It's official: Bush's press conference questions get screened

[dantheman]

@RTFirefly

Jonathan Chance. Feel free to believe him or not, but he’s my cite.**

Your cite is what another poster here said? All righty then. I thought you had facts to back up a claim.

Because he said so on March 6, 2003, well before the current controversy. And it’s hard to see why the White House would want to say Bush’s press conferences were scripted if it wasn’t true.

Why would they say if it wasn’t true? They do that on occasion. I believe you’ve pointed those occasions out in various thread.

Hardly anything comes out of the WH without some sort of ulterior motive, IMO. (This doesn’t mean that said motive is necessarily devious, just that they say things for a reason.) They want to keep the president on message and limit his chances for appearing to stumble; therefore, they ask some journalists for their questions ahead of time so the president a) is less likely to be ambushed and b) can be best prepared. As you’ve no doubt noticed, he’s not the best speaker.

I haven’t? Seems I’ve given them equal weight here.

Yes. In one line, you’ve given them equal weight. Your overall OP, however, makes me think you trust the WH’s word over that of several presumably independent reporters who claim it doesn’t happen. I know Suskind says it did happen, but I would be at least a little skeptical about him (was he misquoted? misinterpreted? is he just plain wrong, for whatever reason), rather than accepting it blindly.

Did I say it happens all the time? No. (Who’s made up his mind here?)

I won’t have made my mind up until I see someone corroborate Suskind or at least read a rebuttal by him. To be honest, I don’t know why he’d say if it it weren’t true, but with so many others saying it’s not true … well, you can understand why I would require clarification in any event, right?

But how am I supposed to interpret this? An editor at the NYT says he doesn’t know if Ms. Bumiller’s question was submitted to the president beforehand. Not “it would have been against NYT policy,” just “we don’t know about that particular instance.” Ditto the “you might write to the president if you are unhappy with this system.” If there ain’t no system, what’s to write the President about?

There’s always a system. A completely scripted PC is one system, but perhaps what the ombudsman was implying was that if the writer didn’t like the way the PCs were organized, he could complain to the president. Not necessarily that if he didn’t like the scripting system. I’m just saying that’s the interpretation I’m giving it.

I don’t think any paper has a policy against submitting questions to those giving the PCs, although I could be wrong. Why would they? Merely submitting a question shouldn’t be unethical, although presumably under such a system only the “kind” questions would be selected. But that would be WH policy in that case, not a policy of the paper itself.

When I wrote the OP, the reason why I wrote it was that the weight of the evidence seemed to have piled up real high on one side of the question. If my OP seemed like I had made up my mind, well of course! I was making an assertion, and laying out the evidence supporting that assertion.

And by providing the quote from the WP’s WH columnist, I was providing you evidence that supported the contrary assertion. It looked to me like you were jumping my case for this, but after reading the post I see I’m wrong in that assumption.

[rjung]

For what it’s worth, I remember when Walter Cronkite was on Air America Radio (last week?), and Al Franken asked him for his assessment of the Bush Press Conference. Cronkite definitely believed the Press Corps’ questions were screened ahead of time; he denounced the whole pre-scripted nature of the thing, and even complained that the only reporters Bush called on were the ones seated in the front row.

Not that this proves anything one way or another, but there’s at least a perception of “scriptedness” by one of the Grand Old Men of broadcast journalism.

[Telemark]

As I mentioned earlier, NPR White House correspondant Don Gonyea stated on the show “Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me” over the weekend that the press corps is never asked about questions ahead of time, they weren’t this time, and no one would give the White House their questions even if asked. He said he made his question up on the spot when asked.

These are smart people, not going to give up a chance to ask an important question on live TV in front of the world. Regardless of what the WH spokesman said, the reporters are adament that it doesn’t happen. Besides, how would you enforce it? It’s a live press conference, these guys could (and did) ask what they wanted to ask.

And GWB’s answers clearly indicate that he didn’t know the questions ahead of time.

I certainly think the WH makes educated guesses about what questions are going to be asked and prepares answers, but that is nothing like scripted. I interpreted Dan Bartlett’s quote the same way that IzzyR did, that it wasn’t difficult to guess what the questions were going to be about.

[Typo_Negative]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly If this is old news to you, why do Josh Marshall’s friends on the White House beat say it just isn’t so, even when they can be quoted anonymously?
.[/QUOTE]

Because they do not want to be exposed as cowards??

[Telemark]

From http://www.npr.org/about/ethics/#conduct

They do not agree to submit questions in advance unless a specific instance is approved by the Managing Editor, Vice President of News or designee. If questions are submitted in advance, this will be disclosed in our coverage.

[beagledave]

@rjung

For what it’s worth, I remember when Walter Cronkite was on Air America Radio (last week?), and Al Franken asked him for his assessment of the Bush Press Conference. Cronkite definitely believed the Press Corps’ questions were screened ahead of time; he denounced the whole pre-scripted nature of the thing, and even complained that the only reporters Bush called on were the ones seated in the front row.

Not that this proves anything one way or another, but there’s at least a perception of “scriptedness” by one of the Grand Old Men of broadcast journalism.

Well I watched the press conference. Bush did NOT just call on reporters from the front row (although he did appear to refer to a chart of reporters…I’m sure he know who he wanted to call on).

If Cronkite blew such an easily verifiable point I guess it calls into question the rest of his analysis.

Of course since it’s on AA, it must be true.

Let’s see what we have so far:

1. Bartlett admits that the topics of this press conference were pretty predictable (well duh…hmm what occupies 90% of media coverage these days?) and so gave Dubya an opportunity to use that. That is certainly NOT equivalent to “scripted”.

2. The NYT ombudsman says that they do NOT script their questions and that he knows that at least two questions at the press conference were NOT scripted (which of course does not mean that the rest were…)

3. Lib and others say “The White House has always scripted contact with the press”. maybe true (in the sense that “access” to the Prez is tightly controlled to his advantage) , but thats NOT the same thing as saying what the OP claimed…that all press conference questions were submitted IN ADVANCE to the press secretary who then chose which reporters to answer BASED ON THOSE PRE SUBMITTED QUESTIONS.

4. One blogger has claimed the pre submission of questions. Forget about all other definitions of “scripting”…is there ANY proof that Dubya (or previous administrations) required the pre submission of press conference questions?

If not, I call bullshit.

[RTFirefly]

@beagledave

I call bullshit.

Does it return your calls?

Eventually I’ll drive this incredibly stupid phrase out of common usage here.

[RTFirefly]

@dantheman

Your cite is what another poster here said? All righty then. I thought you had facts to back up a claim.

What’s a ‘fact’? Everything we cite as ‘fact’ here is what somebody said. What makes a cite cite-worthy is the knowledge and reliability of the source.

Your turn.

Why would they say if it wasn’t true? They do that on occasion. I believe you’ve pointed those occasions out in various thread.

OK, you win the gold medal for obtuseness for today. I didn’t think I needed to point out that saying that Bush’s press conferences needed scripting wasn’t exactly favorable publicity. Usually liars lie in their favor, y’know?

Hardly anything comes out of the WH without some sort of ulterior motive, IMO. (This doesn’t mean that said motive is necessarily devious, just that they say things for a reason.) They want to keep the president on message and limit his chances for appearing to stumble; therefore, they ask some journalists for their questions ahead of time so the president a) is less likely to be ambushed and b) can be best prepared. As you’ve no doubt noticed, he’s not the best speaker.

I’ve noticed that. Given the date, the focus was undoubtedly on Iraq, not on scripting. Their motives probably had to do with Iraq.

Yes. In one line, you’ve given them equal weight. Your overall OP, however…

Yes, my OP. I’ve explained about that already. Now, what since?

I know Suskind says it did happen, but I would be at least a little skeptical about him (was he misquoted? misinterpreted? is he just plain wrong, for whatever reason), rather than accepting it blindly.

Well, here’s the thing: the overall picture of the Bush White House (and some specifics too) in Suskind’s book about O’Neill was supported by Clarke’s book, which in turn was supported at a bunch of points by Bush at War, Woodward’s book before last. AFAIK, nobody’s pointed out any substantive errors in Clarke’s or Suskind’s books, although the WH has done its best to attack the character of Clarke and O’Neill.

So the Suskind/O’Neill team has earned some credibility here. And O’Neill says even Cabinet meetings were scripted in Bush’s White House, which there was far less need to script than press conferences. Would they script press conferences if they could? I have no doubt. The only question, really, is would the press corps let them.

I won’t have made my mind up until I see someone corroborate Suskind or at least read a rebuttal by him. To be honest, I don’t know why he’d say if it it weren’t true, but with so many others saying it’s not true … well, you can understand why I would require clarification in any event, right?

To my mind, Suskind and Bartlett corroborate each other. I also give Nate’s testimony some weight here. I’ve had friends here before who were expert in some area, whose statements turned out to lack veracity, but I don’t think Nate’s one to get carried away by his own enthusiasm.

There’s always a system. A completely scripted PC is one system, but perhaps what the ombudsman was implying was that if the writer didn’t like the way the PCs were organized, he could complain to the president. Not necessarily that if he didn’t like the scripting system. I’m just saying that’s the interpretation I’m giving it.

The scripting of questions appears to have been the sole subject of the email exchange. So that doesn’t fly with me.

I don’t think any paper has a policy against submitting questions to those giving the PCs, although I could be wrong. Why would they? Merely submitting a question shouldn’t be unethical, although presumably under such a system only the “kind” questions would be selected. But that would be WH policy in that case, not a policy of the paper itself.

It would be two policies: one by the WH to expect questions to be provided beforehand, and the other by the papers on whether or not to go along with the WH policy.

As I’ve mentioned above, the NY Times is currently saying that it has the policy you say you don’t think any paper has.

And by providing the quote from the WP’s WH columnist, I was providing you evidence that supported the contrary assertion. It looked to me like you were jumping my case for this, but after reading the post I see I’m wrong in that assumption.

Sorry about that bit of confusion: I was simply summing up the state of my confusion in the wake of Froomkin’s statement - that we had all this evidence that was wildly contradictory.

[beagledave]

@RTFirefly

Does it return your calls?

Eventually I’ll drive this incredibly stupid phrase out of common usage here.

huh

I addressed all of the relevant points in the OP (maybe you agree maybe you don’t) and you jump on the phrasing of the last statement.

huh.

[dantheman]

@RTFirefly

OK, you win the gold medal for obtuseness for today. I didn’t think I needed to point out that saying that Bush’s press conferences needed scripting wasn’t exactly favorable publicity. Usually liars lie in their favor, y’know?

A lie can have unintended consequences, too. While it may not seem like favorable publicity to you, it can certainly seem that way to those who already support the administration wholeheartedly, not to mention the WH itself.

I’ve noticed that. Given the date, the focus was undoubtedly on Iraq, not on scripting. Their motives probably had to do with Iraq.

Right, and they didn’t expect it to blow up in their face as it has now. I honestly believe they thought it was peachy keen to even suggest that the PCs are scripted.

Well, here’s the thing: the overall picture of the Bush White House (and some specifics too) in Suskind’s book about O’Neill was supported by Clarke’s book, which in turn was supported at a bunch of points by Bush at War, Woodward’s book before last. AFAIK, nobody’s pointed out any substantive errors in Clarke’s or Suskind’s books, although the WH has done its best to attack the character of Clarke and O’Neill.

So the Suskind/O’Neill team has earned some credibility here. And O’Neill says even Cabinet meetings were scripted in Bush’s White House, which there was far less need to script than press conferences. Would they script press conferences if they could? I have no doubt. The only question, really, is would the press corps let them.

I don’t disagree with any bit of this. I think we’re working from the same cloth, here.

That’s why I’d like a follow up on what Suskind said, as I heard he said it - rather than hearing or reading him say it. I’m curious to see if he verifies that he did say it, and if so, does he have anything to add?

As for Cabinet meetings, it might be viewed as necessary to script them if one is the sort of leader who wants to hear only certain answers.

To my mind, Suskind and Bartlett corroborate each other. I also give Nate’s testimony some weight here. I’ve had friends here before who were expert in some area, whose statements turned out to lack veracity, but I don’t think Nate’s one to get carried away by his own enthusiasm.

I understand, but please understand that those who do not know JonathanChance will not be as inclined to accept his word. Hardly anyone on here knows me, for example, but one or two people would probably take my word on a few matters. I don’t dismiss what he has said, and from his posts I have zero reason to disbelieve him. Still, since I do not know him, his words carry only a little weight with me.

The scripting of questions appears to have been the sole subject of the email exchange. So that doesn’t fly with me.

Respectfully disagree. The overall subject seemed to me to be the way the PCs are run; the specific subject was the scripting of questions.

It would be two policies: one by the WH to expect questions to be provided beforehand, and the other by the papers on whether or not to go along with the WH policy.

Yes, but there’s a weird delicate balance to the WH press pool, whether we like it or not. I would think most of the reporters would love to get a Big Question to ask, but they fear that if they ask something the president doesn’t want to answer (or that his handlers don’t want him to answer), he won’t call on that reporter again if he can avoid it. Reporters love the cushy high-profile WH beat, so they come across (to me, anyway) as overly polite and decorous, when what’s needed are some ball breakers.

As I’ve mentioned above, the NY Times is currently saying that it has the policy you say you don’t think any paper has.

Eh? I see where you deduced from what the ombudsman said, but I don’t see a statement of policy. But it’s late here, and I’m probably just not seeing it.

Sorry about that bit of confusion: I was simply summing up the state of my confusion in the wake of Froomkin’s statement - that we had all this evidence that was wildly contradictory.

I also wonder if you thought the last bit of the quote I provided was from me - it was not. That “OK? Everyone satisfied” was Froomkin’s, not mine.

[beagledave]

Coming back to that word “scripted” again…I wonder if those who talk about the “scriptedness” of these kinds of things (either Lib or JC) are referring to this sort of thing.

This article refers to a “press conference” from a year ago that was obviously crafted in such a way as to shape Dubya’s wartime message even more…

There, Bush made two unprecedented moves that could signal the way he and his administration plan to handle — some say intimidate — the media during wartime.
First, rather than filing in as usual, reporters were summoned into the East Room in pairs, “as if we were in grammar school and were being called on the line for something,” CBS’ Bill Plante says. Then, after opening remarks, Bush called on reporters from a predetermined list assembled by White House press secretary Ari Fleischer.

<snip>

USA TODAY White House reporter Larry McQuillan, seated in the front row, stopped raising his hand after he realized that Bush — who himself used the word “scripted” during the news conference to describe what was going on — was calling on names from a list and not deviating from it.

So yeah, Bush and company are using the format of the press conference to their advantage…In that sense, there is a certain amount of “planning/scripting” going on.

I suspect other administrations have tried to use similar tactics in their dealings with the press corp. If THAT kind of thing is what Lib and JC are saying is routine business–no argument from me.

However, the OP claims something quite different: that all questions had to be submitted in advance to the WH press secretary…and that Bush called on reporters based on those prior submissions. I have yet to see any proof offered up for that. Still.

[manhattan]

@RTFirefly

Jonathan Chance. But how am I supposed to interpret this? An editor at the NYT says he doesn’t know if Ms. Bumiller’s question was submitted to the president beforehand. Not “it would have been against NYT policy,” just “we don’t know about that particular instance.”

Ah. Here’s where I think some of the confusion lies. The “public editor” (ombudsman) at the NYT is a new position – Daniel Okrent is the first person to hold it; it was a fallout from the whole Blair thing. The way Mr. Okrent sees the position is that he is an outsider with an increased ability to have his phone calls answered, not as an insider with permission to speak freely. Which is to say, he intentionally does not make himself privy to the unspoken editorial policies which may or may not exist at any given paper, but when a question is raised which demands an answer he can barge in and get answers.

So what’s likely here is that his assistant didn’t know – wasn’t even supposed to know – the particular answer to the question he was asked at the time he was asked it. But when people started misrepresenting the assistant’s statement that he didn’t know as confirmation that the answer is “yes” it became necessary to ask the question and get an answer.

RT, you owe an apology to Mr. Okrent and his staff and to Ms. Bumiller. In turn, you are owed an apology by the bloggers who misrepresented this whole thing and sent you into tinfoil hat land. As for your assertion that Mr. Bartlett’s correct guess that a pre-war press conference would be dominated by questions about a war somehow means the particular specific questions are scripted, I guess you owe an apology to yourself 'cuz it sure does make you look dumb.

[El_Gui]

@Libertarian

The White House has always scripted contact with the press . . . Washington Post reporter, David Maraniss, wrote about one scripted confrontation from the Clinton administration in his 1995 biography about Bill, First in His Class: “It had the feel of a spontaneous encounter, the proud wife defending her man. In fact, it had been scripted. At a strategy meeting the day before, the Clinton team had decided that McRae needed to be confronted. ‘We have to take this guy on!’ Hillary said, and then she went out and did it.”

Did you even read the book? The “scripted” enounter Maraniss wrote about occured during Clinton’s fifth term as Governor of Arkansas! And it wasn’t even a Clinton press conference, but rather a press conference held by Tom McRae, Clinton’s Democratic primary opponent, where Hillary Clinton made a surprise appearance with a point by point rebuttal to McRae’s claims against Gov. Clinton. When asked by reporters after the event if her husband Bill knew she was going to confront McRae, Hillary said no.

I found the above details in a Hillary Clinton hit piece by NewsMax’s Carl Limbacher.

So this is your example of how the Clinton White House also “scripted contact with the press”?

As for the the New York Times White House correspondent Elisabeth Bumiller:

I think we were very deferential because … it’s live, it’s very intense, it’s frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you’re standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country’s about to go to war. There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time.

Cite. Doesn’t exactly sound like the kind of reporter who wouldn’t go along with any WH policy requiring pre-submission of questions. And she’s from the “liberal” New York Times.

[Liberal]

I found the above details in a Hillary Clinton hit piece by NewsMax’s Carl Limbacher.

Wow, thanks! There are plenty examples of Clinton caught in lies, but precious few from the former First Bitch. I appreciate your even-handed candor.

[Kimstu]

Lovely weaseling, Lib: El Gui catches you bare-assed in a stupid mistake (if it wasn’t actually a deliberately dishonest misrepresentation), and you hastily change the subject to general invective about how much the Clintons lie. They’d have to lie quite a bit to catch up with you.

[rjung]

@beagledave

Of course since it’s on AA, it must be true.

Y’know, I coulda sworn I put the “Take this for what it’s worth” disclaimer at the start of my post for a freakin’ reason. But I guess you were in such a rush to play Political Gotcha that you couldn’t be bothered to read the damn thing. :rolleyes:

@beagledave

If not, I call bullshit.

Yeah, well, you are an authority…

[RTFirefly]

@beagledave

huh

I addressed all of the relevant points in the OP (maybe you agree maybe you don’t) and you jump on the phrasing of the last statement.

huh.

