PressThink: Last Week That Man Tried to Run You Over. Why Are You Having Dinner With Him?

Last Week That Man Tried to Run You Over. Why Are You Having Dinner With Him?

"Bush broke with the consensus that created the modern White House press corps. One small but highly symbolic part of the consensus was the Correspondents dinner, and this is why it matters that the New York Times has quit the event."

It’s good news that journalists at the New York Times will no longer participate in the bloated and compromised White House Correspondents Association dinner. Bravo. I await with some curiosity the explanation for what changed in their thinking. So far, nothing.

One possibility: the editors will evade the intricate cultural politics of the matter and settle instead on the dinner’s transformation into a celebrity event, where Hollywood producer Laurie David (guest of CNN) and singer Sheryl Crow (guest of Bloomberg News) can grill Karl Rove on global warming. Rove, who was himself an invited guest of the New York Times! “The entire evening had the surrealistic feel of a Salvador Dali movie,” said Arianna Huffngton.

It’s a lot easier to say the event has gone Hollywood than it is to engage with Frank Rich’s argument at TimesSelect: “for all the recrimination, self-flagellation and reforms that followed” from the collapse and ruin of the watchdog press under Bush, “it’s far from clear that the entire profession yet understands why it has lost the public’s faith.” The dinner, he wrote, “is a crystallization of the press’s failures in the post-9/11 era.”

“It wasn’t just this year’s entertainment that had the faint whiff of mothballs,” David Carr wrote in a Times column the Monday after. The dinner itself “only seemed to emphasize the distance between Washington and the rest of the country.”

I asked Carr if he thought Dean Baquet, the Times Washington bureau chief, was reacting to his column. Carr said no. “He attended, he did his own reporting, and he reached his own conclusions. He has been in the business in a leadership role for decades and he is in a position to make a judgment about the dinner’s appropriateness for our Washington bureau.” (UPDATE: The explanations from the Times came in. See this piece and this one. Bill Keller: “These events create a false perception that reporters and their sources are pals, and that perception clouds our credibility. It’s not worth it.”)

Two weeks ago, Jim Rutenberg, a Times correspondent in the Washington bureau, interviewed me about the upcoming Correspondents dinner and in particular the choice of 70’s-era comedian, Rich Little, after last year’s funny man, Stephen Colbert, held the press and president—and the dinner itself—up to extremely effective ridicule. This is not the opinion of the journalists who were there, of course, Rutenberg included. In his view Colbert “just wasn’t funny.”

Rutenberg’s article made me wish I had followed, in this instance, blogger Dave Winer’s policy. When asked for a phone or e-mail interview, he usually declines. “If you have a few questions, send them along, and if I have something to say, I’ll write a blog post, which of course you’re free to quote,” he said last week. Responding to Winer, and to this event with Jason Calacanis and Wired magazine, Jeff Jarvis wrote: “The interview is outmoded and needs to be rethought.”

I know I’m rethinking it. Rutenberg and I had a pretty detailed conversation about the put down of the establishment press under Bush, certain failures of imagination in Washington journalism, the interpretation of Colbert’s performance in 2006, and the “musty” feel that the invitation to Rich Little had. I pointed out, for example, that Little was at his peak at roughly the same cultural moment that the Washington press corps was at its peak in the afterglow of Watergate.

But what Jim needed me for was the bloggers vs. journalists debate. “In hiring an impersonator practiced in an old-school approach to comedy, meant to entertain but not offend, the White House Correspondents’ Association has, however, provoked left-leaning political activists, who see his assignment as a retreat from last year’s dinner.” (Subtext: Wow, the left is as angry with the press as the right was. Just listen to the so-called Net roots attack us for not carrying their message.)

Notice that it is “activists” who are upset with the White House press, and it is their conflict with civil, professional and reasonable journalists that creates friction enough for a story. I wanted nothing to do with that narrative. I told Rutenberg that I did not see the press as “in the pocket of Bush” (as many on the left do) but as overwhelmed by the phenomena of Bush-as-president, and by the radicalism of his Administration, especially the expansion of executive power. This included in one aspect the rollback of the press and its de-certification as questioner of the president.

But Rutenberg recruited me into his narrative anyway. Colbert wasn’t the first comic to insult the president, he wrote. “Imus angered the Clinton White House in 1996 when he made fun of Mr. Clinton as a philanderer at a Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association Dinner.”

But that was pre-blogosphere, which is populated by people who “feel that the press was run over, and kind of told itself some story to avoid confrontation and lapsed into a phony kind of balance,” said Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University.
It is enough to make some reporters bristle. “Some of them seem to want us to hate the people we cover,” said Ken Herman, a White House correspondent for Cox Newspapers and an association board member. “They don’t seem to understand that you can have a professional relationship with them where you don’t hate them, and you can sometimes talk to them, and maybe have dinner with them.”

Herman’s “bristle” has nothing to do with what I think. But I was not misquoted. I was used to make a point Rutenberg wanted to make before he talked to me. As Dan Froomkin wrote the same day, “Rutenberg creates a false conflict. Rosen and Herman are both largely correct. The press has been played by this White House — but that doesn’t mean reporters have to be jerks.”

Still, Rutenberg didn’t violate any of the rules for interviewing sources, and I knew what I was getting into when I called him back. Reporter and I talk for 30 to 45 minutes; he decides which twelve seconds he wants to use. If he has a pre-existing narrative that he wants me to ratify, chances are good I will say something he can use to do just that. Them’s the rules.

I would have been better off blogging about his e-mailed questions. As Scott Rosenberg observed last week, “In the online conversation, the reporter doesn’t get the last word. And the reporter doesn’t get to filter which parts of the conversation are available to the public. No wonder journalists want to stick with the phone. But I think it’s going to keep getting harder for them to get their sources to take the calls.” (See also Brad DeLong’s view.)

The most revealing moment for me came when Rutenberg allowed that rollback and the retreat from empiricism may have happened. “But don’t you think Bush is paying the price for that now?” he said. Here was a way of acknowledging press failure that allows the story to come out all right at the end. Presidents are supposed to pay a price if they diss the press, and look! …The system worked.

In fact, Bush broke with the consensus that created the modern White House press corps. One small but highly symbolic part of the consensus was the Correspondents dinner, and this is why it matters that the New York Times has quit the event.

But consider what Bush quit first. His chief of staff denied that there was any fourth estate role. “In our democracy, the people who represent the public stood for election,” said Andrew Card. “I don’t believe you have a check-and-balance function.” Bush told reporters the same thing at an August 2003 barbeque in Texas: “You’re assuming that you represent the public,” he said, “I don’t accept that.”

Back ‘em up, starve ‘em down, and drive up their negatives— that was the policy. Allies in the culture war were eager to help the White House marginalize and discredit the Washington press. In Scott McClellan, a stooge figure actually took over in the White House press room. Strategic non-communication became normal practice— itself an extraordinary break with the past. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney’s expansion of executive power meant there was way more to cover, but a weaker press to cover it. Just as there was weaker oversight, weaker opposition, and a fewer controls on cooking the books.

What happened with me and Rutenberg happened also with “Frontline” in its series, News War. I was interviewed for hours by correspondent Lowell Bergman. I wound up with one line in the film— okay two. “The way that the press was sold and spun and just fooled by the White House in the run-up to the war represents more than just a missed story,” I said in part one. “How can one say that we have a watchdog press after a performance like that?”

