Maureen Dowd wrote an interesting column in today’s NYT that discusses how difficult it is to go through the security checks in order to obtain a White House press pass. So either this guy was allowed in the press briefing room without going through a background check, or he was allowed in the press briefing room after going through a background check. I am still trying to decide which situation is worse.
Martin:
I missed this first time round. I don’t know your politics, Martin, but I’d just like to point out that Noam Chomsky has been arguing that propaganda is an intrinsic element of US policies for several decades now, to the horror of the right (and even many on the left). He calls it the “propaganda model” of the media.
There is one difference, though; Chomsky argues that propaganda is anathema to democracy. After all, democracy is supposed to reflect the will of the governed. The will of the governed derives, at least in part, from a clear understanding of events in the world. Propaganda aims at distorting that understanding in order to manipulate the governed so as to favor the goals and interests of a specific elite group. Propaganda is thus fundamentally at odds with the principles of democracy.
Jonathan:
So what you’re saying, in essence, is that Gannon represented a smaller news organization, but was called upon quite often, and that this, in turn, lends weight to the supposition that he was some sort of Republican, possibly administration, operative?
Mr. S, don’t you know already that Noam Chomsky = Satan? 
In case you missed the sarcasm, I’d only add: Why do you think someone who supports the idea that “politicians should lie to us for our own good” would be swayed by such an argument? He’s a “realist”, after all. What you propose here is entirely too idealisitic (in addition to the smear of Satanism, by citing Chomsky).
You are dealing with someone who endorses the idea of the “Noble Lie”.
Mr. Hyde apparently thinks he is above “the governed” who require such lies (I assume this by his acknowledgement of the lies, and subsequent endorsement). He knows about the lies and is okay with them. Perhaps he thinks he is one of the elite? In any case, he obviously sees the lies as necessary for at least some of “the governed”.
Mr. S, how would you argue against one of the elite in this instance? (real or imagined)
Please adjust your argument accordingly.
I salute you in advance, since the attempt is beyond me…
Everything is biased. On the scale of things, however, the BBC is easily among the top news organizations world-wide in terms of freedom from bias, and has been for decades. They regularly take heat from their own government because they are systematically unwilling to toe the line. They regularly encounter difficulties entering (or working in) certain countries because of their brutally honest and uncompromising approach, and individual BBC journalists and editors have been known to be banned/expelled for reporting on matters considered too touchy by governments (e.g., just a couple weeks ago BBC bureau deputy chief Simon Wilson was banned for refusing to submit a story on Mordechai Vanunu to Israeli censors).
I refer primarily to their flagship news broadcaster, BBC World, but they are (of course) famous for the very good BBC World Service too and operate a number of other TV channels, web sites, radio stations, etc.
Of all the media available in the US, you have managed to attack the three that are considered to have the most integrity among circles where something about the media is actually known, as opposed to intuited or learned from uninformed sources. The problem here isn’t people you know “trying to claim otherwise”; you are making a claim that is, I’m afraid, a bit ridiculous to anyone informed on this subject. It’s one thing to criticize bias in the media, but it is quite another thing to dismiss three of the top news media as “biased”.
Hand-wringing. The whole point is to minimize bias using several resources from the journalist and editor’s toolboxes. We could whine that it is impossible to eliminate error in a scientific experiment, but we would simply be hand-wringing there too, since we still manage to get plenty of science done: the point is you minimize bias, or error, and mitigate its effects in a variety of ways. And in this, the BBC, PBS, and NPR are considered extremely capable.
annaplurabelle:
Don’t know, but I suspect it’s possible that Martin simply hasn’t thought through the ramifications of his apparent position. Anyway, before judging him I’m willing to let him speak for himself.
Martin:
Actually, you’ve also claimed that if we did have access to such reporting, ”we’d be in a quagmire and our government wouldn’t run very well at all.” I thought you were arguing that bias in the media is a good thing, because it makes governance more effective:
Can you provide a real-life example of such a lie?
Finally:
Abe, babe! Que pasa? Long time no see!
Nyeh. I wouldn’t go so far as to say ‘operative’ in the ‘planted by the administration for PR purposes’ sense.
But it is far enough outside the norm to make me believe that something unusual was happening. Hell, it’s possible that McClellan knew he had a softball question waiting in the wings whenever he wanted it. That would be an enormous asset to the administration even without some form of conspiracy.