You did. And I apologize.

That phrase has gotten under my skin, but doesn’t excuse my jumping on it rather than responding to the substance of your post.

[RTFirefly]

@manhattan

Ah. Here’s where I think some of the confusion lies. The “public editor” (ombudsman) at the NYT is a new position – Daniel Okrent is the first person to hold it; it was a fallout from the whole Blair thing. The way Mr. Okrent sees the position is that he is an outsider with an increased ability to have his phone calls answered, not as an insider with permission to speak freely. Which is to say, he intentionally does not make himself privy to the unspoken editorial policies which may or may not exist at any given paper, but when a question is raised which demands an answer he can barge in and get answers.

So what’s likely here is that his assistant didn’t know – wasn’t even supposed to know – the particular answer to the question he was asked at the time he was asked it. But when people started misrepresenting the assistant’s statement that he didn’t know as confirmation that the answer is “yes” it became necessary to ask the question and get an answer.

Now that’s something I didn’t know. To me, ‘editor’ has a clear meaning with respect to newspapers: the reporters report to editors, who decide which stories get into the paper, which don’t, and what changes need to be made. The editors of a paper can reasonably be assumed to know what the paper’s policies are.

If Okrent and Bovino are in fact ombudsmen rather than editors, despite their titles, then that’s another kettle of fish. I’d still expect them to call the real editors, and wait for their calls to be returned, before answering with more than “I don’t know - I’ll get back to you as soon as I find out.”

RT, you owe an apology to Mr. Okrent and his staff and to Ms. Bumiller.

No, I don’t think so, for the reasons just given: the ombudsmen’s titles were misleading, and their failure to do their jobs properly (i.e. their willingness to venture an answer when they didn’t know it themselves) was the basis of the confusion. As for Ms. Bumiller, the only thing I said about her was to quote Mr. Bovino. She can get her apology from him.

In turn, you are owed an apology by the bloggers who misrepresented this whole thing and sent you into tinfoil hat land.

Definitely not. While I followed links from blogland, I was relying on the original sources (or my mangled interpretations of them - see below). I relied on bloggers only for information, not for conclusions. What I did with that information is my own doing.

As for your assertion that Mr. Bartlett’s correct guess that a pre-war press conference would be dominated by questions about a war somehow means the particular specific questions are scripted, I guess you owe an apology to yourself 'cuz it sure does make you look dumb.

Now that I’ve had a chance to re-read the WaPo story, yeah, I did misinterpret it, and with that, the linchpin of my argument is gone. But I think I owe the apology to those holding up the other side of the debate rather than to myself (so consider yourselves apologized to); after all, I’ve looked dumb before, I’m sure it’ll happen again, and that’s what happens if you take some chances.

[beagledave]

@rjung

Y’know, I coulda sworn I put the “Take this for what it’s worth” disclaimer at the start of my post for a freakin’ reason. But I guess you were in such a rush to play Political Gotcha that you couldn’t be bothered to read the damn thing. :rolleyes:

huh? If you say "FWIW"in a post, it means that anything after that statement is not subject to analysis or criticism?

Okay…If it was suspect info, kinda wonder why you bothered to post it.

…actually I really don’t “wonder”.

Yeah, well, you are an authority…

Another huh. I notice that RTFirefly has the class to agree that the premise of the OP (that the press submitted questions to the press secretary in advance of the press conference) WAS wrong. Hell I’ve said some bullshit things before…no big whup.

I notice that you, OTOH…well 'nuff said I guess.

[Liberal]

@Kimstu

Lovely weaseling, Lib: El Gui catches you bare-assed in a stupid mistake (if it wasn’t actually a deliberately dishonest misrepresentation), and you hastily change the subject to general invective about how much the Clintons lie. They’d have to lie quite a bit to catch up with you.

What mistake would that be, oh goddess of moral purity who weighs and measures the lies of mortals?