I was supposed to be gratified by those two lines. Well, I wasn’t. I was grateful that Frontline released on the Web an edited transcript of my interview. But watching the film that aired on PBS made me regret that I had cooperated at all. I told that to executive producer Louis Wiley in an e-mail exchange we had after it aired. I said my frustrations weren’t about seconds of air time; it was…

The way the film was edited to bring out one story: heroic press fighting against ownership and its budget cuts, a government that would like to silence it, and untrained bloggers and amateurs buzzing around, stinging like knats. This is the story Lowell wanted to tell. He’s been a part of it in his career and feels very passionate about it. He’s newsroom Joe himself, and he’s got newsroom Joe’s mindset. You let that perspective carry the day. You’re entitled to make that decision, which is an editorial decision, and I’m entitled to be angry about it. Because it’s inadequate. You had the materials to challenge it more, you just didn’t want to.

I always loved it when Victor Navasky, editor, then publisher of The Nation would explain to journalists or J-students that, in his opinion, there was an ideology of the left (journalists nod) an ideology of the right (more nodding) and an ideology of the center. Not so much nodding at that.
“The press is full of ideologues of the center,” he would say, eyes twinkling, ice cubes clinking. “But they all deny it.” And that’s when the fun started.

For while it’s defensible to have a “centrist” ideology and be a reporter or editor, the journalists who would argue most strenuously with Navasky had a different proposition: theirs was an ideology-free zone. They wouldn’t defend their politics; instead they would proclaim their innocence. Instead of thinking about it… ideologues of the center: do I recognize the type?… they just reacted.

Over time I realized the genius in Navasky’s method of needling journalists. He was trying to show them a gap in their educations. They were unable to think politically about their own institution, but they could go on for quite a while about the separation between news and opinion sections.

Posted by Jay Rosen at May 1, 2007 1:11 AM Print

Jay,

I think your bias is showing. No, I don't think you're particularly partisan or left leaning, but I do think your view of the media is hopelessly slanted towards the inside.

Many of us who are far more intimate with Iraq and our war against terrorists [not to be called the Global War on Terror] know better that the great failing of the media occurred after the war in Iraq started, not before. Today's journalists are woefully ignorant of military matters, refuse to think they need to learn about our enemies or the real threats against us. They clearly went along with public opinion at war's start against their internal biases against military action or the Bush Administration. I don't know if that's so much a failing as an inevitability. The media has some watchdog role, but it never needed to be antagonistic towards national interest. (Or some twisted conception of "neutral.")

Since the war started, media grossly misreported on everything from a one day sandstorm on the road to Baghdad, to what elements were fighting where and for what, through Abu Ghraib.

As the Democrats chose to posture against the war they supported, and public support flagged, then the media misreported everything from pre-war intelligence, state-CIA-Admin-DoD bureacratic infighting, and any positive accomplishments in Iraq. All in assist to defeat a President they disliked, often intensely.

Worst of all, the media constantly misreported -- lied -- about the infamous State of the Union speech, claims that the war would be quick and easy, justifications for the war, in short: completely fabricated the basis for "Bush Lied us into War" BS. Tenet's book, if little else, should put that garbage to rest, but it won't.

And the media continues to get it wrong. Oh, once in a while they'll hype some retired or disgruntled General who will harp on some deficiency or error in judgment or planning, all of course to back up a claim of "I told them so."

Meanwhile, military leaders today -- and thousand upon thousands of veterans who have served -- can't even make it into print or broadcast with any views contrary to the "civil war in Iraq" orthodoxy. Facts that refute the storyboard get dumped, if not by reporters then by editors. Only on the fringes of Conservative press can you find any semblance of balance in reporting on Iraq.

Perhaps most dishonest of all, the press continues to hype storylines that portray aggressive expansions of Executive Branch powers, when in fact these same expansions were widespread under Clinton, often in exactly the same or related ways. To suggest that the often hapless Bush Administration is somehow more nefarious in this regard vs previous Presidents suits the storyline, but does an injustice to the arch-Macheavelian Clinton.

Context. Background. Stop assuming that your world view is the only possible or logical one.

You touched a nerve, Jay. But I'm with other commentators here. If the media continues to ignore the true nature of their own role in coming obsolescence, you're all doomed to continue to slide into oblivion. And as much as you all may commiserate and blame that "bastard Bush," you sound to the rest of us like that loser boyfriend on Forrest Gump. The one who hits Jenny, and when confronted with his bad behavior, stammers out the excuse that "it's that bastard Johnson."

I count on you for better analysis and insight than this.

Posted by: dadmanly at May 1, 2007 1:10 PM | Permalink

Unlike Roger, I will actually argue with Jason, as I think you raise interesting and valid points, which are a bit more nuanced then you imply.

I would like you to be more specific about which laws the Bush Administration has violated. I will assume you are referring to the wiretapping program, the use of presidential signing statements, the violation of the Geneva conventions, the faulty intelligence in the run-up to the war in Iraq, or War crimes in Iraq.

The wiretapping of Americans without a warrant may be constitutional, though arguments for such are very tenuous (but we will assume for the sake of argument that it is). On the other hand, it is in direct violation of the FISA act. While some republicans argue that the authorization for the war in Afghanistan over-rode the FISA act, this is very shaky. Nevertheless, even if this is accepted, it still does not give him cover, because any interpretation of the authorization that gives Bush the ability to wiretap without a warrant also gives him the authority to do clearly unconstitutional things, such as summary execution of American citizens. As the law gives the president carte-blanch authority, it is clearly unconstitutional. Therefore, the FISA law still holds.

On the other hand, Clinton and Reagan also engaged also wiretapped without warrants, though not anywhere near as often. If we were to jail Bush for this reason, we would need to arrest Clinton, and several hundred military and intelligence officials who were complicit. I personally support this position, but I doubt many others do.

Basic knowledge of 7th grade civics dictates that signing statements are clearly illegal, as the president dictates that he refuses to enforce a law in a certain capacity, a clear violation of his constitutional duties. George Bush has used signing statements, but so has Bill Clinton. It is true that George Bush has signed far more than Bill Clinton has, but this is irrelevant. Both of them are criminals, and if we are to arrest one, we should arrest the other.

It is questionable whether the US violated the Geneva Conventions, in a strict legal sense. The US ratified the third Geneva Convention in 1949. To my knowledge, this convention contains no reference to insurgencies or terrorism. Additions to the protocol to give rights to “non-conventional fighters”, “Non-enemy combatants” as the US likes to call them, were added in 1979, additions that the US has refused to ratify. While I personally support the ratification of these provisions, they are not in legal force in the USA. By all accounts, the US treated the Iraqi army well. This was the only party the Geneva conventions applied to. While you may be able to pin Bush on violating national laws for Army conduct, these are usually ridden with “national security” holes he can hide behind. While Bush’s actions regarding were clearly wrong, they were most likely not illegal.

In a similar vein, the Bush administration probably lied to the American people in order to trick them into going to war, the documentary evidence for such is rather overwhelming. But lying is not illegal if it was not done under oath. It might be possible to prosecute Bush on something akin to Slander, but any lawyer worth their salt could squirm their way out of that.

The last respite is international law. George Bush’s actions in Iraq arguably targeted civilians purposely; the Shock and Awe campaign is a good example of this. This is a war crime, under both The Hague and Geneva conventions. War crime law is rather expansive, if poorly enforced, so if needed we could most likely find many violations. The problem with this is that there are many far worse war criminals in the US who would be implicated by this standard. These include but are not limited to Russia, Israel (I am a second generation Israeli Jew, I am allowed to say this.), Hezbollah, Belarus, Burma, China, Sudan, and Iraqi insurgents themselves. I am not placing these groups on the same level, I am simply pointing out that all of them are more worthy of war crime prosecution than the United States. It would be hypocritical to prosecute the US and to leave these other groups untouched by international law.

Even if such a trial were to happen, it would cast a wider net than Bush. Under the Nuremburg standards set out after WW2, most members of congress who continued to vote in favor of the war and its funding would be considered co-conspirators to crimes against humanity. Thousands of military and civilian employees, and nearly all of the intelligence service, would face the same fate.

As you said yourself, impeachment is not a “vote of confidence” procedure. The case for Bush’s criminality is not clear-cut. Many other politicians have done every crime that he has unquestionably committed with impunity, and it would be impractical to prosecute the entire political elite.

Posted by: David Shor at May 2, 2007 2:26 AM | Permalink

Well, thanks for taking the time, then, Richard. And if you're using Leviticus as your guide, it's not me that's detached from reality. (What's BDS?)

There are mountains of evidence on my side, almost all of it provided openly by the shameless Bush administration itself. They don't seem to know right from wrong, so they don't even bother to cover their actions to any great extent.

Their violations of FISA are probably the best current criminal case. And while it's certainly true that other presidents and officials have committed similar crimes, the sheer volume of the Bush assault on the Constitution and various other laws is breathtaking.

Here is a president that arrogantly and openly refuses to abide by laws he doesn't care much for, and practically dares anybody to do anything about it. If that isn't a violation of his oath of office, pure treason, and clear cause for impeachment, then impeachment is meaningless, and in fact, we have a new monarchy, if only partially hereditary.

I agree with David Shor that Bush has a lot of wiggle room on any particular charge. But again, there are simply so many to choose from, and so many counts of each, it's hard to imagine that articles of impeachment would be either short or wholly unsuccessful upon adequate investigation. David's list pretty much captures the charges I have in mind, though I suspect a review of the UN Charter on Human Rights would net a few more.

Also, the PATRIOT Act, itself clearly unconstitutional in most provisions, has been something the administration is proud of using. As it overturns the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments (at least), it seems pretty clear that almost any use of it against a US citizen violates Bush's oath of office.

While I'm sure Bush/Cheney think they are working in the best interests of the United States, it's hard to understand how any results-based review could conclude that they are not, in fact, working against the best interests of the United States. Isn't that the definition of treason?

They're getting US troops killed in a way that only serves to create additional terrorists from people who would otherwise not take that course. They're isolating the US from our friends and allies around the globe. They're embracing the tools of dictatorship, such as "disappearing" people, torturing people, imprisoning people without charge or counsel for indefinite periods. These are all profoundly unAmerican activities. Our traditional abhorrence of these things has always been the basis of our moral authority in the world. Take them away, and we're no better than the regimes we oppose.

It's true, as Roger Rainey pointed out, that I and others like me are still free to spout our opposition to the administration, but I prefer to see that as speaking out while there's still time to make a difference. If we wait until the fascists finally resort to brutal suppression of dissent, then it's far too late.

Besides, why brutally suppress the opposition when you can use propaganda to brand them as crackpots? This strategy seems to be persuasive to at least some on this thread.

The bottom line is that I don't want to live in a police state. George W. Bush has done far more harm to the fabric of America than Osama bin Laden could ever hope to. Bush is bin Laden's unwitting tool in the destruction of American ideals.

And thanks to Graham Shevlin for the defense. I reread my comments above and also can't quite figure out how they were so interpreted by Messrs. Aubrey and Rainey.

Posted by: Jason Spicer at May 2, 2007 1:54 PM | Permalink

The general disgust I feel for the White House Correspondents' Dinner--which is accurately reflected in Jay's discussion of the bizarre inability of the DC Press Corps to cope with Stephen Colbert in a manner recognizable to anyone other than themselves and the even more pathetic programming of Rich Little--is largely a product of what I consider to be the press's consistent failure to do their job over the last thirty years. This is certainly a failure that has risen to newly catastrophic levels over the last six years of a self-proclaimed unitary executive essentially attempting to proclaim democracy unconstitutional.

If the press could ever reestablish credibility, a passing interest in actual truth rather than he said/she said journalism, whether or not they went to the dinner really wouldn't matter much would it?

Sadly, there is no imminent danger of that happening. Unless and until the DC press can swear off White House courtier practices such as continuing to protect anonymous administration sources who have demonstrably lied to the American people, perhaps ceasing to pay court in public is an appropriate cosmetic adjustment. If not truly satisfying or particularly furthering the people's business in the way that doing their jobs better would be, it is at least a minimal recognition that something is wrong somewhere. I suppose cosmetic baby steps are better than no steps at all.

A small example that has recently been reported on the mainstream networks illustrates the point and largely confirms what Media Matters among many others have been blogging for years:
Bill O'Reilly claims he never makes ad hominem personal attacks on people. A recent study at the University of Indiana reviewed dozens of episodes of his talking points memo segment and discovered that he insulted a group and referred to them as bad Americans approximately every seven seconds he is on the air. Why does the University of Indiana have to issue a study for the issue of fact to arise in journalistic coverage of our world?

A great number of the screaming falsehoods spouted by this administration are really at this very basic level of true or not true. Journalism that routinely commented on facts based on Google searches or what their own eyes tell them would be a revolution in integrity from what we have now.

Sadly, the average DC press equivalent of the above story on Bill O'Reilly if it had been written about the White House goes, "Democrats have recently claimed the White House personally insults opponents and cries treason dangerously demonizing others, but when reached for comment, the White House firmly denied the charge, stating without qualification that they never speak of anyone in a personally disparaging way."

The reporter could, on their own, ask the question: Who is telling the truth here?

It's not very hard for to look at video of Bush administration pronouncements (such as when Dana Perino claimed the other day that they've never played the patriotism card!) and tell that they patently contradict themselves on a daily basis (hence the Daily Show), but for some reason it is very difficult for many reporters to realize it or to get printed when they do.

Why is the truth of the Daily Show so difficult for reporters to understand? When did a healthy attention span and rudimentary logic and self-respect become partisan virtues the press must keep at arms length?

Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 3, 2007 4:36 PM | Permalink

Jay,
I think I generally follow your critique of the purportedly ideology free heroic journalism narrative and how it has been blind-sided by Bush era rollback. What still puzzles me, however, is the degree to which for many journalists the credo of objectivity has morphed into a duty to enable and defend the propagation of government propaganda through private, seemingly independent media outlets and the further duty to protect the identities of government officials who have arguably betrayed the nation as well as the press even after they have been exposed as bald-faced liars.

When did the code of journalistic independence designed to protect whistle-blowers get transformed into a code of omerta to the powers that be? And why doesn't the conflation of journalistic heroism and membership in a criminal conspiracy directed from the White House cause any cognitive dissonance for members of the beltway press?

How is it that the Judith Miller code of complicity with the powers that be and code of silence about their crimes passes for heroic journalistic integrity? This screaming incoherence still stops me in my tracks.

Judith Miller went to jail to defend her right to disseminate false government propaganda as a personal journalistic scoop and to protect the identity of the propagandist who lied to her. Rather than getting mad or getting even for being burned by a source, the journalistic ethics of her and the dozens in DC who defended her required her to heroically protect the identity of the source who burned her and the national interest. What is being defended here? What position or thought process imagines protecting a source that lies to you and leads the nation into a misbegotten military catastrophe is a defense of the public interest, is the very essence of the journalistic code of honor? This is something the New York Times and Bill Keller were right in the middle of. Until they can figure out the difference between becoming a made man in the Cheney cabal and defending the public interest, I'm not sure I can attach particular importance to who they have dinner with. Do you see any sign that Bill Keller and company have made any progress on this front?

The Bill Moyers documentary on selling the war featured a number of interviews where media executives essentially said they regularly print or broadcast stories in response to White House and corporate pressure that directly conflict with their own journalists' conclusions out of fear for political and economic retaliation. In broadcast news especially, there no longer seems to be the sort of firewall between opinion and the news that the ideology of journalistic objectivity takes as its point of departure. Do you think a failure to connect the clear consequences of corporate media consolidation and downsizing and the hoary and now largely imaginary ideology of journalistic independence might be a big part of the problem? In a word, where is the heroism and objectivity in passing on RNC-conceived opposition research from the Drudge Report and the Politico?

Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 4, 2007 11:53 AM | Permalink

I agree with p.lukasiak the correspondentï¿½s dinner should be a cease-fire. Instead it has become yet another opportunity for each side to count coup. A little more ï¿½what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegasï¿½ type of attitude would go a long way to restoring the event. Of course that goes to the heart of recognizing ï¿½the essential humanity of ï¿½the other sideï¿½ï¿½.

Take Jason Spicerï¿½s belief in the fascist nature of the Bush Administration. He was presented with information that maybe America in not quite as fascist as he wants to believe. This leads to the following statement by Mr. Spicer.

ï¿½It's true, as Roger Rainey pointed out, that I and others like me are still free to spout our opposition to the administration, but I prefer to see that as speaking out while there's still time to make a difference. If we wait until the fascists finally resort to brutal suppression of dissent, then it's far too late.ï¿½ (Speaking of the suppression of dissent, how about that PBS documentary on moderate Muslims?)

Mr. Spicer seems to be saying he knows the evidence does not support any transformation to a fascist state, but prefers to believe something else. Believing Bush is a fascist justifies all sorts of excesses in opposing his administration, plus it makes a nice label. If the other side is so bad, anything done, said or believed in opposition must be true and good, right? In the end Mr. Spicer becomes another shrill voice in the chorus of Bush and Clinton haters.

I disagree with p.lukasiak , however, on his views concerning the narratives of the press and ï¿½roll backï¿½. The two are the same.

p.lukasiak says
ï¿½What Jay describes is the practice of journalists spending a significant amount of time interviewing someone in order to get a quote to suit their pre-determined narrative -- while treating the rest of the interview as non-existent.ï¿½

and

ï¿½The administration's ï¿½roll backï¿½ isn't because of fear that quotes will be cherry-picked, its an effort to restrict the flow of information to Americans via the press -- to impose its own pre-determined narrative on the public ...to "fix the facts" to conform to the policy.

Once a narrative on a story has been chosen, whether by the press or by the administration and information is restricted, whether by restricting its flow or treating it as non-existent, the net effect is the same. Should an advocacy press that suppresses or ignores information not in keeping with its narrative be trusted any more than an administration that does the same? Fighting a fascist administration or even an administration of miscreants might justify this, but if it eventually exposes the press as dishonest too, I do not see this as good for anyone.

Jay Rosen argued a while back that the predominately negative coverage of the war by the press was a function of the coverage being too narrow not biased. It is not very far conceptually from coverage that is too narrow to ï¿½roll backï¿½ by the press. You donï¿½t pay for half a shoe, why should you pay for half( if that)of the news. They canï¿½t even get quotes right, ï¿½ï¿½recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.ï¿½ has a different meaning than, tried to buy uranium in Niger. Is simple competence too much to ask for?

The title of the post could be asked by either the president or the press. Indeed, rather than bravo, how puerile of the NY Times. I blame Bush we have lost the publicï¿½s trust, (or am I reading your snippet of Frank Rich wrong)? Slink off, suck you thumb and wait until someone you like better as President throws a party. This is not taking a stand it is making a pose.

Posted by: Abad man at May 5, 2007 6:34 PM | Permalink

Richard, I'm genuinely confused by your posts. What, precisely, don't I get? What vile and unnatural things am I doing to the English language? Vague references to the second wackiest book of the Bible are not exactly enlightening me.

I don't think I'm lying, but neither do I think I'm delusional. I'd go as far as describing myself as idealistic, but I certainly don't want to be delusional. If you mean that I am overreaching in applying the word "fascism" to this White House, perhaps you're right. (I certainly hope you don't mean that we've had a fascist government for ages now and I should just grow up and accept that.) From www.wiktionary.org:

fascism
1. A political regime based on strong centralized government, suppressing through violence any criticism or opposition of the regime, and exalting nation, state, or religion above the individual.
2. A system of strong autocracy.

From www.m-w.com:

fascism
1. (often capitalized) a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2. a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

I don't believe that any one dictionary's definition is definitive, but Webster's has a certain authority.

I concede that there has been little, if any, outright violent suppression of domestic opposition by this administration. But each of the #2 definitions seem to fit, and subtracting the violent element, the #1 definitions seem to fit. In any case, in these Orwellian times, propaganda, flackery, and marginalization of opponents as crackpots is arguably more effective than outright thuggery. It's certainly more amenable to dismissal of complaints as "delusional". As to the press, why suppress when you can co-opt?

What label would you prefer I use in describing an administration with these traits? That the administration routinely demonstrates these traits is simply not in question, and if you think it is, then again, it's not me that's delusional.

Have most administrations since the 1920's demonstrated these traits? Hard to argue with abad man there, so yes, though I'd say to a much lesser degree. And that's what I'm complaining about. The Bush administration has simply taken this outrageous behavior farther than any other administration (with the possible exception of FDR, though he had a plainly more dire crisis to contend with).

I agree that keeping government honest, open, intelligent, effective, and noble is an ever-receding horizon. Does that mean we should stop chasing it? I guess I don't understand why somebody with that level of pessimism (and this isn't just directed at Richard) would even bother to post a comment on a thread like this. You have to keep the positive pressure on, or things just get worse, as history has shown time and again.

Aside from deriding my posts, what is it that you would like to see happen in the government/press interface, Richard? The fact that I'm posting my opinions doesn't mean you can't expand on yours.

For example, I wholeheartedly agree with your post above:

"If the press were more trusted by the public, the WH's efforts would be less effective.
Work on the trust. Complaining about the WH's treatment of the press is useless because there's nothing you can do about it from that end. You can only make it useless by proving yourselves to the public end of the discussion, by regaining trust."

I personally think that one step toward regaining the public's trust in the press would be for the press to not engage in such cozy relationships with the government. Thus, not attending the dinner is a good thing.

Posted by: Jason Spicer at May 6, 2007 3:24 PM | Permalink

Jason,
Richard Aubrey has demonstrated for years running that he thinks George W. Bush and company are a force of good in the world, holding off the genuine threat to civilization as we know it, the abject corruption of nihilistic liberal barbarians who, as Satan's spawn, would naturally also stand up for the rights of terrorists. Logic will not deter him. It simply irritates him when you say that the Bush administration's behavior is authoritarian. He thinks God is on his and Dubya's side, so using unpleasant rhetoric to describe His Work can only be perverse and ultimately blasphemous. Journalists who stray from the path are similarly possessed by the forces of evil. Changing Richard's mind would require a religious conversion. Dictionary definitions are not likely to take you far on that front.

Given the force of political theology in contemporary US culture, this is a daily challenge for journalists as well as commenters on the websites of journalism professors. What can you say to people who want to mount an economic boycott of accurate reporting because challenging the Bush administration and the Republican party is ultimately evidence of perversion or a form of blasphemy? What would seriously address this problem? Exorcism?

Solving this question is not a matter of fact or rhetorical position, it is a matter of legitimacy and belief. That is why so many of the comments here are fundamentally incapable of speaking to one another. They have mutually exclusive criteria for determining credibility, legitimacy, and belief. What could reach the 25% die-hard Bush administration supporters short of their being born again as something other than Republican fundamentalists, for example becoming actual Christians, Christians who genuinely cared about their fellow man and whose goals in life betrayed the faintest influence of the ideals important to the biblical Jesus rather than the Republican Jesus?

See Christopher Hedges, American Fascism: The Christian Right and the War on America on this point. Not all Bush administration supporters are religious fundamentalists, but to continue to support the Bush regime at this point in history requires relating to politics in a fundamentally religious manner. Continued support of this administration and its cause in the face of the utter catastrophe and failure it has left in its wake simply doesn't allow for any other explanation. The comment section of a journalism professor's website isn't very likely to seriously challenge views this deeply rooted.

Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 6, 2007 4:57 PM | Permalink

The White House Correspondents Association dinner has been a despicable event for a long time -- an evening of sychophants and apparatchniks pandering to one another.

It's good that Dean Baquet (or Bill Keller, or whomever) has cut the Times loose from it.

Too bad that they're 25 years late. But they can't be blamed for that; they weren't in charge 25 years ago.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 1, 2007 9:40 AM | Permalink

I don't see the NYT move as a step in the right direction. On the contrary. And it's not going to help restore media credibility with the public. It's just a fake move that tries to amp up the fake adversarial relationship between the well paid old school media and the Washington establishment. What people want to see is civility, and the dinner was a symbol of an attempt at that. The NYT move is akin to prosecutors and defense attorneys continuing their battles outside the courtroom. That's never pretty.

Posted by: dreaming at May 1, 2007 10:03 AM | Permalink

The part of your message that resonates for me is that the GWB Administration, not just GWB, has attempted to politicize key aspects of government (DOJ) and normal public discourse in Washington. The highly biased position taken and pursued by this Administration is a political disaster and the issue of the Correspondents Dinner only illustrates the phoniness of the situation today.

Many high profile journalists really don't get it. They continue to say that only they understand how journalism is done (ie, Michael Gordon and Judith Miller).

Tony Snow is a clever fellow but he is just a slicker version of Scott McLellan. Snow's tone deafness highlights that this Administration has profound contempt for real public interest in open discourse about the actions and policies of the US government.

Posted by: Robert Gagnon at May 1, 2007 11:30 AM | Permalink

Robert Gagnon.
You are presuming, as many journalists do, that the press is a useful and objective conduit for the discussion.
Many disagree on the "public" end of the discussion. If that were not the case, the putative WH endrunning of the press would be useless. Reagan was good at it. The press didn't like him, either.
If the press were more trusted by the public, the WH's efforts would be less effective.
Work on the trust. Complaining about the WH's treatment of the press is useless because there's nothing you can do about it from that end. You can only make it useless by proving yourselves to the public end of the discussion, by regaining trust.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 1, 2007 11:43 AM | Permalink

Sorry, damanly. I have no reply to any of that, in as much as we're on opposite sides of the moon, but am curious to learn your opinion: should the press keep going to the White House correspondents dinner?

My view is in the title. Last Week That Man Tried to Run You Over. Why Are You Having Dinner With Him? Is it your view that Bush should be having a jolly dinner of mutual joshing with the press...?

Posted by: Jay Rosen at May 1, 2007 3:03 PM | Permalink

Jay. On your side of the moon do you dispute dadmanly's description of the press' failures, or do you acknowledge them but consider them legitimate?
And, if the latter, how do you intend to deal with the people out here who know better?

Sure. The NYT's folks should go to the party. It doesn't cost them anything and the gesture of not going impresses nobody.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 1, 2007 3:17 PM | Permalink

I think the Times quitting the WH correspondents' dinner, although not widely reported, will hurt the Times more than the WH. It confirms the narrative that the NYT is opposed to this administration, and not the neutral observers they are supposed to be. However, I imagine that they will quietly return when a Democrat is in the WH.

More interesting, though, is the thought contained in Jay's Navasky anecdote. Should journalists BE neutral or should they just report neutrally? The myth of objective reporting and the attempted distinction between a reporter's personal political views and the views expressed in his reporting have given journalists leave to be more active in the political world. They get to have their cake and eat it too. With the journalist class overwhelmingly of one political stripe this structure is clearly breaking down. I wonder if in an earlier age reporters were in fact more politically neutral. I do recall them being much more reticent about expressing personal political views. I don't think the resolution will be to replace journalists with neutral people, but it would be nice if we could get on with the dropping of the objectivity charade, revealing of the monolithic newsroom viewpoint, understanding of the effects it has on quality of journalism and profits, and adding (or amplifying) of other voices to balance it out. This is happening but its process makes glaciation seem recklessly quick.

Posted by: Roger Rainey at May 1, 2007 4:56 PM | Permalink

I don't want to see civility when it comes to dealing with a fascist White House. And before you dismiss that as a rant, look up the dictionary definition of fascism and see if it applies. If you still think it doesn't, then you'll just have to settle for authoritarian. Sounds more polite, but it means the same thing. This is not what the United States or democracy are all about.

No self-respecting journalist would be caught dead at a function hosted by this White House regime. Whether the Bush administration actually lied to get us into the Iraq War is irrelevant. The undisputable fact is that they certainly cheerled us into the Iraq War every step of the way, and it's equally clear that this was a completely unnecessary, and thus immoral, war. Not to mention almost guaranteed to produce precisely the opposite of its intended results (with the exception of removing Hussein from power--the easy part).

And let's not forget the countless laws, treaty provisions, and constitutional clauses and amendments flagrantly violated by these thugs. But I guess destroying America in order to save it makes perfect sense to those on the delusional right.

Repeat after me: Fascism is just as bad as communism. We don't want either one in America.

Posted by: Jason Spicer at May 1, 2007 5:00 PM | Permalink

You know the joke about the shark refusing to eat the lawyer out of professional courtesy? That's what politics and journalism look like today. Way too few journalists and politicians are willing to stand on principle and decry an outrage. Unless it's in the other party. This is nonsense, of course. An outrage is an outrage.

Journalists would garner the respect they are pining for by daring to be matter of fact about the emperor's nakedness. Deferring to a corrupt and immoral White House just makes you a quisling. Politicians would gain far more votes than they would lose if they'd show some spine in the face of this creeping police-statism.

Voters want to be inspired. I can think of nothing more inspiring than standing up to totalitarianism. Pretending this White House just holds a respectable difference of opinion is like pretending the shark isn't hungry.

Posted by: Jason Spicer at May 1, 2007 6:22 PM | Permalink

It boggles the mind that the Jason Spicers of the world allege fascism, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, etc, in the US, at the same time as they freely run around with their Bush Lied t-shirts, their preferred legislators agitate openly for impeachment, their perky entertainers poke administration bigwigs in the chest while lecturing them and the vast majority of newspapers in the land are populated by opposition figures. It then reaches the height of hypocrisy that these people oppose (or at best are ambivalent towards) the administration's efforts to stamp out real fascism, totalitarianism and authoritarianism. It is myopia of worldview in the extreme.

Posted by: Roger Rainey at May 1, 2007 6:37 PM | Permalink

Question is, is Spicer a journalist?

He's like the teenager who tells his parents what jerks they are and then demands to be taken to the mall.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 1, 2007 6:49 PM | Permalink

Nonsense, Roger. Myopia is assuming that you can bomb people into being civilized. Myopia is working hard to eradicate radicalism elsewhere by radicalizing the White House. Extreme myopia is working hard to eradicate radicalism elsewhere by inflaming it everywhere. Becoming fascist to fight fascism is no victory.

And let's be very clear about what impeachment is. It is not a vote of no confidence. It is a criminal proceeding invoked when the President (and Vice President) break laws. When they are criminals. As Bush and Cheney so clearly are. (Unless you have the odd idea that laws, treaties, and the constitution are merely advisory.) Only your fear of the bin Ladens of the world keeps you from seeing this. Or maybe caring about it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

What's mind-boggling is that the Roger Raineys of the world are so willing to disregard such flagrant violations of the law in the ham-handed pursuit of villians around the world. Do such villians exist? Of course! Do I want to see Bin Laden's head on a pike? Of course! I just want to see this happen without destroying democracy in order to achieve it. I think that's possible. It's sad that you don't.

Posted by: Jason Spicer at May 1, 2007 6:52 PM | Permalink

More like the teenager who recognizes that his parents are heinous criminals and turns them in. I don't believe I asked for any sort of reward. Other than, you know, democracy taking a step back from the abyss.

I believe in giving people, including presidents, the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, there hasn't been any doubt about this president for several years now. It's really quite unfathomable that anybody is willing to cut him any additional slack.

I'm not a journalist, but I know what I admire in journalism. I figured I'd weigh in with that. But as we have already seen, I may be too much given to democratic impulses.

Posted by: Jason Spicer at May 1, 2007 6:59 PM | Permalink

Berkeley economics professor and former Clinton Administration official Brad Delong at his blog...

Jay Rosen should have listened to Brad DeLong and Susan Rasky's First Rule for Sources: Know Your Customers:

Nieman Watchdog > Commentary > Twelve things economists need to remember to be helpful journalistic sources: 1. Know your customers. Is the journalist... looking for a broadcast soundbite, for two paragraphs of context, or help in understanding... [the issues]? Is she on a tight deadline?...

If the journalist is looking for a particular quote, figure out whether you want to be the person who gives that quote--and if not, get off the phone. If the journalist is looking for two paragraphs that can be dropped into the story as "experts say the real issues are..." give the journalist your best two paragraphs quickly. If the journalist is looking to educate him or herself, you can have a conversation--but at the start reserve the right to approve whatever quotes they want in the end to use, so that you can be sure that they are quotes you are comfortable giving.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at May 2, 2007 8:52 AM | Permalink

Sorry folks, but attempting to ad hominem Jason out of this discussion just because he is expressing opinions is just pure intellectual laziness.

"Question is, is Spicer a journalist?"
The question is irrelevant to the discussion. It is at best a snark.

"It boggles the mind that the Jason Spicers of the world allege fascism, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, etc, in the US, at the same time as they freely run around with their Bush Lied t-shirts, their preferred legislators agitate openly for impeachment, their perky entertainers poke administration bigwigs in the chest while lecturing them and the vast majority of newspapers in the land are populated by opposition figures. It then reaches the height of hypocrisy that these people oppose (or at best are ambivalent towards) the administration's efforts to stamp out real fascism, totalitarianism and authoritarianism. It is myopia of worldview in the extreme."
Take away the ad hominems and what do we have? Almost diddly squat in terms of a substantive argument. If the majority of newspapers in the land are populated by opposition figures, I am not seeing much evidence of that surfacing in the form of the way that news articles are being constructed and published. Many news outlets are still failing in basic fact-checking, and other elementary activities that fall under the general category of "due diligence". In the case of network television, I still see people on screen who appear to be adherents to the old tabloid publication principle that one should never let the facts get in the way of a good story...

"He's like the teenager who tells his parents what jerks they are and then demands to be taken to the mall."
This analogy is so faulty I don't know where to start. He was simply expressing the opinion (albeit trenchantly) that journalists should not be acting as uncritical mouthpieces for an administration that, in his opinion, is busy undermining the U.S. Constitution. Given that the administration works for the people, I fail to see the relevance of any parent-child analogy here.

Posted by: Graham Shevlin at May 2, 2007 9:57 AM | Permalink

G. S. The reason to not engage with Jason is that he is wrong. He's not wrong on just the details. He's wrong on the big issues. Arguing with him would be the equivalent of a book--per issue--while he squirmed and twisted and did things to the English language which are strictly forbidden in Leviticus.
It would be fruitless.
There are two possibilities: One is that he believes himself, which is to say, against the evidence. If he has managed to resist reality to this extent, another dose wouldn't do much good. The other possibility is that he knows he's peddling smoke--probably as a matter of BDS--and is therefore not honestly promoting an argument. To engage in argument is to imply that one is open to changing one's mind if the facts require. When, as Saul Alinsky urged, you argue just to wear out your opponents and have no intention of actually listening, the implication is false. A lie, in other words.
So Jason is not worth the time.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 2, 2007 11:04 AM | Permalink

Jay --

I detect a contradiction (to put it charitably) between your attitude towards being quoted by the press and your attacks on the President for holding a similar attitude.

Why can't the President come to the same conclusion as you -- that he doesn't want his words twisted to suit a reporter's pre-conceived narrative, especially when that narrative is anathema to his beliefs?

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 2, 2007 1:02 PM | Permalink

Jason. I'll explain the Leviticus reference. Leviticus tells us, among other things, certain things you're not to do to or with animals.
Don't do them to words, logic, or facts, either.
Other than that, adios.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 2, 2007 10:40 PM | Permalink

145 years ago, Jason Spicer would have been considered a Copperhead Democrat. 55 years ago, he would have been aligned with Sen. Robert "Mr. Republican" Taft.

Posted by: Tim at May 2, 2007 11:50 PM | Permalink

No self-respecting journalist would be caught dead at a function hosted by this White House regime.

I beg to differ. The original function of these dinners was akin to that of a "cease-fire" --- a recognition of the essential humanity of "the other side." A self-respecting journalist like Murray Waas should feel free to attend this kind of dinner.

The problem is that the press no longer respects itself (an over-weening sense of self-importance is not the same as self-respect.) The WHPC dinner has become just one more stop on the DC coctail circuit that most of these media types inhabit on an regular basis.

***********
semi-off topic, but I was struck by Jay's description of how journalists (notably Rutenberg, and I've had a similar experience with him) often start with a narrative, then go out and interview people and selectively quote them in a way that fits the preconcieved narrative of the "journalist."

Posted by: p.lukasiak at May 3, 2007 12:15 AM | Permalink

Taking steps to avoid that is referred to as rolling back the press. Bad, bad rolling-back people

apples and oranges, Richard.

What Jay describes is the practice of journalists spending a significant amount of time interviewing someone in order to get a quote to suit their pre-determined narrative -- while treating the rest of the interview as non-existent.

