|
|
March 6, 2005
Instead of the White House Press, You Envision What?Play the discredited and de-certified themes out. If we fired the White House press and told them to seek other employment, what then?The previous comment thread grew to well over 100, so it’s time to close that one and start anew. It might be worthwhile to back away from the rights and wrongs of Bush and the press circa 2004-5, about which there is such hot dispute, and ask another question, a weekender:
Hit the comment button at any time… But first: If someone asked me, do you recommend the kind of press you have in your capital, the Washington press? I would probably say no, not anymore. I think it has failed to evolve with the country and the times, although many talented people with strong professional values have passed through it, and great work has been done. It is not my view that the press we have did a fair job covering the White House during my watch—roughly twenty years of professional observation—and that includes Bush 43. Nor is the political press we have today necessarily a good model for the one we need down the road. I don’t think the White House press corps, as currently constituted, is a fair representation of this country, either. (I’m not sure anyone does think so, do you?) Still I defend the place for a free and inquisitive press in the White House as a permanent resident. That room is a very important room, as are its counterparts at the State Department, the Pentagon, and other places. I think it’s important to keep the interlocutor going while the institution changes, as I believe it must, and will. The country loses when the President is not regularly and sharply questioned; and a daily session with reporters is part of good government. There is no law that specifies who it must be. But the presidency itself is diminished without a interlocutor capable of challenging the President and getting better explanations, an answer to what’s on people’s minds. When the White House invited the press in to make a home on the grounds (1902, Theodore Roosevelt) it was part of how the presidency started its symbolic ascent over Congress. In the 19th century Congress had dominated national politics. The president was a man little known in the country-at-large. Although people knew who held the office, they often did not know what he looked like. His speeches were very likely to be known only to the people who heard them. But in the twentieth century the greater share of power tilted toward the White House. Newspaper correspondents were quite involved in enlarging the cultural space the President inhabited, and elevating his stature. Of course broadcasting hugely favored the President, who could come into every home. Congress then became the abstraction. During the previous century, it was the other way around. By concentrating where it did, and making the President himself, his every move, the object of attention (with the post-1963 “body watch,” obsessive attention) there is no doubt the modern press helped to create the office George W. Bush holds, including the hold it has on public attention, and the parts of it that are imperial, glamorous, mythic. But maybe journalism in the symbolic heart of the presidency is over. Some say so. I felt there was one great moment in Daily Show correspondent Rob Corddry’s satire piece. (Watch here.) Looking fake eager, Rob grabs his reporter’s notebook and says “let’s get started!” Then he tosses his pencil and notebook into the air behind him, and walks straight into New Journalism. After Matter: Notes, reactions & links… If you haven’t been following Garrett Graff’s adventures as a blogger trying to get a day pass to the White House gaggle and briefing, then you should be. His report from today, when he finally got in, is well worth it: We’d been warned by a regular White House correspondent over the weekend that the “zoo” of the briefing would likely leave us knowing less and being more confused than when went in. Having sat through it now, we have to agree. Watching it on television doesn’t quite do justice to the uselessness of many of the exchanges back and forth, nor the intensity of Scott McClellan’s withering gaze nor the frustration boiling up in the reporters’ voices as they butt their heads up against a rhetoric wall. Dan Weintraub, political columnist and blogger for the Sacramento Bee, in comments: I think the alternative would be an aggressive, curious and analytical press corps, based anywhere (including cyberspace), fact-checking the snot out of the White House and writing critically about the president’s statements, proposals and actions, and those of his administration, in both daily coverage and investigative reporting. For each story, reporters might place one call to the press office if they chose, explaining what they were inquiring about, and then move on. If the WH chose not to comment, so be it. Blogger Tim Schmoyer (Sisyphus) responds to this post with Do you know what you want, instead? “Journalism as lecture” is de-certifying the press. Journalists should not be “lecturing”, and they do. He has useful thoughts on alternatives to the current White House press corps. So check it out. Weldon Berger of BTC News says in comments: I want reporters who understand both their sources and their audiences as well as the White House understands the reporters and their audiences. I want reporters who don’t sit around thinking their readers are rubes at the same moment the White House is playing the reporters for rubes for the benefit of the readers… Extra: BTC News will soon have White House access. “Our White House correspondent is your White House correspondent.” In comments, Steve Lovelady, managing editor of CJR Daily, talks about the White House beat: “any reporter worth his salt avoids this assignment”… “a sure road to four years of mind-numbing stenography.” Ed Cone’s column for the Greensboro News-Record, When the news is literally the party line. One big difference between the old Soviet Union and the land of the First Amendment is that the party-line press cannot exist here in a vacuum. Serious reporters, working for organizations or as independents, are able to expose scripted news and the agenda behind it. And with increased transparency into the news-making process a big promise of the new media, that process should only intensify. Over time, that ought to lessen the credibility of the scripters, but it won’t stop them from trying to manipulate the news. Declan McCullagh of CNet: The coming crackdown on blogging: Bradley Smith says that the freewheeling days of political blogging and online punditry are over. In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign’s Web site…. Smith should know. He’s one of the six commissioners at the Federal Election Commission, which is beginning the perilous process of extending a controversial 2002 campaign finance law to the Internet. Dan Gillmor, The Gathering Storms Over Speech, on the court cases involving bloggers and other threats: We’re moving toward a system under which only the folks who are deemed to be professionals will be granted the status of journalists, and thereby more rights than the rest of us. This is pernicious in every way. Via Winds of Change comes word of www.WatchingAmerica.com, a new site where you can find links to news about the U.S. written outside the U.S., much of it originally in other languages and translated by WatchingAmerica. “Make a comfortable living, then make a difference.” Craig Newmark of Craig’s List interviewed by the San Jose Mercury News: Q Why are you pushing citizen journalism on the Net? Read Susan Mernit on “why there are more supplies of particular types of stories created than the public actually wants to buy. And that means that newspapers end up with products they can’t sell, not in the form they are offering them.”
