White House Press Corps - A Pack of Yipping Lap Dogs

President Bush gave a prime-time press conference (transcript) lasting about 45 minutes last night in the East Room of the White House. As expected, the questions focused on the potential war in Iraq. Indeed, of the twenty or so questions asked by the White House correspondents, all but two of them were on Iraq, and the other two were on North Korea. In response, President Bush got to repeat 18 variations on his canned answer as to why we should go to war with Iraq. (For a discussion of the substance of his responses, there are innumerable GQ threads that you can jump into.)

What kind of little yipping lap dogs are the White House press corps? The United States is currently faced with a variety of foreign and domestic issues beyond Iraq and North Korea: the economy, the stock market, domestic security, the arrests (and potential torture) of Al Queida terrorists, ongoing unrest in the Phillipines, the Palestinian conflict, the Estrada nomination, tax policy, the deficit, to name a few. But did the press ask questions in any of those areas? Hell no.

Of course the first few questions should be on Iraq and North Korea, the most serious issues facing the country today. But once the President has given the same answer his speechmakers have prepared the half-dozenth time or so, don’t you think that it’s time to move on to another area? Do you really think that your particular phrasing of the same damn question particular question is going to make Bush break down sobbing on the lectern screaming, “Yes, you found me out, I’m doing it at the behest of the oil interests and because they went after my daddy.”

Look, Bush even admitted that the questions were being asked of the correspondents from a prepared roster. If you’re eighth or twelfth or fifteenth on the list, shouldn’t you have a question ready on an alternate topic if, perchance, Iraq gets played out. Hell, it doesn’t even have to be entirely away from Iraq – a question about how fears of war with Iraq is affecting the economy and the sagging stock market would work.

And please, folks, I know you worked all day on the questions you’ve prepared, but maybe you can move off your index cards to follow up on seeming inconsistencies in the prior answers. President Bush explained that he believes the North Korean situation should be resolved by multi-lateral efforts of regional stakeholders such as China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the U.S. On the other hand, he repeatedly said that the U.S. should disarm Iraq despite the strong opposition of many regional powers for the safety of the U.S. and the good of the oppressed Iraqi people. Both countries are ruled by oppressive dictators and appear to be developing weapons of mass destruction capable of threatening U.S. interests. I, for one, would liked to have heard how President Bush reconciles the differing treatment of these two countries. But did anyone pick up on this apparent incongruity and ask the President to explain? You guessed it – no.

The Bush administration appears to be focused almost exclusively on Iraq, perhaps to the detriment other important issues. I sort of understand that, because we are in a difficult and tense international situation and trying to find the best way out of it. But I would have expected that the White House press corps would not unanimously follow the administration’s agenda and taken the opportunity to ask at least one question on other issues facing the American people.

And the yipping lap dogs of the White House press corps are only one small part of the tame American news media, which apparently cannot focus on more than one thing at one time. Dammit, I’d like to turn on the TV news hear about something other than heroic soldiers leaving their families, missing women, the latest movie and reality TV shows once in a while.

What the hell use is a free press, if it is lying asleep in its little doggie beds?

I’m trying to make a “How many Whitehouse press lapdogs does it take to…” joke, however, I’m drawing a blank at the moment

Are you kidding? He had the same answer for every single question. Do you actually think that by asking different questions they would have gotten anything of substance out of him?

I was literally screaming at my television listening to these lapdogs kowtowing to Bush. My wife had to restrain me, then sedate me, then pop in a DVD of Buffy Season II before I pulled an Elvis on my T.V.

And these numbskulls who are asking the questions know it too, which also pisses me off to no end. They know they’re being played as fools, and still go along with it. That disgusts me. You could tell some of them really wanted to ask tough questions, but, in the end, just played along. For example, one questioner started with:

Oh my, thought Hamlet, a real question about the division in America over the necessity of war. This one will be a good one to see an answer to. Instead, the questioner goes on to ask

. Huh? Whazzat? Excuse me? A pathetic 180 turn from a real question to a softball that let’s Bush, once again, prattle on about his “faith.” It was infuriating.

Or this one

This wasn’t a horrible question. Basically, it was an attempt to get out why the other Security Council and NATO allies are against it if they have all the information we do. Of course, rather than stopping there with a real question, the idiot goes on to ask a softball:

just a wimpy, watered down version of the first question. God, it ticked me off. Probably moreso because while watching it, I had no idea it was completely scripted anyway. I just naturally expected these reporters would do their duties rather than kiss ass. My bad.

