David Corn Burns Down the Media.
Live Link Above.
Waking The Watchdogs
David Corn
May 10, 2005
David Corn writes The Loyal Opposition twice a month for TomPaine.com. Corn is also the Washington editor of The Nation and is the author of The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers).
In an interview with The Washington Post in January, George W. Bush essentially said he was golden—that is, that he did not have to bear responsibility for previous mistakes such as that little inconsequential slip about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Asked about the MIA WMDs, the disappointing "postwar process" and why no government officials had been "held accountable, either through firings or demotions" for such "mistakes or misjudgments," Bush replied, "Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election."
Bush was wrong, of course. Elections are not necessarily get-out-of-jail cards (though Tom DeLay may be hoping they are). But as the Bushies have proclaimed—and occasionally demonstrated—ignoring realities can change realities. Bush might well believe the slate is clean because he won the election and that the moment of reckoning has (safely) passed. But does that mean the Washington media has to go along with this?
I don't yearn to be one of those cranky ideologues who bashes the MSM—that's cranky ideologue-speak for mainstream media—for doing a lousy job over and over. Nor do I want to blame the failures of the left and the Democrats on (and attribute the success of the right and the Republicans to) the malfeasance and nonfeasance of the MSMers. But I do feel compelled to say that the establishment press hounds have really been lame lately. After the MSM failed to challenge Bush and his crew sufficiently on the main justification for an invasion of another country, you might suppose this amorphous group had learned its lesson. But there seems to be few signs of such an evolution.
Let's look at a small—but significant—slice of the establishment media: the White House press corps. I know many members of this gang and respect most of them. Being assigned to the White House is widely seen as a prestigious accomplishment. You've reached the top, baby. But the posting is often unglamorous and unsatisfying. White House reporters are herded into a pen and force-fed by the White House press operation the news of the day. Try to break out of this box and your editors back in the real world demand to know why you're a lone weirdo. So I have a touch of sympathy for those trapped covering the White House—especially since they must contend with Scott McClellan each day. But not enough to prevent me from suggesting they are collectively screwing up.
Just take last week's news for example. Televangelist Pat Robertson, a key backer of George W. Bush who played a critical role in Bush's 2000 Republican primary elections triumph, gave an interview to ABC in which he suggested that American Muslims and American Hindus all believe in the need for an anti-America jihad (yes, even the Hindus!) and are not as qualified as American Christians and Jews to serve in government. Lawrence Franklin, a Pentagon official who worked in the office of Douglas Feith, an undersecretary of defense for policy and a prominent neocon backer of the Iraq war, was arrested and charged with passing classified information to two officials of AIPAC, the influential pro-Israel lobby. After Americans United for the Separation of Church and State released a report noting that cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy were being coerced into converting to evangelical Christianity, the Air Force announced it would investigate. And the London Sunday Times—days before the British election—leaked a secret Downing Street memo that detailed a July 23, 2002, briefing from Richard Dearlove, the head of Britain's MI-6 (its CIA). Back from consultations in Washington, Dearlove told Prime Minister Tony Blair that the Bush White House was already dead-set on war with Iraq (even though the Bush administration was publicly claiming this was not so), and, in a chilling statement, Dearlove said to Blair, "Intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
What a feast for the White House reporters! They could have asked the White House whether Bush (that self-professed uniter-not-a-divider) would call upon Robertson to retract his bigoted remarks. They could have wondered if Bush had read—or been told—about the Air Force Academy scandal and if he had called for an immediate resolution of this travesty? (You volunteer to serve your country, and you end up being subjected to American-style Talibanism?) The White House press gang could have questioned Bush or his surrogates about the Franklin arrest and the case's links to Ahmad Chalabi, the newly-appointed deputy prime minister of Iraq, and Dick Cheney's office. And the Fourth Estate reps at 1600 Pennsylvania could have raised a storm about the Dearlove memo. Did the Bushies rig "intelligence and facts" to build support for the war in Iraq? What was Bush's response to this explosive document?