Posted by Jay Rosen at March 6, 2005 12:45 AM
Comments
I think we really need a gaggle exclusively made up of male prostitutes. seriously? there needs to be a broad, bipartisan movement of intelligent people for intelligent political discourse. manifestos. op-eds. etc. The problem is much greater than that of the WH press corps. They're the symptom of a diseased body politic. Posted by: praktike at March 6, 2005 2:22 AM | Permalink "intelligent people for intelligent political discourse. manifestos..." What a world you live in, praktike. Why is it that "intelligent people" always seem surprised by the facts on the ground as they emerge? Why is it that the press manufactures an intellecutal consistentcy to appeal to the small-minded by leaving out uncomfortable facts? Then you get to call yourself 'intelligent', since, absent any facts which, for example, may reflect well on the Bush admin, any right-thinking person can both hold onto their prejudices, and believe that they are highly intelligent. Two points come to mind: 2) It is an under-appreciated fact that bigoted people do not find their bigotry low and demeaning, but rather bigotry gives them a sense of elevation, which, evidently, their fragile ego requires. Hence, they can constantly harp on their own intelligence, and the stupidity of those who disagree with them. Posted by: moptop at March 6, 2005 3:45 AM | Permalink I'd require that the President, like the Prime Minister of Great Britain, be required to respond to questions from Congress each week a la "question time." (In other words, he is going to have to face hostile and loaded questions every week.) Cabinet officials should each be required to do so once a month (if not more often) as well. Within the "mainstream media" organizations that have the resources and personnel to cover Washington extensively on a daily basis, the press corps should consist primarily of journalists with areas of expertise in policies, rather than politics. I'd also change the way the "star system" works in journalism, because it doesn't work. The people who attend press briefings done by "spokesmen" should be little more than stenographers whose job it is to determine what it is the government wants to communicate. Right now, we have the "star reporters" trying to hold the government accountable by questioning people who have little or no influence on policy---that doesn't make any sense. "Apprentice journalists" should be attending these kinds of briefings with the sole purpose of determining what the government wants people to know. The "real reporters"---the people who get the bylines and the face time---should be telling us what the government (or the opposition) is saying and what it is not telling us that we need to know. "fairness and balance" should be achieved not by letting each side say whatever it wants to, but by communicating the advantages and disadvantages of any given policy from a factual perspective. (of course, I also want to be able to go skiing when I wind up in hell...and I figure the odds are better for that happening than for us seeing a National press corps that isn't about star power, but about gathering and dissemination information. But you asked....) Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 6, 2005 6:11 AM | Permalink one other point. The government has no more of a "right" to unmediated communication with the American people than the press has the "right" to determine what facts are relevant, and what issues are important. When this country was founded, there was no such thing as the "mainstream media" with a national reach---and the federal government had no means of unmediated communication with the American people. I find it ironic that "conservatives" are always complaining that the federal government has too much power over our lives, but at the same time want to further empower a government that shares its prejudices by allowing that government to not merely set the agenda, but determine the terms of the debate of that agenda. When conservatives acknowledge the essential contradictions between their "principles", what they are trying to achieve, and how they are trying to achieve it, then it will be time to begin to take their media criticism seriously. Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 6, 2005 6:34 AM | Permalink I don't want Helen Thomas fired. I want, when her time comes, her to collapse and die atop Scott McClellan after asking a particulary nasty question. I want a White House press corps that will identify transparent abuses by the press office and agree among themselves to prohibit them. This would include boycotting background briefings in which there is no conceivable rational reason for an official to be unidentified, and eschewing the use of anonymous sources absent a compelling reason, e.g., the source will get fired or arrested for speaking on the record. In other words, a press corps that will develop and agree to and actually execute certain standards of behavior. I want a press corps that will not present context-free news, and will not adopt administration terminology because someone throws a hissy fit if they don't, and will not permit the press secretary, unchalleneged, to answer questions in a fashion that directly contradicts what other sources within the administration are saying with respect to the question. For instance, when Scott McClellan says the president's plan will fix the crisis in social security, the questioning reporter should point out that the president's social security experts say there's not a crisis and the president's plan wouldn't do anything to fix it even if there were one. I want a White House press corps who will support one another. If a reporter is being punished for asking hard questions, the rest of the press should refuse to participate in any activities from which the targeted reporter is excluded. In other words, reporters should collectively place their responsibilities as journalists above their short-term interests and fears. I want a press corps whot believe in context. They all know news doesn't happen in a vacuum; they shouldn't write as if it does. If a particular issue is on the table at a particular briefing, the reporters' editors should have a gaggle of interns at work on Google and in the paper's morgue doing the research necessary to place whatever news comes out of the briefing into a historical context. At the moment, context is provided almost exclusively by the various special interests involved with a particular issue, and it rarely reflects reality. I want a White House press corps that dispenses with the convenience of artificial narrative. I want a White House press corps that is not equipped solely with a short term memory. I want a White House press corps that brings their laptops to work. If a reporter asks a question and the answer seems not to jibe with what he's hear in the past, I want him to sit there and google the question while his colleagues ask other questions, and then I want him to raise his hand and say, "Scotty, what you told me is completely inconsistent with what the president said six months ago." I want a White House press corps who realize that other Americans, no matter how alien their practices and cultures may seem to the reporters, are not incomprehensible or uneducable. This is important so that they don't get played by an administration that uses press corps blind spots to reinforce existing, and often justified, prejudices against the press. In other words, I want reporters who understand both their sources and their audiences as well as the White House understands the reporters and their audiences. I want reporters who don't sit around thinking their readers are rubes at the same moment the White House is playing the reporters for rubes for the benefit of the readers (or viewers; I'm using press as a generic news outlet term). Those are quick impressions for starters. More later. Posted by: weldon berger at March 6, 2005 6:43 AM | Permalink Prof. Rosen, There is a fundamental difference. I addressed it at length two or three of your posts ago. Call it a philisophical difference, call it red state blue state there are fundamentally different worldviews and conceptions of right and wrong. Debates across these lines are largely pointless...the issues and conceptions are far to deep to be addressed in any blog forum or press conference. This President is not addressing this press for the same reason I do not address p.lukasiak. It is futile. I have better things to do with my time, and I have no great desire to waste his either. I am not going to change his mind, he is not going to change mine. Our differences are not one of facts, but of worldview or philosophy or of right and wrong. And I don't mean to single out the left, there are topics I skip with those from the right. I rarely if ever discuss my atheism with a born again Christian. It is not a worthwhile discussion to have. The President and this press are similar. They come from fundamentally different conceptions and mental frames. Those frames are not going to be reconciled in that forum, and discussing across frames is dangerous...open to dramatic misinterpretations and misconceptions, on both sides. There is at least some degree of hostility between frames...after all, they disagree about right and wrong. In essence what we have is a blue state press wanting to question a red state president. Or to put it more emphatically, we have a blue county press wanting to address a red county President. He has very little to gain and much to lose from that exchange, so he minimizes it. So to this topic, what do we do? Well, let the market work. It isn't like the press toned down its attacks on the President and his policies due to lack of access. Whether the executive talks to them or not, they are going to write their stories, make their broadcasts and print their papers. Watch dog or attack dog, they are going to do it whether the executive makes facilitates it