Administration figures seldom make themselves available to reporters for long on-the-record interviews from which the reporters can "cherry pick" an out of context quote and dump it in the middle of a story to reinforce their pre-determined narrative.

The administration's "roll back" isn't because of fear that quotes will be cherry-picked, its an effort to restrict the flow of information to Americans via the press -- to impose its own pre-determined narrative on the public ...to "fix the facts" to conform to the policy.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at May 3, 2007 9:11 AM | Permalink

p. lukasiak.

That line would work better if the entire press conference was not so often on C-Span, later to be compared to the MSM's treatment.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 3, 2007 11:24 AM | Permalink

This entire discussion is idiotic. Right off the top I can think of at three "journalists" who are married to political operatives: Brownstein, Dee Dee Myers, Campbell Brown, (maybe Nagourney, I can't remember) etc. etc.---there are many more.

The NYTimes is engaging in political posturing. I'm sure, even as we speak, at least one of the NYTimes reporters is bonking "gasp" a GOP operative(that Democrats and the MSM are now, and have been for decades in bed is not disputed---no less than Bill Clinton confirmed it).

Not to mention journalists from other organizations who did not have sexual relations with that Republican----oh, nevermind.

But the Holiest of Holy New York Times can't attend a freakin' dinner. The lesson learned here is that sex with Republicans (or political operatives of either party) is OK, just not dinner.

Yeah, sure, just wait until there is a Dem in the WH, then all will be forgiven.

What a bunch of hypocrites!

Posted by: qcexaminer at May 3, 2007 1:39 PM | Permalink

Mark Anderson nails it. If CNN would simply and routinely do what the Daily Show does, ie, show clips of an official's contradictory statements back-to-back, that would be an enormous step forward in journalism, with nearly zero extra effort. Why do journalists go along with the charade?

Why only the Daily Show does this is beyond me. If NBC/CBS/CNN/ABC want ratings, this would be a great way to go. And it's hardly limited to administration officials or Republicans. Every public figure should be held accountable in this way. If they publicly change their minds about something (which does happen, albeit rarely), then show that part of the clip too, but don't let them get away with having it both ways.

Journalists need to show that they understand what normal humans know--that there are not two (and only two) equal sides to every issue, that facts can be determined, that sources can be checked and are not limited to statements made by partisans, and that not everything is a simple matter of opinion, an honest debate.

Posted by: Jason Spicer at May 3, 2007 6:08 PM | Permalink

No problem with that at all. I hardly think Democrats are immune from failure to think things thru or from inept or corrupt actions. I remember Dan Rostenkowski. I'm currently having a spot of trouble figuring out how Louisiana rep Jefferson is still in office. I can think of no legitimate reasons to keep $90K in your freezer. For that matter, I think Roosevelt should have been impeached for what he did to the Japanese-Americans. Not sure I would have gone along with the Copperheads, though. I like to think I would have had some sympathy for the plight of the slaves.

As to the war flip-flops on the part of the Dems, I don't understand how they bought into the administration's transparent nonsense from the get-go, but if they've changed their minds about it, then they should explain that. I don't mind a politician changing course in light of new learning. In fact, that's one of the most frustrating things about Bush. When it comes to this idiotic war, he's been fiendishly resistant to learning from his mistakes.

I'm truly astonished that Bush didn't fire his whole cabinet and push Cheney into a freezer somewhere after the midterms. Apparently he does have principles. Vile principles, but he could have simply been political. If he'd have said, "The people have spoken, the war isn't going well, we're going to change a whole lot more than the Defense Secretary," then the Republicans might have a shot in 2008. As it is, they've tied their fortunes to the millstone of this war. I don't see how the Republicans can recover for decades, frankly.

If real conservatives don't rescue the Republican party from the authoritarian/theocratic/plutocratic wing soon, they won't have anything left to rescue.

Posted by: Jason Spicer at May 3, 2007 9:23 PM | Permalink

Revisionist 2002 National Intelligence Estimate
Bush "declassified/invented" which lied about what the original NIE actually said concerning Iraq's nuclear weapons, etc. It was on the basis of this bogus analysis that some irredeemably gullible Democrats made the ridiculous decision to trust George W. Bush with anything sharp or explosive. Of course the decision to invade was made without reference to this NIE which was only produced to placate congressional insistence on at least maintaining the appearance of having an actual foreign policy process in place (as Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, and George Tenet have all made unavoidably clear).

Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 3, 2007 10:31 PM | Permalink

This post and the first several comments were about the press and the WH correspondents dinner. Why are certain people incapable of leaving their burning passion for the mistakes that led to Iraq out of discussions that have nothing to do with it? This issue has been discussed endlessly, and in thousands of locations. It should be clear by now that neither side is going to convince the other. You are each just slinging the same mud at each other. Why not allow the original discussion to occur? Please

Posted by: Roger Rainey at May 4, 2007 11:28 AM | Permalink

Attending the WH correspondents' dinner makes the correspondents complicit in the actions of this White House. Pretending that the White House is honorable by dignifying their propaganda with your air time or their dinner with your presence makes you a quisling, if not an outright Tokyo Rose, a la Fox News.

This is the fundamental objection that the NY Times has to the dinner. Or it should be. The Iraq war, along with so many other abuses of power, are part and parcel of that. If the White House were actually working in the interests of America, I would have less of a problem with the press showing up to dinner once a year, but it still seems like a clear conflict of interest and a likely erosion of objectivity, if there's any there to start with.

Posted by: Jason Spicer at May 4, 2007 12:46 PM | Permalink

Speaking of Moyers and his recent TV program, it's a pity he didn't include his own experiences of stong-arming and intimidating the press back when he was flacking for LBJ during the VietNam war. He could have given us some real up close and personal observations and insight.

Posted by: qcexaminer at May 4, 2007 12:54 PM | Permalink

Jay, a question:

Given your expressed unwillingness to participate in Rutenberg's narrative, how important do you think it was to Rutenberg to include in his story, "said Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University."

Mark Anderson,

Wrong. Democrats on the hill had access to the classifed version. In fact, it was calls by these Democrats for a declassified version to justify their votes that lead to the document you link.

Posted by: Tim at May 4, 2007 6:36 PM | Permalink

Background on 2002 NIE and Congress
The CIA briefed congressional committees about the National Intelligence Estimate but did not deliver the classified version until the evening of Oct. 1, just before a Senate intelligence committee hearing the next day, congressional sources said. At that closed-door session, several senators raised questions about qualifying statements made in the report, which was circulated only among senior national security officials.

Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 5, 2007 10:51 AM | Permalink

Sigh. If the word "fascist" scares people, what would you suggest we call this administration? Airy and light? These people are autocrats, at minimum. They have no use for the rule of law or any other contraints on their exercise of power. This is not why we elect people.

It simply makes no sense to declare a cease-fire with an administration that so blatantly refuses to give a damn about reality, other people's opinions, truth, legality, etc. So they're not smashing shop windows in the night. This is the opposite of a noble White House. Sitting down to dinner with them only encourages them.

In any case, the press and the government should not have a cozy relationship. They don't need to be adversaries, but it's hard to hold government officials accountable when they're picking up the tab for dinner.

Posted by: Jason Spicer at May 6, 2007 3:35 AM | Permalink

Jason.
You don't get it. Read Leviticus and stop doing all that nasty, vile, squishy stuff to the English language. Or, if you intend to keep it up, don't broadcast it.

