Here’s a thought for you:
What if the yipping lap dogs were deliberately trying to be as moronic as possible in order to paint the President in as bad a light as possible. Kind of like letting Bush doing Antony to his own Brutus:
“For they are all honorable men.”
Then again it would require the average American to have a sense of irony and the ability to analyze information. Maybe Mencken was right:
“No one ever went broke underestimating the taste (or intelligence) of the American public.”
The administration is perfectly accountable to the public. Once every four years. Beyond that it’s up to the public to do the digging.
And, even as a media guy, I’ve always wondered about the ‘right to know’. It sounds great on the big screen but why should the government feel a need to tell people anything if they don’t ask for it? That’s why we have the Freedom of Information Act.
Don’t get me wrong…I’m all for full disclosure. But that doesn’t mean the administration has to give it up pre-emptively. Presidents will do what they’ve always done…whatever they can get away with.
Fair enough, I suppose, when put that way. So does this extrapolate into “the administration is justified in preemptively orchestrating its contact with the public* to ensure tht the questions don’t get asked”?
*and the questioning voice of the public, as represented (or embodied, if you prefer) by the Fourth Estate
I like the line that went:
“The reason the media hated Monica Lewinsky so much is that she took their place.”
Now that Clinton is gone and Bush is President, the White House press corps is back on their knees where they belong again. All is right with the world.
And if the press corps allows itself to be controlled by White House refusal to recognize reporters who ask unwanted questions or write unwanted articles … they still are shameless lapdogs. If the press wants the respect they claim as the Firth Estate and guardians of democracy, they have to get out of the President’s lap once in a while and stand up and speak the truth. Otherwise, their rep remains … as it is.
Re press access to the White House - wow! At least our own Phony Blair, whom I have come to detest more than any other human, has the guts to face a hostile public audience from time to time.
It sounds like you’re missing a check or a balance somewhere.
Why does the press corps go along with this? Can’t they see the power they have in their own collective hands??
No, they don’t. The President is capable of getting his message out with or without them. Heck, if he wants to make a speech he can take the primetime airwaves and deliver one.
I think it’s primarily two parts:
Our news media doesn’t have the cultural antagonism that the UK press does. I listen to BBC Worldservice in my car and I’m astounded that they get access what with, not just the questions, but the dismissive attitude the interviewers have to some of the UK government.
The press corps is seen as a part of the ‘non-official’ Washington in the States. When you start getting interviewed yourself it tends to make you conservative. At that point they’re less about getting the truth than maintaining their own position as ‘opinion leaders’ or ‘influence peddlers’. Presidents come and go, after all. But the Washington cocktail circuit can be forever.
Well, it shouldn’t be the worst. And really, it isn’t. But the White House press corps sees it that way, and that’s the problem.
They’d hate to lose their cushy ride, and have to do the sort of honest digging that would produce substantive stories about the effects of Administration policies.
Political coverage mostly seems to look like what baseball reportage looked like, before Bill James. And that’s pretty sad.
I watched the whole thing, and came away feeling a little queasy about it.
It was all so controlled. Pre-defined questioning order. Predefined questions. WH press people acting like they are at the feet of god. It was nothing except a way for Bush to stand there and repeat his mantra, but without actually explaining it in any degree of detail.
“Must kill Saddam, him bad, took oath to protect American people.”
The press conference was a sham. I don’t want to see things like this in the U.S…
FWIW, I’m a Republican.
The weekend Globe & Mail printed a nice op/ed piece on the White House Press Corps and Thursday’s press conference. Some nice imagery:
Me, I’m willing to cut the reporters a little slack-- giving them the entire blame for the tone is like blaming a carton of eggs for not making a big enough dent in a brick wall. Whenever hard questions (and by “hard,” I mean “obvious,”) were asked, they were either completely evaded or answered with drivel that can’t be published without alienating your readers by insulting their intelligence. Example:
Ain’t no rolleyes big enough.
An aside: I liked the treatment that BCTV news gave Bush’s conference as it was happening. The introduction was something along the lines of “U.S. President George W. Bush has called a rare evening press conference to prepare the American people for the possibility of an attack on Iraq.” Then they cut live to the conference for about twenty seconds, and then back to the anchor-- and I’ll remember her wrap, verbatim, forever: “If he says anything we haven’t heard before, we’ll let you know.” Priceless.
Indeed.
But wouldn’t that apply to just about anyone’s speeches at this point?
This is the part of it that disturbs me most of all. In my view, the importance of the press is that it is independent of the political establishment and there on behalf of the readers/viewers to shine a light on what our government officials are doing.
Indeed, it seems that the priorities of the press are reversed these days, with challenging officials on their sexual indiscretions highly regarded, while challenging the spin put out by the administriation or Congressional leaders is not really done. The only analysis seems to be collecting two talking heads on either side of the issue and letting them scream at each other.
To have the most serious Washington press calmly and knowingly act without protest as part of the political spin machine is, quite frankly, disgusting.
I couldn’t agree more.
I disagree. There’s a pack-like nature (wave-like, if you prefer) to the political press in Washington. It’s as if most of the upper level press are convinced that because they cover politics they are qualified to be politicians are run the country. They assume their knowledge and experience observing lends equal weight to their policy opinions as those of lifetime politicians.
I should note that this is a disease common to reporters and media of all stripes. I’ve worked in publishing in several industries and in ALL of them the editors felt that what they had seen gave them enough knowledge to do better at what they covered than the people they covered. I should name that syndrome sometime.
Anyway, when I speak of the ‘pack-like’ quality of media coverage and the arrogance of media knowledge I intend to say that with each of those newsies believing they can do as good a job they’re perfectly entitled to tear down a political player when he shows weakness (of any sort)…political weakness most of all. And, given the competitive nature or the corporate media if one starts getting viewer-traction with a tear-down story the others will jump on board.
You watch, folks. If the war goes less-than-well and American kids start coming home in body bags en masse you’ll begin to see stories about how the President was ‘unprepared’ or ‘not up to the task’ or similar cutting remarks.
What, if anything, is to be made of CNN’s omitting this comment of Bush’s, directed at their own senior White House correspondent?
(From the White House’s own transcript.)
Jonathan, I read Broder’s column (speaking of the old cocktail circuit hands). Neither he, nor anyone else, has mentioned any messages (explicit or implicit) from the White House limiting the appropriate areas of questioning. If you are right, Broder et al. are doing the nation a disservice by not spilling the beans - especially when Broder blames the limited focus of the questions on the press corps itself.
I mean, if the White House wants to limit the areas of questioning at a news conference, that’s their business, but if so, it ought to be out in the open that that’s what happening, and Broder shouldn’t be carrying their water for them. Thoughts?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Broder simply assumes that people know it. I know NPR mentioned the question limitations.
Let me be clear that this doesn’t only happen in politics. I know entertainers do the same thing (and for that matter so do business executives).
But I don’t want to excuse Broder, God knows he is a part of the cocktail circuit. Such things should be made clear…but I doubt the will be.
As an addenda…
Just a few posts up I said:
“Anyway, when I speak of the ‘pack-like’ quality of media coverage and the arrogance of media knowledge I intend to say that with each of those newsies believing they can do as good a job they’re perfectly entitled to tear down a political player when he shows weakness (of any sort)…political weakness most of all. And, given the competitive nature or the corporate media if one starts getting viewer-traction with a tear-down story the others will jump on board.”
Now take a look at Howard Kurtz’ media column today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14455-2003Mar12.html
This could be the beginning folks. If these stories start being reflected on the call-in shows and letters to the editor the WHPC will start to smell blood in the water. And if that happens that could destroy this administration or at least render it ineffective. I know there’s resentment from the press on the tight media rules this administration subscribes to. And the only thing the Press Corps enjoys more that building up is tearing down.
They all know they did it to Nixon. They’d love to do it again.
I can’t tell you if it’s starting. But watch for it. Watch for signs of desperation on the part of the White House. Increased access for the senior media people…more press conferences. Good spin from the press contacts. They’ll all be pushing a conciliatory line. Whether it works is up to the press and the American people.
The US media needs a strong dose of Jeremy Paxman.
I liked that article. But I doubt we’d ever see Bush being “cross-examined” on anything. The media is way, way more controlled here, if not by direct force, then by a refusal on the part of the administration to have the president be held accountable to what he says.
And when I say “that article,” I’m referring to jjimm’s link to a BBC interview with Tony Blair.