Who’s that old female reporter who’s always trying to stick it to Ari?

Just shows ya how out of “press conference” mode I am that this didn’t even occur to me. Seems like it has been some time since presidents had frequent press conferences. Instead, the trend is towards completely managed tableaus. With the possible exception of Clinton who had no fear - he’d bullshit about anything.
I seem to remember it differently as a kid. Nixon or Carter would call a press conference to talk about something in particular, and the press would just spring in questions about whatever they wanted. But I may misremember.

Speaking as an ex ‘lap dog’…

Tough cookies, boyo.

How about shedding some light, instead of making snarky comments?

For starters, whats the deal with the softballs? Did it bother you to ask them, were you just trying to keep your job, etc.

Well, Mr. Ex-Lap Dog,

I know it’s tough cookies. That’s why I’m bitching about it here rather than making a futile effort to do something about it.

Actually, JC, do you know if there is any reason why the reporters always seem to ask such damn predictable questions? As the President knows just about what they are going to ask and can totally prepare for the expected questions, isn’t the press conference all a bit of a farce?

I’ll make snarky comments if I want. The entire OP is a snarky comment.

Bearing in mind I was junior assistant WHPC weenie…

What questions get asked are generally agreed to ahead of time in a ‘The President is holding a press conference on topic X. Anyone who doesn’t ask questions on topic X will never be called on again or shipped off to the back row’ kind of way.

Within those guidelines it’s pretty free. Though unless you’re a senior senior senior type your editor is going to choose your question for you.

And yes, put you hand up, get acknowledged, and ask the wrong question and you’re out out OUT! For good. For ever.

Here’s an article on last nights press conference from The Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55451-2003Mar7.html

I started shouting “BARF!” anytime somebody brought up religion. I ended up shouting “BARF!” a lot.

When that one woman asked if Bush thought the American People should be praying, I experienced a sudden surge in blood pressure and my left eyeball exploded.

Ah, here it is. Please sheild your keyboards and monitors in case of exploding eyeballs:

BARF!

<Fight Club>Her name was Helen Thomas</FC>

My plan for the night was to tune into some mindless, mildy annoying drivel. So when I got shrub, rather than Survivor, I wasn’t let down.

Five minutes into it, I made up a drinking game. Every time the phrase “weapons of mass destruction”, “9/11”, “United Nations Security Council”, or “regime” was used, I drank.

I’m still drunk.

Yeah, I got tired and went to bed halfway through.

Here’s something for you. In that article I linked to up there Kurtz points out that Helen Thomas has been beating on Ari Fleisher for months now and last night…for the first time in about a zillion years…she wasn’t called upon to ask a question.

That’s a message being sent there, folks. Give this administration a hard time and your access is gone.

And that’s the worst thing on earth for a reporter. Absolutely the worst.

The craven little wimp can’t even stand up to a little old lady. Bill Clinton enjoyed Helen Thomas, but The Man Who Fell Up can’t take it. Maybe if he was wearing his bombardier jacket…

True. But to call Helen Thomas a ‘reporter’ is quite a stretch. A hoary old hag? Definitely. A reporter? Nah…

More a ‘columnist’ at this point.

And keep the insults to yourself. She’s very kind in person. (Not that I know her any better than ‘in passing’)

On thinking on elucidator’s ‘wimps’ line…

This administration is famous for not having ‘leaks’ (such as it is…).

They believe strongly in information control. If you get some time with the President they already know what questions you ask because they’ve told you what questions you’ll ask. Don’t play along? Don’t get access.

So it’s not being ‘wimpy’. It’s (in their mind) staying ‘on message’. Screw anything else.

So, where does that leave the concept of accountability to the public? Or the American people having a right to know what their government is doing, and why? Out the window?

Actually, I’ve considered ever since January 2001 that this is the case. I just want Shrub to have the sack to flat out say that out loud to the nation.

Am I wrong, or did Bush not once use the word “evildoers”? Odd.

I was hoping for some follow-up questions when he weaseled out of addressing estimates of the casualties and costs in a war and occupation in Iraq. Fairly important questions, those, whether you’re for or against military action. He seems to be expecting people not only to agree with him, but to trust blindly.

James Lileks had quite a different view of the White House press corps performance.