or not. And just the same, the President is not totally paralyzed in getting his message out by not talking to the press at length. I think the end result is going to be something of a blend between the British and US papers. There will be 'partisan' papers and probably a few that cling to the notion of objectivity with varying degrees of success. But that objectivity or lack there of will be more apparent with comparisons. If the supposedly objective NYT or CBS News looks more like National Review or The Nation, so be it...the people will see. I put partisan in quotes because it is not quite true...it will be from a philisophical perspective more than a political one. I think news sources are multiplying and people will self select. The question of how do we get there will be addressed by what is happening. I think the NYT will become more and more a liberal UWS perspective paper and give up any aspirations of being the entire nations 'newspaper of record' The NY Post will continue to grow...but always be smaller than the Times. I think the Washington Times will continue to grow, and the Washington Post will shrink. But given the market, the WaPo will always remain bigger and probably more influential. I think the biggest development will be when the network news breaks its dependence on the NYT for content decisions. Soon the Networks will be reacting to the 24 hour cable newscycle rather than the newspaper's cycle. Eventually it may even shift towards the blogs even faster cycle. Currently we have three network newsrooms who are all populated with blue state mindset people. The first network to populate a newsroom with red state perspective people will have an economic boon. The big pie is still the three networks, and when one gets one half of the viewer pie to itself, and the other two divide the other half of the pie, that will be the biggest change. And it will come...sooner or later, the corporates will see the economic possibilities. Fundamentally, it is a hiring decision, not an editorial decision. I think the people of the press see that...that is why there is such discrimination against red state mindset people in the newsroom. As soon as there are legitimate red state people options, the blue state mindset people are going to lose half of the jobs they have. That only serves to make the coming divide more sharp. It may delay it, but it will not stop it. Posted by: Blanknoone at March 6, 2005 9:50 AM | Permalink Jay: I tell you George W. Bush is phasing out the idea of facing independent, potentially challenging questions. I disagree. In March, 2003, at their Government Affairs Conference, members of the National Newspaper Association (whose membership includes large and small daily newspapers and weeklies, too) met with then presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer, and, separately, with high-ranking officials of the State Department. They fielded every question conversationally and, for questions that they did not have an answer, they promised to respond and did, in fact, follow up. Furthermore, they promised to field future questions, if we were to telephone or email. In retrospect, rather than confirming Jay's hypothesis that Bush is phasing out the idea of facing independent, potentially challenging questions, the opportunity may have been a foray by the administration to open alternative, functioning channels to bypass the annointed few whose performance, by any measure, has been suspect. I woke up this morning thinking about a dark version of the future, one without any voices of authority. Instead, we'd have nothing but a sea of blogs in a never ending game of he-said, she-said. Professor Rosen – In the earlier thread you asserted: There’s an innocent explanation: management. Even (especially?) its critics acknowledge that the Bush White House is quite disciplined; Bush is rarely late for any appearance or appointment because his staff aggressively manages his schedule; he’s one of the few chief executives who’s really operates like one, delegating responsibility and authority to his cabinet. In sum, he acts as though he has an MBA. In any large, successful organization the key ingredient is the talent of its members. The executive’s role is to set a course and lead by communicating with key personnel. An executive meets with a subordinate for information or to make a decision. Pre-meeting planning, especially for a decision brief, may be extensive so that participants can accomplish the meeting’s purpose. As a minion in a thriving $2B company, I’ve briefed the CEO (also an MBA) twice over the last few years – you would describe the meeting as scripted because the CEO wanted information that he could use in making a decision –there’s no time for philosophical discussions. The administrations of Bush 41 and Clinton were management failures, but for different reasons. Bush the elder ran a tight ship but had no course, no “vision thing.” Clinton had no discipline; he was habitually late, never had time for the intelligence briefings, did not have frequent meetings with his cabinet members. Both failed in accomplishing as much as they set out to because of their poor executive abilities. Posted by: The Kid Instead of the White House communicating through the White House Press Corps filter, I see as a useful alternative: Unfiltered communication. That is, the White House response unfiltered and unedited by the dominant liberal media, elaborated below Please understand, the reason the dominant liberal media (especially the White House Press Corps) has de-legitimized itself in the eyes of Republicans and conservatives is because of the unbalanced nature of what they report. After long experience, Republican or conservative White House officials see their responses to press questions edited and tortured, by the time the response is aired or printed, to produce not communication, but a (largely) adverse protrayal of White House positions and ideas. An unfiltered communication process would be White House response, presented in its entirety, directly to citezen's questions. This communication could be posted, in its entirety, on the White House web site. This cuts out the dominant liberal media filter - - that is, the public would see the unvarnished White House response, not the slanted response prepared by the press. Citezens could then view events and ideas in their own, true light, rather than the dominant media's. Of course, our liberal media friends' ideas (carried by the filter) would not be brodcast so widely, which is on reason why I suspect the dominant media oppose direct communication as a replacement for their own method. Posted by: Trained Auditor at March 6, 2005 11:18 AM | Permalink The press in 3 years has an obligation to ask Condi or Hillary or Mr. Smith what their intentions are regarding accessibility by the press. How many press conferences will they do? Nail them down early so if they try to hide there will be a backlash similar to the resopnse to Bush's "No new taxes" promise. The press can make this an issue even if the general public isn't yet thinking about it. I guess that makes journalists the marketing department for democracy. Posted by: Kirk House at March 6, 2005 11:27 AM | Permalink Reader: what's your imaginary on this? "Trained Auditor" - I'm not sure if you saw my "dark future" comment above, but I'm pretty sure you are describing the path to it. When some don't believe the White House, and some don't believe the press, then where do you find common ground? If you end up with a nation full of people, each of whom believe their 40 favorite websites, there may not be much common ground. That strikes me as a dangrous future. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at March 6, 2005 12:45 PM | Permalink Once again-one Jeff Gannon doth not make a scandal when juxtaposed with Duranty, Rather, Cronkite, CNN, CNNI, NPR(who can forget the famous "The Iraqi War will disrupt the creativity of the Iraqi Artist" commentary) and All Things Considered Left Wing, 60 Minutes(of hatred of conservatives), NYT, LAT, WaPo,- I dont want to go on for fear of Carpal Tunnel and fear of Carpal Tunnel Vision for you. There may be a story behind Gannon-who cares? Somehow that equals out the past 30 years of what Conservatives have been getting? Jeez.. Posted by: cal-boy at March 6, 2005 1:53 PM | Permalink moptop, I have no idea what you're talking about. Posted by: praktike at March 6, 2005 1:55 PM | Permalink Granted a male prostitute provdies a "different perspective," cal-boy. But is it one that's central to the "balancing" act you speak of? I never knew male prostitution was a Conservative cornerstone. Please enlighten us all on this point. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at March 6, 2005 2:14 PM | Permalink odo - it must've been the pizza you ate last night. All kidding aside, the bottomless pit you see is illogical postmodernism. But where you see darkness, the Pomo sees anti-hierarchical chaos in all its splendor. Posted by: Terry Heaton at March 6, 2005 2:21 PM | Permalink Instead of the White House Press, You Envision What? Play the discredited and de-certified themes out. If we fired the White House press and told them to seek other employment, what then? Reader: what's your imaginary on this? Like the UN, the White House Press will become increasingly irrelevant. But that won't stop the participants from endless self-promotion and posturing in an attempt to regain their lost glory (whether real or imagined). The Kid has it right in the post above: The Bush-bashers are upset with the White House' management style, while the voters are concerned with results. Process vs. substance. Talk vs. action. Endless debate vs. decisiveness. Hyperbolic blather vs. serious argument. And the best of all examples: Guckert vs. Democratic Revolution in the Middle East. Need more be said. Posted by: capitano at March 6, 2005 3:19 PM | Permalink Need more be said. Well, just this piece by John Leo; it's priceless.