The reporters might have asked about any of this troubling news. But they didn't. In last week's press briefings at the White House, none of the reporters, according to the transcripts posted on the White House website, posed a question about any of this juicy stuff. And even when reporters have the chance to throw a fastball right at Bush they too often toss a whiffle ball. At his primetime press conference two weeks ago—a rare event—Bush didn't have to break a sweat. Few queries were sharp. When Bush called on the Wall Street Journal's John McKinnon, McKinnon said, "I'd just like to ask, simply, what's your view of the economy right now?" Reporters did little to prevent Bush from sidestepping questions or relying on same-old/same-old rhetoric. One exception was NBC News' David Gregory, who did force Bush to comment on a quote from a leading social conservative who claimed the judicial filibuster was an attack against people of faith. Cornered by Gregory, who wouldn't let Bush duck the matter, Bush said he disagreed with this sentiment.
Bush's press conference was a veritable feeding frenzy compared to the Q&A session two weeks earlier when Bush appeared before the American Society of Newspaper Editors. One ASNE member asked him if the Democrats had any ideas on Social Security. Another inquired, "What is our government's policy toward China?" What was the point of that question? To see if Bush left the White House without memorizing his 3x5 cards? And when Bush refused to address the possible jailing of Time's Matt Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller for not revealing their sources to the Plame leak investigator—"You think I'm going there? You're crazy"—the audience laughed. But there was a follow-up question. An ASNE-er asked,: "I have a follow-up that might help you, then. Do you have two tickets to tonight's [Washington Nationals] game?" The audience laughed again.
I have nothing against laughing at the president. But when your professional colleagues are close to being imprisoned to protect a practice essential to your craft—due to the investigation of a White House misdeed—you might want to be less chummy with the president and push him to take a stand. Imagine if the next person Bush called on had said, "I was going to ask about something else, but I don't believe anyone in the room should ask another question until you've given a full and serious answer to the previous one." And, then, if Bush tried to call on another editor, that editor would say the same thing. And on and on. I am Matt Cooper. I am Spartacus. So to speak.
But no. That's a far-fetched fantasy. It doesn't happen at ASNE conferences. It doesn't happen at the White House press room. Without another election to face, Bush has indeed escaped the accountability that counts most for a politician. Yet he still might occasionally have to worry about the watchdogs of the media—though only if they give chase.
Waking The Watchdogs
David Corn
May 10, 2005
David Corn writes The Loyal Opposition twice a month for TomPaine.com. Corn is also the Washington editor of The Nation and is the author of The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers).
In an interview with The Washington Post in January, George W. Bush essentially said he was golden—that is, that he did not have to bear responsibility for previous mistakes such as that little inconsequential slip about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Asked about the MIA WMDs, the disappointing "postwar process" and why no government officials had been "held accountable, either through firings or demotions" for such "mistakes or misjudgments," Bush replied, "Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election."
Bush was wrong, of course. Elections are not necessarily get-out-of-jail cards (though Tom DeLay may be hoping they are). But as the Bushies have proclaimed—and occasionally demonstrated—ignoring realities can change realities. Bush might well believe the slate is clean because he won the election and that the moment of reckoning has (safely) passed. But does that mean the Washington media has to go along with this?
I don't yearn to be one of those cranky ideologues who bashes the MSM—that's cranky ideologue-speak for mainstream media—for doing a lousy job over and over. Nor do I want to blame the failures of the left and the Democrats on (and attribute the success of the right and the Republicans to) the malfeasance and nonfeasance of the MSMers. But I do feel compelled to say that the establishment press hounds have really been lame lately. After the MSM failed to challenge Bush and his crew sufficiently on the main justification for an invasion of another country, you might suppose this amorphous group had learned its lesson. But there seems to be few signs of such an evolution.
Let's look at a small—but significant—slice of the establishment media: the White House press corps. I know many members of this gang and respect most of them. Being assigned to the White House is widely seen as a prestigious accomplishment. You've reached the top, baby. But the posting is often unglamorous and unsatisfying. White House reporters are herded into a pen and force-fed by the White House press operation the news of the day. Try to break out of this box and your editors back in the real world demand to know why you're a lone weirdo. So I have a touch of sympathy for those trapped covering the White House—especially since they must contend with Scott McClellan each day. But not enough to prevent me from suggesting they are collectively screwing up.
Just take last week's news for example. Televangelist Pat Robertson, a key backer of George W. Bush who played a critical role in Bush's 2000 Republican primary elections triumph, gave an interview to ABC in which he suggested that American Muslims and American Hindus all believe in the need for an anti-America jihad (yes, even the Hindus!) and are not as qualified as American Christians and Jews to serve in government. Lawrence Franklin, a Pentagon official who worked in the office of Douglas Feith, an undersecretary of defense for policy and a prominent neocon backer of the Iraq war, was arrested and charged with passing classified information to two officials of AIPAC, the influential pro-Israel lobby. After Americans United for the Separation of Church and State released a report noting that cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy were being coerced into converting to evangelical Christianity, the Air Force announced it would investigate. And the London Sunday Times—days before the British election—leaked a secret Downing Street memo that detailed a July 23, 2002, briefing from Richard Dearlove, the head of Britain's MI-6 (its CIA). Back from consultations in Washington, Dearlove told Prime Minister Tony Blair that the Bush White House was already dead-set on war with Iraq (even though the Bush administration was publicly claiming this was not so), and, in a chilling statement, Dearlove said to Blair, "Intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
What a feast for the White House reporters! They could have asked the White House whether Bush (that self-professed uniter-not-a-divider) would call upon Robertson to retract his bigoted remarks. They could have wondered if Bush had read—or been told—about the Air Force Academy scandal and if he had called for an immediate resolution of this travesty? (You volunteer to serve your country, and you end up being subjected to American-style Talibanism?) The White House press gang could have questioned Bush or his surrogates about the Franklin arrest and the case's links to Ahmad Chalabi, the newly-appointed deputy prime minister of Iraq, and Dick Cheney's office. And the Fourth Estate reps at 1600 Pennsylvania could have raised a storm about the Dearlove memo. Did the Bushies rig "intelligence and facts" to build support for the war in Iraq? What was Bush's response to this explosive document?
The reporters might have asked about any of this troubling news. But they didn't. In last week's press briefings at the White House, none of the reporters, according to the transcripts posted on the White House website, posed a question about any of this juicy stuff. And even when reporters have the chance to throw a fastball right at Bush they too often toss a whiffle ball. At his primetime press conference two weeks ago—a rare event—Bush didn't have to break a sweat. Few queries were sharp. When Bush called on the Wall Street Journal's John McKinnon, McKinnon said, "I'd just like to ask, simply, what's your view of the economy right now?" Reporters did little to prevent Bush from sidestepping questions or relying on same-old/same-old rhetoric. One exception was NBC News' David Gregory, who did force Bush to comment on a quote from a leading social conservative who claimed the judicial filibuster was an attack against people of faith. Cornered by Gregory, who wouldn't let Bush duck the matter, Bush said he disagreed with this sentiment.
Bush's press conference was a veritable feeding frenzy compared to the Q&A session two weeks earlier when Bush appeared before the American Society of Newspaper Editors. One ASNE member asked him if the Democrats had any ideas on Social Security. Another inquired, "What is our government's policy toward China?" What was the point of that question? To see if Bush left the White House without memorizing his 3x5 cards? And when Bush refused to address the possible jailing of Time's Matt Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller for not revealing their sources to the Plame leak investigator—"You think I'm going there? You're crazy"—the audience laughed. But there was a follow-up question. An ASNE-er asked,: "I have a follow-up that might help you, then. Do you have two tickets to tonight's [Washington Nationals] game?" The audience laughed again.
I have nothing against laughing at the president. But when your professional colleagues are close to being imprisoned to protect a practice essential to your craft—due to the investigation of a White House misdeed—you might want to be less chummy with the president and push him to take a stand. Imagine if the next person Bush called on had said, "I was going to ask about something else, but I don't believe anyone in the room should ask another question until you've given a full and serious answer to the previous one." And, then, if Bush tried to call on another editor, that editor would say the same thing. And on and on. I am Matt Cooper. I am Spartacus. So to speak.
But no. That's a far-fetched fantasy. It doesn't happen at ASNE conferences. It doesn't happen at the White House press room. Without another election to face, Bush has indeed escaped the accountability that counts most for a politician. Yet he still might occasionally have to worry about the watchdogs of the media—though only if they give chase.
posted by Christy at 11:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home