Here's the point. Either you believe what you say, in which case you're hopelessly delusional, or you don't, in which case you're a liar.

In neither case is anybody going to believe you.

Got that? It's important.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 6, 2007 9:12 AM | Permalink

Jason, sigh right back at you. A lot of power resides n the Presidency which naturally lends itself to abuses. I do not think any of the administrations of the past 30- 40 years could be called airy and light, especially if you were trying to cross or go against them. Any argument quickly dissolves into which level of hell the administration should be sent. As Jay states about bias and the media the whole discussion just makes you dumber.

A noble white house is a fine ideal like a competent functioning press, I just do not see it happening. I do not see any of the candidates on either side with the ability to bring much nobility to the White House, respect for others opinions, laws, truth, etc. The same for congress whether controlled by democrats or republicians. (no corruptin or pettiness since last November by golly)

Is theoretical suppression of others views at some nebulous date in the future worse or more threatening than the actual suppression of others views currently occurring on campuses? Does wearing sandals instead of jack boots make it OK? If the speaker is a fascist conservative, or a fascist organization like ROTC, maybe it does. That is why labels matter.

This administration politicized the war early on. The democrats have been more than willing to continue the process, a pox on both their houses. To me the war has become a proxy for the underlying battle on social issues between the parties. The press has been complicit in this process.

Matthews, Russert, Stephanopoulos, all transitioned from politics to part of the MSM machine, to say nothing of the various intermarriages of the press and Washington insiders, but getting rid of the correspondents dinner, well that will be a big step toward de-cozifying the press and government.

Posted by: abad man at May 6, 2007 1:25 PM | Permalink

Let's get real here----the problem isn't the annual WH dinner, it's the revolving door between political operatives and journalism. I'm talking about Tim Russert, George S., Chris Matthews, etc.

The fact that virulent GOP-hater and sports writer Keith Olbermann was chosen to give the pre and post GOP debate commentary for MSNBC shows how clueless the national media is about their ethical problems. Olbermann is renown for stating that "The leading terrorist group in this country is the Republican Party", yet when MSNBC was questioned about Olby's ability to be fair, they just laughed it off, saying Olby could turn his hate off and on. Yeah, that's really convincing---to a frothing left-winger.

And back to my earlier point----if journalists are f*cking political operatives, how the hell are we supposed to believe that they can "objective"? What is their defense? "I left my d*ck in the bedroom?" Yeah, sure.

It wasn't George Bush that produced "rollback", it was journalists who gave up the high ground because of their "personal relationships" with political operatives, and the fact that so many journalists were once political operatives themselves.

Posted by: qcexaminer at May 6, 2007 5:03 PM | Permalink

This being my introduction to Mr. Aubrey, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Having said that, I think about 25% of the human population is given to autocratic tendencies. I'm not out to convert them. But I think it's important to speak up in opposition for two reasons. First, to let the autocrats know that they are not in the majority and do not have the vast support they think they do. (There's a reason Nixon's silent majority was silent--it didn't exist.) Second, to let everybody else know that they're not alone, and they shouldn't let the autocrats get away with it.

The problem is, of course, that autocracy and zealotry go together well, and the tendency to question authority doesn't often make for a unified front. So autocrats tend to exert about twice as much political power as their numbers would suggest. It just takes a lot more work to get the live and let live folks to pull in one direction and put their collective foot down.

And of course, I do hold out some hope that occasionally an authoritarian will finally recognize the sheer futility of attempting to force other people to think their way. Eventually, never getting the results you expect has to wear a person down.

And qcexaminer, the word you were looking for is "renowned". Keith Olbermann has renown. He is renowned. (I wouldn't harp on it, but this is one of my pet peeves, like nucular.) From wiktionary.org:

Noun, (Singular: renown, Plural: uncountable)
fame; celebrity; wide recognition

Olbermann is one of the very, very few opposition journalists bold enough to state that the emperor wears no clothes. For this, he is widely and justifiably recognized.

That doesn't make Olbermann objective or unbiased, but in the human institution of journalism, you'll never get that. What we do want in journalism is an arm's length relationship with the subjects they cover. Incestuous professional relationships are always unseemly. I think it's safe to say that Bush will never invite Olbermann to drop by for tea.

Posted by: Jason Spicer at May 6, 2007 7:07 PM | Permalink

Dear QCExaminer,
You perfectly model the Catch 22 contemporary journalism finds itself in. Matthews and Russert are reflexive Democrat-bashing Republican enablers. Keith Olbermann is guilty of nothing more than calling George W. Bush a liar when he lies. That is the definition of objectivity.

The latest propaganda from Karl Rove spouted by Drudge, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Fox, CNN, ABC, and the programs before and after Olbermann's Countdown are not the standard of truth simply because they bear the RNC imprimatur. This administration in particular has had about a six year vacation from reality-testing. The fact that you consider it so obvious that speaking the truth equals hate and people who agree with you have the market power to enforce your prejudices says even more about the sorry state of US journalism than the White House dinner. Apparently you, too, think reality has a liberal bias.

Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 6, 2007 8:22 PM | Permalink

Jason. I'm not going to quote the relevant sections of Leviticus. Suffice it to say, if you were caught doing to animals what you do to the English language, you'd have a career in a sordid profession ahead of you. Plus, PETA would be after you.
Or, to put it another way, you build false definitions into words as planted axioms. The first battle would be over the meaning of words, generally accepted vs. yours. And, of course, there is no way you could be induced to quit squirming, dodging, and otherwise avoiding the subject. So, presuming we had a couple of years to keep you under sodium pentothal and we eventually got to cases, we'd have just completed the forward to the book.
Not interested.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 6, 2007 9:30 PM | Permalink

Jason,
Throw out the parts of a definition you do not like and you can make a horse a cow, zebra, or elephant, words have meanings and how Orwellian of you to mold fascist to your purpose. We are obviously talking past each other. To me you keep saying "yeah, you have a good point but that is not the way I want to look at it. I do not feel tendencies make something fact, and there are much greater threats to our basic freedoms than the Bush administration. Live by the Foma.

As to Matthews and Russert being republican mouthpieces while Olbermann is the last bastion of truth and light in this troubled world. Whoa... (Quietly backs away from the discussion)

Posted by: Abad man at May 6, 2007 9:40 PM | Permalink

Dear Abad Man,
Persuade Bush to stop lying, systematically violating the constitution, and wrecking the middle east and you'll be surprised how quickly Olbermann's "irrational" coverage of the administration improves. Short of that, yes, backing away from the discussion is probably the prudent way to go.

Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 6, 2007 10:03 PM | Permalink

Q: How many of the 25% of the population that still supports George Bush does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: None. Why would they ever want to screw in a light bulb? If you just eliminate the anti-Bush bias in the media they'll be able see just fine.

Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 6, 2007 10:18 PM | Permalink

A wise man should know what he can and can't change. Bush will be president for two more years. I don't believe the charges you make against Bush are true, or at least not to any extent more than the next politician. Bush supporters, color me somewhat lukewarm on this one, are not the only ones with a religious fanaticism on this issue. Of course YOURS is the one true faith.

I like to think at some point men of good faith (as a politically correct gender neutral term)make this country run, and form the foundation of this country. We survived Regan, Clinton, and will probably survive Bush more or less intact, have a little faith and get over yourself.

Posted by: abad man at May 6, 2007 10:30 PM | Permalink