Posted by: capitano at March 6, 2005 3:55 PM | Permalink Some major problems with the current media environment are perfectly encapsulated in most of the coverage of the ongoing social security debate. Seemingly everyone in Washington is pushing a different set of numbers, with wildly varying cost estimates and future benefit predictions. Meanwhile, nobody can agree--among either politicians or journalists--whether or not a "crisis" even exists. It should be the role of the press to establish indisputable facts in the course of these debates. For instance, many conservative argue that the social security trust fund "does not exist" or is "imaginary," and consequently the government will not be able to pay out future benefits. As far as I can tell, nobody in the media has investigated this claim to find out what substance it does or does not have, so it continues to echo through cable news shows and newspaper reports, creating a fog of misinformation and confusion. The way to combat spin and evasive rhetoric is to definitively answer the relevant questions raised during political debates by gathering evidence from independent sources (duh). These facts can then be juxtaposed to politicians' statements to either support or negate what they say. The solution is not to eliminate journalists or even reinvent journalism; we just need to do it better. The press has forgotten it has an active role to play in the political process. It is this more than anything else that has caused our current situation, where reporters behave more like fans at a baseball game than responsible guardians of democracy itself. Posted by: pedler at March 6, 2005 5:10 PM | Permalink Jay, I'm afraid you're mythologizing the role of the White House press corps here.
Posted by: Steve Lovelady at March 6, 2005 5:34 PM | Permalink Question: Why does the media NEVER "follow the money"? Take any conflict in Africa, for example; actually, any conflict, anywhere, anytime. The money almost never gets followed. And that's telling. Posted by: S Ty at March 6, 2005 5:44 PM | Permalink Jay asked. So here's the first draft of an answer: Instead of the White House Press, You Envision What? I envision an "Ah ha!" where, getting feedback from blogs, forward-thinking reporters realize that Whuffie isn't simply a Nielsen rating that can be earned by "gotcha" journalism. Because of that, I envision the administration cannot afford to ignore those reporters -- and no longer wants to. I envision the White House gaggle, the inter- and intra- party struggles, and the race towards civilzation to go on. Read the rest. Sreve Lovelady ... Yeah, it's not the investigative journalist's dream job, but what you're seeing in your daily coverage of piss-poor reporting is just the WHite House press corps' philosophy spreading like a virus among the working press. Wouldn't you have liked to see the assembled journalists ask Bush actual questions in his two March 2003 press conferences, the "24 hours to get out of Dodge" and the "Bombs away" ones? Wouldn't it have been nice if someone stood up and said, look, the inspectors you, er, fought so hard to get into the country say they're making progress and they want more time? Why are you forcing them out of the country now? Wouldn't you have liked it if someone in the press corps had asked McClellan or Bush why they fragged Eric Shinseki when he had the temerity to suggest occupying Iraq would require way more troops than the White House was talking about, or more recently, why Paul Wolfowitz still has a job after virtually every bit of his pre-war COngressional testimony not only proved wrong, but was widely disputed by actual experts at the time? It isn't a question of breaking stories; it's a question of whether or not to permit the White House to promote unchallenged its version of every story. And again, as you well know, it isn't only the White House press corps who're falling down on the job, or clambering down on their knees to do it from an awakward vantage. But those are the reporters who have the opportunity to ask tough questions in a formal or semi-formal setting of the very top echelon officials, and they are not, as a group, doing it. Yes? No? Posted by: weldon berger at March 6, 2005 6:16 PM | Permalink For those who would deny it, and did in the last thread. From the Daily Show: Jon Stewart: Were they right in any way with their grudge that this White House was more restrictive on information than others have been? Ari Fleischer: Yes. Stewart: Oh. Ari Fleischer was just candid with me. Prof. Rosen, You still have not answered the claim I made in the last forum about the Bush people taking a bunker-like stance after the election of 2000 and the fact that there is a significant portion of the country who thinks this guy was elected illegitimately and is the 21st century reincarnation of Hitler. You quote O'Neill as your source for Bush not being questioned by anyone, including his cabinet. But O'Neill is not exactly unbiased here. I mean, the guy does have an agenda. Why is it that you will believe what he says at face value? Posted by: Yevgeny Vilensky at March 6, 2005 7:21 PM | Permalink I am not in your courtroom, Yevgeny. I didn't answer it because I didn't understand what the widespread feeling that this guy was elected illegitimately in 2000 has to do with the White House press and the Bush team's desire to see that Bush is not questioned. Lots of people felt that way, lots of people didn't, too. As for O'Neil being "biased," I have nothing to say to that or any of the thousands of comments exactly like it at PressThink. They are manuevers--what you just said about O'Neil is a manuever--and effectively meaningless as statements in a rational debate. Meaningless to me, that is. I would guess you feel quite justified in saying it. To understand why it's meaningless simply ask yourself: who is an unbiased source on what happens inside the White House? By the way, guess what else Ari Fleischer said, contradicting you and hundreds of other comments at PressThink by Bush supporters and press haters full of wrath. Reporters are tough, he said, and equally tough on Republicans and Democrats. Is Ari biased? For those who would deny it, and did in the last thread. From the Daily Show: You quote Fleisher as your source for saying the Bush White House was more restrictive on information than others have been. But Fleischer is not exactly unbiased here. I mean, the guy does have an agenda. Why is it that you will believe what he says at face value? Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 6, 2005 7:40 PM | Permalink It isn't a question of breaking stories; it's a question of whether or not to permit the White House to promote unchallenged its version of every story. Why is it that I only see the press challenging the White House's version of a story? There are other versions of the stories out there, why are they not challenged, as well? The most probable reason (very much IMO) is that a journalist who demonstrates that (for example) Ted Kennedy is full of it isn't going to attract nearly as much attention as a journalist who demonstrates that a sitting President is full of it. To a certain degree, this is reasonable, as a President has a lot more ability to affect events than (for example) Ted Kennedy does. But there is value in challenging both versions of any given story, and I don't see nearly as much of it as I would like. As someone else once said, the only bad thing about Woodward and Bernstein is that what they did resulted in a lot of journalists who wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein. I think there's a lot of that in the WH press corps, as well as the media at large (one symptom of which is the urge to attach the -gate suffix to every scandal), and I don't like it. Posted by: rosignol at March 6, 2005 8:51 PM | Permalink I have nothing to say to that or any of the thousands of comments exactly like it at PressThink. They are manuevers--what you just said about O'Neil is a manuever--and effectively meaningless as statements in a rational debate. Meaningless to me, that is. I would guess you feel quite justified in saying it. Jay, its not a manuever. These people really think this way. Welcome to the Tower of Babel. Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 6, 2005 8:58 PM | Permalink To the RH David Ehrenstein: Posted by: cal-boy at March 6, 2005 9:51 PM | Permalink Jay: It is not my view that the press we have did a fair job covering the White House during my watch--roughly twenty years of professional observation--and that includes Bush 43. You seem to think he's contradicting us. If so, you must think he's contradicting you, too. Of course, we might all be correct. In which case, the comment's tone might be misplaced. * What do we want from the White House as a "press" strategy or policy? That being said, I too will digress - it was pointed out recently (forgot where) that the White House P.C. should welcome bloggers into their fold; bloggers will ask the hard questions, since they're the only ones who have no vested interest in sucking up to the admin to retain access. Then the gaggle will have something worth writing about. I want a White House press corps that brings their laptops to work. If a reporter asks a question and the answer seems not to jibe with what he's hear in the past, I want him to sit there and google the question while his colleagues ask other questions... Yes. And he should check his email too - wouldn't it be great to be able to fire off a point (with URL) or suggested question to someone who has the power to use it? BTW, it appears that Fishbowl D.C. ("cleared to attend Monday's press briefing") takes tips (and presumably questions) on their front page. Posted by: Anna at March 6, 2005 10:18 PM | Permalink You're right. A series of questions is weaker. To the RH HST:
Posted by: cal-boy at March 6, 2005 11:55 PM | Permalink To the RH HST: Posted by: cal-boy at March 7, 2005 12:00 AM | Permalink Steve Lovelady writes: "Jay, I'm afraid you're mythologizing the role of the White House press corps here. Sure, it would be great to hold a president, or his spokesman, to account, but that isn't accomplished in this format." Steve, I'm mythologizing? I suppose I must ask where, exactly. What I said in this post is that the White House press corps has not done a fair job by the country, is not representative of the country, and is not a good model for the country to consult in the future. Historically, I said it has helped to create and mystify presidential power. That's not grim enough for you? I'm sure you had something in mind. Possibly you want to claim that we should have no White House press at all, given the situation that dooms most of the reporting. Maybe this is the part you find mythologizing: I defend the place for a free and inquisitive press in the White House as a permanent resident. That room is a very important room, as are its counterparts at the State Department, the Pentagon, and other places. I think it's important to keep the interlocutor going while the institution changes... And when you say accountability isn't accomplished in this format, I agree completely. It isn't. That's why the White House press corps and the way it works, has worked, is not a model for the future. As I said in my post. Please advise. The problems with the White House press corps are: 1. Lack of any real competition anymore with the corporate-owned press monopolies. 2. Newspapers are in trouble with declining circulation and ad pages, so any reporter who takes a chance by being too tough on the administration are an economic liability. 3. Access to information has become paramount to news reporters, and the way the Rove-Bush team plays the hardball game precludes taking chances and getting banned from the room and the plane. The last time the White House press corps really got mad enough to get tough was February 2004 when it looked like breaking news on Bush's military records might actually get some traction and have an effect on the outcome of the election. Can anyone imagine any reporter today being as tough on Bush in person as Dan Rather was on Nixon? I have a reputation for asking tough questions and even got kicked out of a press conference with the Ten Commandments Judge Roy Moore last year. Give me a crack at the White House. I'll stand on the wall for democracy and against tyranny, whether the editors in New York have the chutzpah to back it up or not. The cool thing about the blogosphere is, like A. J. Liebling said in 1960: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." Jay, what about what goes on outside of the gaggle? I mean, they have offices, the WH has a giant press staff, etc. What happens when the camera is gone? When Scotty says "I'll check on that and get back to you," does he do it? Etc. Posted by: praktike at March 7, 2005 1:37 AM | Permalink The issue about a series of questions is quite important, Jay. 2) Too often the series of questions is rhetorical -- where you assume the audience knows the answer and you want to make a statement, but by asking it in a question format you deny that you're "stating" it: Jordan's question -- Is the US targeting journalists? or statement -- the US is targeting journalists. 3) If the questions are too far away from each other, even if in the same "area", cogent answers become too difficult/ complex/ interrelated. I think your questions are some of (1) and (3). One of the victories of "liberal" thinking is an aversion to accepting a double standard. Unfortunately, it's clear to many Bush voters that the MSM/ Leftist press is nearly hopelessly full of double standards in its reporting, including its questions and its omissions, and in who it chooses to publicize. Luskin vs. Krugman (on Soc. Sec. etc) -- Luskin is lot more believable, but Krugman has the NYT megaphone. Every policy has good points and bad points. Any news story that fails to address the good points AND the bad points, of both the Rep AND the Dem proposed policy, is failing to be complete. Most stories can not be complete -- but when only the bad or potentially bad points of the Rep policy, and only the good or potentially good points of Dem policy are written, after some 4, or 8, or 24 articles -- the double standards get too annoying to be worth reading Krugman.
The WH press should therefore know the "official" positions of the Soc. Security admin, and actuary issues, and the facts about how blacks get a worse deal, and women get a better deal, merely because of life differences. The WH press needs to be more honest in its criticisms. I haven't yet seen any Bush-critic of the Iraq war put a number on "how many casualties" is too many? I say 2500 or less US soldiers killed, and Bush should get an A. For two years I've heard Bush-haters claim Iraq is mess, it proves Bush is bad, yada yada -- but I think he should be getting an A. The press needs to be honest about its standard of judgement. Criticism of the real, the real bad points, without any standards to compare it to, makes the criticism weak. Before focusing on hardball or softball questions, the press needs to focus on what a "good job" would look like. So far, Bush's results are not merely good, but fantastic. (Unless you're anti-Christian, and Bush's pro-Moral Values is not your idea of "good".) Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at March 7, 2005 4:43 AM | Permalink Heh, you got Instalanched (again?). Not like it was unexpected. Oh man, seems like attacking the questioner is more important than the questions these days. How can you have a debate if someone's attacking you for having an agenda? Sounds like the right is moral relativism in debate these days instead of making a case on all the facts instead of selectively editing some out. Not winning on a point? Change the topic or expand the argument until it fits. Seems like a confluence of interest where the right just ignores the left wing blogs unless there's dirt to dish about them. Then this confluence just agrees with itself over and over again on different blogs. Blogs are supposed to be self-correcting, but they rarely are. In fact, it just adds another layer to opinion journalism/punditocracy that obscures facts...especially as they grow lazier and stop examining facts that their blog friends promote. It seems the biggest problem with journalism these days are the large number of useless pundits being mistaken for journalists. Besides which, most of the stuff I read about Helen Thomas these days on right wings blogs is either about her being a) Arabic in descent, or b) asking tough mean questions and being critical, but rarely do I hear anything about her actual questions. Posted by: S. at March 7, 2005 4:56 AM | Permalink Heh, you got Instalanched (again?). Not like it was unexpected. By now, one hopes that Jay is beginning to understand that there is a "counter-reality" that the right-wing lives in. Upthread, someone mentions a John Leo column approvingly. Although in "reality" the column is worthless, in the "counter-reality" the column would be considered "priceless." The level of intellectual dishonesty in Leo's column is outrageous---but the right-wing would not only not be outraged, it can not even detect what is intellectually dishonest about it. I doubt that any of the right-wingers here can tell you why this statement from the column is intellectually dishonest.... We've also generated two years' worth of claims that Iraqi women are no better off and in some cases worse off today than they were under Saddam. Of course under Saddam they were turned over to rape squads, sexually tortured, and beheaded. Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 7, 2005 7:28 AM | Permalink sbw: You seem to think he's contradicting us. This comment of mine got placed too far from your pointers to Ari Fleisher for the pronoun to be clear, Jay. My reply would make more sense if it was clear the "he" was meant to refer to Ari Fleischer. Sorry for the ambiguity. Late night. sbw: When Ari Fleischer says the press is tough, and tough on everyone, Democrats and Republicans, he most definitely contradicts you, and many others in this and the previous thread, plus thousands of others who visit PressThink to drill the point home. Here's an example from the comments here, via Trained Auditor: "Please understand, the reason the dominant liberal media (especially the White House Press Corps) has de-legitimized itself in the eyes of Republicans and conservatives is because of the unbalanced nature of what they report." But it is telling that there's almost no interest in Fleischer's statement (press is tough on both parties), and no real curiosity about the basis for it, from those who regularly complain about reporters giving Bush a much harder time because of liberal bias or Blue state animosity. Fleischer also said, further contradicting widespread and taken-for-granted views among Bush supporters, that the most persistent bias of White House reporters is not liberal spin or Bush hate, but toward conflict and confrontation, much of which he attributed to televised briefings-- a non-ideological explanation. Again, I detect remarkably low curiosity about why Ari Fleischer--a Republican loyalist, so loyal to Bush he was entrusted with being his mouthpiece--would say things like "press: tough on Democrats, tough on Republicans" if that were not his actual impression from standing at the podium, and a conclusion from working in government for 20 years. What other explanation is there for his remark? On the other hand, if a belief in liberal bias as the Great Explainer is closer to a political religion (which is what I think, from listening to it over and over and over and over and over...) then an empirical statement like Ari's would hardly be enough to shake the believer's faith. As for my statement, sbw ("It is not my view that the press we have did a fair job covering the White House during my watch--roughly twenty years of professional observation--and that includes Bush 43") that wasn't me joining up the bias religion I have talked about. That was me saying the White House press has not been fair to the American people overall. Ari Flesicher's views did give me a new idea about liberal bias and its believers, however. Which is that Republican operatives--those at the top with actual knowledge of how Washington and the press work--are treating people like "Trained Auditor" and the millions who agree as useful yahoos. The Red State masses, as it were, are encouraged to believe what the operatives themselves don't because it's too crude and embarrassing for Fleischer himself to go on the Daily Show and say with a straight face: the press is hostile toward a Republican White House, but gives Democratic presidents a pass. He could have validated this view on Stewart's show. He could have given the Hugh Hewitt, Brent Bozell party line. He could have flashed the signs that he, too, is a believer. He could have (and it would surely help book sales), but he didn't say it. Why not? Because while that's good enough for the yahoos, who have been quite useful to the party and ought to be encouraged to keep it up, Fleischer does not want his own name associated with such bald and counter-factual distortions. (In this he is like Trained Auditor, who has to give a fake name.) Ari has a consulting business now; he has to demonstrate that he's an empiricist because corporate clients don't pay real money for a Bozell-style bozo. They can get that for free on the Internet. Which he exactly what he did on the Daily Show. He said to anyone listening that Ari Fleischer is an empiricist. Brent Bozell must have been fuming. "As to him being a male prostitute I really dont care. I knew many gays in the military when I served in the Navy and I knew many in San Francisco and I didnt care then and I sure as hell dont care now." So male prostitutes and gays in the military are equivalent to one another? Do enlighten us all on this point, cal-boy. (Perchance you've forgotten an "l.") As to your pro forma "I don't care" as we all know such disclaimers are right up ther ewith "the check is in the mail" and "I promise not to come in your mouth." Posted by: David Ehrenstein at March 7, 2005 9:44 AM | Permalink I doubt that any of the right-wingers here can tell you why this statement from the column is intellectually dishonest.... OK, I'll bite. Is it because some of the rape squad victims weren't beheaded? FYI, here's the John Leo passage from Time for a Dose of Dr. No in context: Tell us about some of your other efforts in Iraq. Posted by: capitano at March 7, 2005 10:06 AM | Permalink I envision *no* WH press gallery. Let's pay more attention to Congress. Here's a check on the WH: "no press for you!" Posted by: kfractal at March 7, 2005 10:30 AM | Permalink David, Maybe you should take your preoccupations to a private message board designed to satisfy your need to talk dirty. I doubt the discussants here will be able to keep up the graphic language and lurid innuendo at the level you apparently crave. OK, I'll bite. Is it because some of the rape squad victims weren't beheaded? see? any other "conservatives" want to give it a shot? Because it would be really nice to find a conservative who knows enough facts and knows the difference between a valid and invalid argument to discuss the issue of media bias with. Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 7, 2005 10:46 AM | Permalink To the RH Brian: Posted by: cal-boy at March 7, 2005 11:02 AM | Permalink The "lurid innuendo" proceeds entirely from your boy Guckert, Brian. But then I suppose like cal-boy, you "really don't care." Posted by: David Ehrenstein at March 7, 2005 11:24 AM | Permalink Rosen once again keeps the discussion down to a fairly petty level, attempting to play gotcha with conservative press critics based on a Daily Show interview with Ari Fleischer. Rosen let's us all know where he wants to keep the level of discussion by announcing that anyone who thinks the press has an identifiable political bias is a "yahoo", a gullible imbecile, a useful idiot, etc. If anyone so much as hints at an operating bias, Rosen will jump in and say that's just a lot of noise, then plug his fingers in his ears and run away shouting "I can't hear you! lalalalala..." What a performance. And if someone of Fleischer's stature says there is bias, and identifies it? Note that Fleischer also stated that the press is easier on Democrats regarding social issues, but Rosen knows not to mention it. If he did mention it, it would be to analyze it for signs of dissembling or perhaps as a targeted message to the moron conservatives out there. The press is equally hard on Republicans and Democrats. That's one way to try to measure it. Another is to look at how the questions are framed, from what direction ideas are attacked, and perhaps most importantly who the press wants to come out ahead. Is there a liberal-centrist mindset in journalism? Does the existence of one mean that it *can't* attack members of the Democratic Party (like Kerry, whom it loathed for reasons that had nothing to do with his politics)? Never mind, Rosen likes to keep the question simple for the slavering morons from the red states: either the press is working 100% for the aims of the Democratic Party or the press bias thesis is all sound and fury. The professor squelches useful discussion once again. Try reading the papers. A year's worth of ignorant assumptions about Iraq are beginning to fall away like scales (starting with the assertion that elections could not possibly be held in January). Did those assumptions, so uniformly mouthed by the press, indicate a bias, a tendency to see what one expects to see? Did that bias influence the tenor of the campaign, the questions asked of both Bush and Kerry as well as others? I suggest people (including Jay) read Fred Kaplan's recent Slate piece wondering if Bush was right after all about Iraq, freedom, etc--it's written by a man who seems to be shaking off a long intellectual nap, blinking his eyes and blearily staring at a situation that is not quite what he expected to see. I point to that as a symptom of bias, and it has been everywhere in the press--one couldn't argue against it without being called a wishful-thinking Bush stooge (another kind of Bush stooge that Jay and those who think like him imagine fill the red states). David, Is Guckert posting here under your name? If so, you should really put a stop to that. If not, then it looks like you are providing insight into your troubled psyche here, and I'm simply trying to gently nudge you toward more appropriate venues. There's two different premises I think being discussed and its worthwhile to sort the two. 1. Is there a Bush bubble? (does he get opinions which question him) I don't think premise number 1 is accepted by Bush supporters. I can see, at least on this forum, that they don't agree that Bush lives in a bubble of unconflicting opinions. This isn't about whether Bush is "smart" or "dumb." Whether he reads newspapers or doesn't. My guess is that conservatives feel Bush knows the public, he is not truly isolated from them. (I'm using the qualifying word "truly" because I think we all agree the President is somewhat remote, but the question is whether, one can mitigate that remotness by emersing yourself in media or town halls or other steps). Bush "only" has to read newspapers to "know" the public. He doesn't need snot-nosed reporters telling him what "the public" thinks. Premise 2 is based on Premise 1. If there is a bubble (and you have to first agree there is) then who's job is it to pierce that bubble? If some feel that's not the press's job, it should be "the public's" job, then how should that practicably be applied? If the Press isn't the Public, than how are the public represented? I think I've heard the argument somewhere that elections, and elections only, are the time for the Public to comment. Anything in between those four years I guess the public should shut up? But before you can get to Premise 2, you have to first agree the President needs to be informed about the public. That his "bubble" even exists and therefore those tough questions serve a purpose to the man, individually. One thing I do think the Bush WH has encouraged is the idea that there isn't a "bubble" while simulatanously making the bubble as tight as its ever been. Jay, the dishy part of me would love to hear all about the details about you being selected as a person for a Daily Show clip. You were the only "expert" quoted on the bit. How did The Daily Show producers approach you? How did they phrase their request? Do you feel they made fun of you? Were you pleased with your part in the segment? I've interviewed one person from the show about how they put together their pieces and I'm curious that this bit didn't really have a "news story" to hang on. It wasn't time sensitive. Evidence of Daily Show agenda setting. They wanted to talk about the legitmacy of the news. They side on the idea that there is a legitmate (certified) news floating inside of the entire news media press sphere. They have praised bloggers in the past (the original "Ted Hitler" Colbert piece on Jeff Gannon talks about blogger having "facts"). Anyway I'm in the process of writing my masters thesis on The Daily Show and whatever insight you have in how they put together their segments would be enlightening. Posted by: catrina at March 7, 2005 12:08 PM | Permalink Let's not forget that Ari Fleischer is appearing on shows like Jon Stewart's to flog his new book, Taking Heat. There's a good reason why he would want to appeal to both sides in the "biased media" debate -- it broadens his market. That said, this quote seems to more accurately reflect his true sentiments: In the book, Fleischer is critical of the press, describing it as liberal-minded and conflict-driven. About that he says, "We're a better country because the press gets a thousand things right every day, and that's absolutely true. But within that, I do think the press focuses too much on confrontation and too much on conflict. Secondarily, I do believe there's ideological bias that makes it easier to be a Democrat than a Republican particularly on policy issues and especially social policy."Caveat: This passage is an exerpt from a CBS story so I have no expectation that this quote should be take at face value. Posted by: capitano at March 7, 2005 12:18 PM | Permalink "it looks like you are providing insight into your troubled psyche here" Step away from the hnad-mirror and nobody gets hurt, Brian. I eagerly await your mater's thesis, Catrina. As I'm sure you know there was much talk several months back about college studients regarding The Daily Show as a "primary news source." The tongue-clucking hasn't stopped about that one. Yet The Daily Show seriously investigated the "Gannon" saga when the rest of the "Mainstream" was keeping its distance. Granted it was doing this for the jokes, but right along with the humor was serious reporting -- both about "Gannon" and the way the media regards itself vis-a-vis the created of reportorial "personalities." The "Dino Hardbody" character was especially pointed in this regard. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at March 7, 2005 12:21 PM | Permalink By the way on the assertion kerry said he's sighn that form when his critics signed theirs. Did they? The Great Explainer is the partner here with many voices. It's all they've got. Actually, when challenged on that point, he said he would sign the Form 180 anyway, although to my knowledge he still hasn't nor has he been called on it by the equal opportunity press. Here is what he said on 2/7/2005 on the Don Imus Show IMUS: You also told Tim that you would sign this Form 180 releasing all of your military records. Have you done that? Posted by: capitano at March 7, 2005 12:29 PM | Permalink Jay, "I defend the place for a free and inquisitive press in the White House as a permanent resident. That room is a very important room, as are its counterparts at the State Department, the Pentagon, and other places. I think it's important to keep the interlocutor going while the institution changes..." Posted by: Steve Lovelady at March 7, 2005 1:02 PM | Permalink The title of this thread is "Instead of the White House Press, You Envision What?" The answer will not be determined by the White House or by the press. It will be determined by the public. We get the news we are willing to pay for. For most of us, it is only the time we use(waste) in watching or serfing it. In the newspapers case, some of the cost is defrayed by coupons. Both the press(for ratings) and the White House (for votes) will try to curry the publics favor. In each case they will talk or ignore each other as necessary. The public will decide whether they want to listen to any of it at all!! After all the public still has the right NOT to listen or NOT to vote. So happens now? I haven't the foggiest idea, but it will have players who do not exist now and some current players will not survive. Welcome to the world of change.