This is really starting to reek. Chris Matthews had an interesting segment on this “Gannon” guy, showing the questions he was asking and they are absolutely unbelieveable. What I don’t understand is why the administration would allow this guy to continue since they HAD to know he’d be outed (no pun intended) easily.
JC: Isn’t the Whitehouse press corps a pretty chummy bunch, and wouldn’t a new guy like “Gannon” stick out like a sore thumb? There is just no subtelty to his methods. Wouldn’t the mainstream press folks be on to him in a minute?
No, I’d say there’s a lot of room in the back and sides for people who aren’t ‘A-list’, if you get what I mean. And those people (like me, at the time) wouldn’t even be noticed by those who are at the top.
It’s chummy at the top…but fairly anonymous lower down.
Though I did hear a report on NPR that so-called ‘real journalists’ confronted Gannon about his question and lack of ‘balance’ privately before this boiled over. So he clearly got himself noticed.
Only if you believe the laughable myth of the’liberal media’. If they’re a bunch of craven Administration lap-dogs, as their collective swallowing of the Iraq boogie-man story shows them to be, then I’d expect no boat rocking. The Administration is on one endless free ride.
It doesn’t take a “liberal media” to want to get a scoop. Your statement makes no logical sense.
Yes, every single one of them is a lap dog. And you talk about myths…?
Yeah, just like the ‘liberal media’ smelled blood in the water and attempted to bring down Clinton. Everybody wants to be played by Robert Redford in the next movie.
Seriously, this whole ‘liberal media’ thing has always struck me as a mugs game. I think there’s a far more effective attempt at organizing a ‘conservative’ group of media faces than there was ever an attempt at a ‘liberal’ side of it. Most on the other side were more worried about career advancement and scoops than advancing some cause. The right is at least 10 years ahead of the left on such things. They need a Limbaugh of the left ot get that ball really rolling. And Al Franken ain’t it.
It makes perfectly logical sense thank you very much. Access to the White House is more valuable than rocking the boat. Do you want to come up with an alternative explanation for the collective failure to challenge the Bush version?
So why are they rocking the boat now?
Look, I’m just not going to buy any charicature as an explanation. You offered only two alternatives: Either the press is liberally biased or it is a complete lap dog. Both are hopelessly simplistic.
This latest from Americablog, if verified, is disturbing:
Verify it and I’ll be disturbed, but frankly, one can find any quote one wants on some blog somewhere.
It just makes no damn sense! If the Bushiviks wanted to plant a safety valve in the press gaggle, someone to lob creampuff questions when the going got thick, surely they have a wide roster of willing fellators to choose from? As our blogging brethren have shown, finding out abouit Jimmy Gannon takes about ten minutes, and yet nobody did? We are left with no other conclusion but that no one, but no one, ever tried to find out anything about this guy.
Its a bit like the Bernie Kerik fiasco. Could it be that the Admin simply assumes that someone of the correct political striping is loyal, stable and trustworthy? That such a cynical and manipulative bunch are, in this one regard, wide eyed Pollyannas? It buggers credulity.
It does rather seem that the Prez has an inordinate fondness for All American bullet-headed Saxon mother’s sons. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
Ah, but this is one of the blogs that broke the Guckert story in the first place, and their track record on it has thus far been rather good. I was mighty skeptical of the gay escort stuff when it first came out, yet here we are
Back up.
Why the hell would that be disturbing?
News…journalism…reportage…is about knowing things before they happen. Any two-bit loser with a notepad can report things after they happen. The trick is having the sources give you leads before things break.
Hell, I read the Starr report before it was public. Had an electronic copy. I also had a damn good idea of what the impeachment vote would be before it was made.
That’s what it is, gentlemen. Nothing less.
Well, as an America hating liberal, if the white house had given me a four hour warning on shock and awe, I’d have punched up Saddam on my speed dial, and told him to get out of wherever he was. That’d have prevented his death in the first hours of the attack. -Oh wait, he wasn’t where we thought he’d be, and he did survive the first attack. Could the news possibly have been leaked to him? Well, if Guckert was telling tales as suggested, the question becomes one of how many degrees of separation there are between Guckert and Saddam. Were there enough to make telling Guckert risk-free? Who made the decision to bring Guckert in on this? Have they leaked other things?
This isn’t some average event we’re talking about – this is advance knowledge of the date and hour of the launch of an attack upon another country. As far as information goes, it’s hard to think of anything more sensitive and privileged.
Compound his fore-knowledge with his spilling the beans, to a journalist. Imagine if someone had done that with the D-Day invasion. Disturbing? Yeah, kind of! :rolleyes: