not a violation of the constitution just because they deem it so, You just">http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-chronology.html?_r=1&oref=login&oref=slogin">just have to laugh. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at April 29, 2006 1:07 PM | Permalink Listen, attack duck--whose other fake name is "neuro-conservative"--your attacks are getting more and more idiotic, fact-free, pointless and inane. Your latest fake charge--claiming that PressThink is "eternally fitting all of reality to the same handful of tired narratives forged between 1968 and 1973"--neglects to consider that the author was 12 years old in '68, and unaware of politics. (I was quite aware of Bob Gibson, however.) When in 1974 I first registered to vote, attack duck, I registered Republican because that was the only way to get a summer job in my town. My political education began with Watergate, which means it started the year you absurdly, idiotically, ignorantly claim it ended. Left bad, right good. Why do you come here to deliver such non-thought? There are so many places on the Web where they welcome robotic messages like that. Why PressThink? I will tell you why. Because it's one of the few places you can find where there actually is diversity of thought. The exact opposite of your lame-brain charge. Your participation here is joke, attack duck, and for precisely for reasons like this. You don't inquire, you don't listen, you collect no facts before hitting the keyboard-- you simply consult the frozen hateful party line in your head and start quacking at your imaginary opponents. I believe you said at one point that you have an academic job. That's disturbing if true, as you are a role model for demagogues and intellectual quacks everywhere. Getting the message yet, duck? (Quack, quack.) I have told other people who seem incapable of making a useful contribution that they could start to redeem themselves by at least providing a link that other participants might learn from. I'd offer that advice to you, attack duck, but I'm afraid even your links would be a lie. You quack. Jay, Well, yeah, that's a reasonable viewpoint from his and my point of view. We believe the MSM operates too much as an echo chamber with a certain viewpoint. We have had a long time to form those opinions, from interactions with the press, watching its actions regarding situations in which we had solid facts, and predicting its response, based on that thesis, to various driving functions. While you were a kid, I was watching the reporting about Vietnam rapidly get progressively more biased. While you were a kid, I watched the reporting about the USSR become progressively more biased. I had, perhaps, some advantages, having grown up in a community whose primary product was nuclear weapons, having been in the military and subsequently attended anti-war events, and having seen the ravages of Russian imperialism up close - in East Berlin shortly after the wall went up. I have only once been involved in an activity where the press report was accurate or even close to accurate. Reporting on national issues was usually highly biased/selective. I didn't get my views on the press from knowing conservatives or reading conservative publications (that came later) but from direct experience. Sadly, that view was only re-inforced during my national activist activities in 2004. As such, the proper place of the MSM is only slightly different from the proper place of the DNC, in the national debate. Like it or not, agree or not, that is not an illegitimate viewpoint, and in fact is bolstered by activities on this board. Posted by: John Moore at April 29, 2006 1:43 PM | Permalink Neuro, In your question Is there ever a new story worth reporting (i.e., actually learning something about)? you're saying you don't perceive anything new or worthwhile being reported. Why? Because [W]e are forever doomed to the same old Procrustean PressThink, eternally fitting all of reality to the same handful of tired narratives forged between 1968 and 1973? Presumably, it's all the Baby Boomers' fault. You overlooked my first question, which was, "Who do we [the media] report for?" You, who can't see the information and newly developed themes because your eyes are clouded with perceptions of "procrutean PressThink." Or John Moore and his buds, who sit around the virtual Courthouse square bitching about the fellow-traveller press. (Honestly, John, comparing CBS to Radio Moscow is bizarre even for you.) Or do we report to a wider world who may not know the information being imparted - and who might actually be a wee bit more open to information that doesn't tightly conform to their political and social biases? You don't want a free press or an informed press. You want media which give you only what you want to hear. And my final question, then, is what about the rest of the community? Hope that clears things up. Posted by: Dave McLemore at April 29, 2006 2:00 PM | Permalink That CBS, in replacing news and truth-seeking with ideology and propaganda, was worse than Pravda or Radio Moscow is not a legitmate viewpoint, John. This claim dangerously misstates the control of information under the Soviets. It's naive. In fact, it's a way of being soft on communism. It's not a legitimate viewpoint if you're a conservative cold warrior. It's not legitimate if you're a democratic socialist. It's not legitimate if you're a neoliberal or neocon. It's just garbage. Like it or not, no one familiar with the actual history of those two institutions would spend two seconds on your proposition. But it's not really a serious proposition; it's your way of expressing how mad you are at CBS. Which is fine. What attack duck does is not fine. As such, the proper place of the MSM is only slightly different from the proper place of the DNC, in the national debate. Somehow, John Moore, I'd think Howard Dean would disagree with your assessment. From your comments now and earlier, it's clear you're not talking about biased media but rather are upset that news reports don't conform to your interpretations of how events should be reported. Or bolster your world view. Posted by: Dave McLemore at April 29, 2006 2:06 PM | Permalink Oliver North, from Wikipedia: [Oliver] North became famous due to his participation in the Iran-Contra Affair, in which he was the chief coordinator of the illegal sale of weapons via intermediaries to Iran, with the profits being channeled to the Contras in Nicaragua. He was responsible for the establishment of a covert network used for the purposes of aiding the Contras. To my mind, Oliver North and Susan McDougal have about the same level of credibility. But then I am probably implicated in the 'activities' on this board. Posted by: village idiot at April 29, 2006 2:09 PM | Permalink Jay, three questions based on your thoughts from two sources Public Journalism as a Democratic Art, 7-17-2002, and PressThink Basics: The Master Narrative in Journalism, 9-08-2003 1. How could the journalists and reporters covering the White House use the Tony Snow appointment as an opportunity to change the existing “master narrative” and re-frame those “Big Story” choices and emphasis in the coming year? Please forget the White House’s “role” for this exercise…. What specifically could reporters do, what questions could they ask, what citizen inputs could they share, what tone could they use, that would help to create a more productive atmosphere geared towards "cooperative problem-solving"? 2. What would it take to encourage the editors of the nation’s top papers to make a conscious decision to alter the “permanent campaign” master narrative to something that would create a more healthful and cooperative problem-solving environment that would better serve the American public right now. 3. Could the Press take the initiative at this point, with the signals coming from the White House with the replacement of McClellan with Snow, and “renegotiate with sources” -- the White House, politicians, pollsters – and agree to a new master narrative? Your background quotes that I found helpful in trying to formulate my questions: In White House coverage, the master narrative is shaped by a tendency first noticed by political reporter Sidney Blumenthal--the notion of a "permanent campaign." As the story gets told and re-told this way, the approval rating takes on magic significance--more significant, at times, than the president's words or deeds, or even the state of the nation. Clearly, the permanent campaign is a particular way of looking at politics; that is, it's a kind of framing. What I'm emphasizing here is the productive power of the master narrative, the way it generates an almost limitless supply of stories that add up to one Big Story--the story of the president struggling to remain popular. Because journalists do “live” within their narratives, they often don’t see them. William Woo, former editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “The master narrative is a reason why some stories that should get in, don’t get in.” Paul Taylor, a former political reporter for the Washington Post who covered presidential campaigns, wrote this in 1992: Political stories don’t just ‘happen’ the way hailstorms do. They are artifacts of a political universe that journalism itself has helped to construct. They are components of a journalistic master narrative built around two principle story lines: the search for the candidates’ character flaws, and the depiction of the campaign as a horserace, full of ploys and surprises, tenacity and treachery, rising action and falling action, winners and losers. Taylor’s use of “construct” intrigues me for two reasons. Journalists, he’s saying, help create the universe from which they draw news, which is a truthful but disruptive observation. How to report the news—accurately, fairly, comprehensively—is something we know how to teach in journalism school. How to construct the public arena (accurately, fairly, comprehensively? do these terms even make sense?) is not. It’s pretty clear where the authority to report the news comes from; it’s not clear where the authority to construct the world lies, or could lie. Posted by: Kristen at April 29, 2006 5:02 PM | Permalink Kristen: "How could the journalists and reporters covering the White House use the Tony Snow appointment as an opportunity to change the existing 'master narrative' and re-frame those 'Big Story' choices and emphasis in the coming year?" I don't believe the relationship can be saved, Kristen. It's dead. Maturity lies in recognizing that there is no relationship there, and no mutual respect. There's no point in trying to change the narrative or "get along." I think journalists covering this White House should not even be at the White House. It does them no good, and it does the Bush forces--perpetually complaining about a biased, unfair press, like Ollie does--no good, either. (Or at least that's the way they see it.) The real journalists should have quit several years ago and taken the White House at its word-- that they would be treated as special interest group with no public interest role whatsoever. The reason they didn't is simple: they and their organizations are too chickenshit to do something like that. (Which is why John Harris quit on our interview.) Today they should do all their reporting from the outside in, calling Snow's operation when the story is done and running his comments if he has any. They should stop trying to develop sources "inside" the Bush operation. They should run short factual articles from the wire services about what Bush did and said today, and put all of their reportorial energy on finding out from outsiders what's going on, as well as investigative journalism about what's really going down. They should hang up the phone when offered leaks. If their thing is TV, they should use video from the pool when they need it. They should ignore Snow unless he calls and demands to be interviewed. Then they should wait for the White House to ask them back. Most likely, the White House never would. Win, win. Amen, Amen .... Posted by: village idiot at April 29, 2006 6:35 PM | Permalink After all the abuse, perhaps the White House Press is suffering from Battered Person Syndrome: The condition explains why abused people often do not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers have low self-esteem, and often believe that the abuse is their fault. Such persons usually refuse to press criminal charges against their abuser, and refuse all offers of help, often becoming aggressive or abusive to others who attempt to offer assistance. Posted by: village idiot at April 29, 2006 6:52 PM | Permalink Village Idiot, Besieged by the nattering nabobs of GOP up-is-downism, appeasement is the battered press's path of choice. Posted by: Mark Anderson at April 29, 2006 7:45 PM | Permalink Or are we forever doomed to the same old Procrustean PressThink, eternally fitting all of reality to the same handful of tired narratives forged between 1968 and 1973? --Neuro-conservative. In 1968, I was 3 years old and in 1973 I was 8 years old. So, like Jay himself, I was in no position to observe the insidious insemination of the yet-aborning Press Think with the narrative sperm of the moment. But in 2004, I was 39, and quite a bit more familiar with the creation and marketing of dubious narratives. So 2 years later, it's more than a little amusing -- actually, somewhat touching -- to watch Neuro-conservative trying to swiftboat Press Think. Sorry, Neuro. But as far as I, a novice, can tell, Press Think is infinitely forgiving. Everyone but the most egregious offenders is free to try and try again. Posted by: Ann Kolson at April 29, 2006 8:57 PM | Permalink Ari Fleischer wrote an oped in the Washington Post the other day on the dynamic that exists between the White House Press Secretary - of whatever party - and the White House press corps. In addition to the televised session, I used to brief the press every morning in something called "the gaggle." It was on the record, but no TV cameras were allowed. The gaggle was more informative and serious than the briefing. Reporters didn't posture as much for their colleagues and editors, since their reporting wasn't on the air. If I ducked a question at the gaggle -- such as the ones I was asked immediately after Sept. 11, 2001, about whether a military strike was "coming within hours, days, weeks or months" (I was asked that actual question) -- the reporters didn't attempt to ask me the same thing 17 different ways, as they did at the televised briefing. They got the point: The White House wasn't answering. The problem is that reporters spend too much time trying to impress other reporters, and not enough time researching important questions and making sure that their limited face time with principle subjects move the ball forward in a meaningful way. Instead, they are always trying to impress their colleagues with how aggressive they are, how tough they are, etc. Which is counterproductive. I noticed this as a reporter myself - and to some extent have been guilty of it (I covered personal finance and the 401(k)/Retirement beat during the fall of Enron and the fall of former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt). I think I played the 401k story well, but I would have been better off not attending Pitt's press conferences, etc., and just making sure that while everyone else was posturing, I was busy understanding and explaining. I got some scoops in the retirement world, and was, I think, one of the better diggers out there. But I didn't move the football much at all on Pitt - even though I was one of the more aggressive reporters at an SIA industry press conference he gave. Yeah, I had a reputation among a few ink-stained wretches who care about that beat, but it didn't translate into good stories at all or serving my readers. To use another analogy - consider a professional interrogator. The most aggressive interrogater is not going to be the guy that gets the information. The best interrogators are the ones that the subject likes and trusts and wants to try to please. (for more on this art, see "The Interrogator," the story of Luftwaffe interrogator Hans Joachim Scharff, a true master of the art.) In the intelligence-gathering world, they are the ones who get the scoops. Not the screamers and posturers. I never got any scoops at a press conference. What's the point of showing up if they're televised anyway? But when your fellow reporters are concentrating on bush-league rhetorical traps (which are incredibly easy to see through and aren't really that clever) or asking the same question 15 different ways, it's probably a waste of time to even watch it. You can have a well-read intern do that. Much better to call some other sources and ask real questions, without the posturing, and deliver the definitive story. I don't recall seeing Sy Hersh at too many press conferences - even back in the day, when his reporting was reasonably accurate. That's what serves the readers. But that's not what gets rewarded in the journalism field. But journos everywhere ought to remember - when they do go to press conferences, their job is to serve their readers - not to look aggressive or tough or on the ball. The best reporter may not even be present. Or he may be smart enough to just keep his mouth shut, and take better notes. I'm getting back in the financial journo world myself again, as a freelancer now, and I hope I'll be a better reporter having shed the stupid "six-gun" mentality that I was guilty of a few years back, and which I see in the White House press corps, and elsewhere, all the time.
Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at April 29, 2006 9:33 PM | Permalink By the way, Jay... it's pretty tough to avoid the "stuck on Watergate" charge when just two posts ago you were extolling Murray Waas as "The Woodward of Our Time." Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at April 29, 2006 9:35 PM | Permalink Attack duck just said I was stuck on 1968-73, Jason. The Watergate mythology is from 73-74. I believe he was saying you guys live in the sixties, man. It was more Summer of Love than Nixon's Fall although if so he got the dates wrong too--Duck gets everything wrong--because the Summer of Love, symbolic high point for the counter-culture he's invoking, was 1967. If you're interested in what I think about Watergate's persistence-as-myth in journalism, as against scoring cheap points with evidence like the damning presence of the word "Woodward" in a title (which is totally lame...) then I recommend PressThink, Deep Throat, J-School and Newsroom Religion: "Watergate is the great redemptive story believers learn to tell about the press and what it can do for the American people. Whether the story can continue to claim enough believers--and connect the humble to the heroic in journalism--is a big question. Whether it should is another question..." And if you're interested in the way I interpret the Woodward legacy, see Grokking Woodward. And if after reading them you want to come back here and revise or at least round out your view of my Watergate Repetition Compulsion that would be swell-and-a-half. Much better to call some other sources and ask real questions, without the posturing, and deliver the definitive story. I don't recall seeing Sy Hersh at too many press conferences - even back in the day, when his reporting was reasonably accurate. Jason, for once you and I are in total agreement. You have it exactly right. A Sy Hersh works the phones and digs up the documents. And at any press conference, "the best reporter may not even be present. Or he may be smart enough to keep his mouth shut." I can't swear to this, but I'm betting that Hersh has never once attended the Daily Follies, whether they were presided over by Scott McClellan, or Marlin Fitzwater or by anyone else. He didn't uncover the Mai Lai massacre by attending Robert MacNamara's press conferences. He did it by talking to the boots on the ground. I have had the good fortune to edit several investigative reporters -- including Don Barlett and James Steele, who have won two Pulitizer prizes and two National Magazne Awards. And as far as I recall, Don and JIm -- like Sy Hersh -- have not attended a press conference in their lives. Not one. Posted by: |
Print