The presentation of "Gannongate" by the right-wing provide considerable insight into what passes as "media criticism" on the right. If you read right-wing media critics, you would believe that "the left" set out to find embarrassing personal information about "Jeff Gannon" because he had the gaul to not follow the "liberal elite" media line. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Gannon became the subject of attention not because he had been asking "friendly" questions of Scott McClelland, nor even because he had asked a loaded, friendly question of Bush. Gannon drew attention to himself by asking Bush a "friendly" question based on a factually inaccurate premise, and did so in front of a national audience. It took no effort to find out that Gannon worked for "Talon News", which turned out to be an arm of an organization called "GOPUSA" run by a Republican Party operative who was a Bush delegate to the 2000 GOP convention. But it was not until the fact that "Jeff Gannon" was a pseudonym, and would not reveal his real name---and was being credentialed using that pseudonym despite the fact that married female reporters who used their maiden names professionally were required to be credentialed under their married names. In other words, something smelled pretty bad, and people started trying to figure out what was going on. The "initial" investigation by "leftist bloggers" made it clear that the whole thing reeked. But the fact that there appeared to be a connection between Gannon and some "gay escort" websites was not considered "scandalous" by those investigating Gannon---merely a sign of his hypocrisy. Dozens, if not hundreds, of theories were pursued and discarded (I myself spent a consider amount of time trying to figure out if there was a connection between Gannon and a Pennsylvania congressman with the same last name, and the possibility that "Jeff Gannon" was actually Dan Gannon, a white supremacist who is considered to be the author of the first right-wing "hate" site on the internet....but who "disappeared" from the internet about 10 years ago.) A lot of information was collected regarding irregularities in the credentialling process, and connections between GOPUSA/Talon/Eberle and the GOP that made it clear that something very fishy was, in fact, going on. But, with a few minor exception, the "Gannon" story was ignored by the mainstream media until it was finally discovered that Jeff Gannon was a actually "James Guckert" who had a homoerotic phote on his AOL profile page that strongly suggested that he was a gay escort. That got the mainstream media's attention, but not because of its implications (prostitution is, of course, illegal, which raised very serious security questions about how Gannon was credentialed). The left considered this a political scandal, but it was presented as a "sex scandal" and "invasion of privacy" story by the mainstream media. Gannon was treated with kid gloves by the mainstream media (see his interview with Blitzer), denied any association with gay prostitution, going so far as to claim that the "gay escort" websites he was associated with actually belonged to someone else for whom he had worked as a web consultant. And the right-wing actually had the balls to claim that "outing" Gannon was about the homophobia of the left! When it was revealed that Guckert had a number of different websites advertizing his services for $200 an hour, including pictures that strongly suggested that Guckert specialized in some of the most unsavory sexual practices imaginable, the mainstream media dropped the story like a hot potato. In other words, the right wing has created an entire fictional universe in which a criminal who has ties to the GOP and no journalistic credentials was able to ask the President of the United States a question based on a lie in front of a national audience is actually a martyr to a homophobic left-wing media conspiracy that will stoop to any depths to destroy those with whom it disagrees. That is the true nature of right-wing press criticism --- it is criticism that is completely divorced from anything approaching objective reality. Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 7, 2005 1:29 PM | Permalink catrina: They came to me because someone at the show reads my blog, and because if there is a "new" Internet journalism out there I am supposed to know about it, as a professor of... Much was similar to being contacted by any TV show. Several pre-interviews, vagueness about what the segment would end up looking like, some we'll-get-back-to-you's and finally a date and time to show up at their shop. The interview was taped a week before the night it ran. I didn't know who else they were talking to, (bloggers? journalists?) or how much of what I said they would wind up using. "None" would be a very likely result in broadcasting. You simply don't know. As it is, from a two hour interview at most 30 seconds appeared on air. And it's totally their decision about which 30 seconds. They did tell me that I was the person they were using in this piece as a kind of straight man, although they did not use that term. It was: "someone who can tell us how journalism is supposed to work," so they can do their satire about how it seems to be working these days. But I knew from many television interviews and situations that any further descriptions they gave me at that point would not be the actual story, anyway. What you are told when being booked has an indefinite and mysterious relationship to what you find when you are there, as a guest on the program or an on-air "source." Once you learn this, you can adjust to producer-talk. Everything up to here was like any other news interview for television. But the interview itself with Rob Corddry was not. After all, he's not a journalist, but an improvisational comedy man (that is, an artist) and an actor. The way I defined what I was doing was helping him with his art-- his act. Probably the best thing about it for me was being that close to a very good actor and comedian, as he's acting, being inside the material, as it were, because in some ways I was "material." (The dork who takes journalism seriously.) That's the part I said was fun and unnerving. I was seated about 24 inches from Corddry and could "see" his mind working and sense the command he had of his voice and body. (Fascinating.) I could also listen to him and his producer communicate about what was funny and worth having on tape for later. The truth is they could have made me into anything they wanted, with the range of material they shot from serious analysis and punditry to gags, wisecracks and various attempts to "shock" me, so as to obtain some of the dork-doesn't-get-it reactions you see on the clip. They told me when I got there that such "unexpected" things would happen, and that I should just... react. Don't try to be Rob, or a performer, just be yourself. Okay, I said. I was once taken from the front row of the Big Apple Circus and used in a clown's act, and it reminded me somewhat of that. Do you know what you want, instead? One interesting comparison, for example, is the "Ask the White House" website and the online chats being hosted by "the press" (example here). What do we think of this "press" strategy by the White House and (in the case of the example) the Washington Post? Are they both an act of disintermediation? The White House removing the White House press as intermediary? What about the Post? Are they "disintermediating" their own editors? Or is this a new way of having a conversation? Did they use only one camera? The person I interviewed indicated that they use one camera, pointed at you while Corddry asks questions while *not* in "character." And then turn around and conduct the interview again only Corddry being *in* character. The person I spoke with was not Rob Corddry and my sense is that each performer may work differently. The person I spoke with said that the perfomers (sorry I have to be vague) usually do the interviews twice, once in character and once out, but not always. Sometimes they "stay" in character even when the camera is off. To tie this back to some of your column's themes, this "in character while on camera" performance stuff reminded me, not of acting, but of the White House/Bush/Ari criticisms that the televised Press briefings are "theater." The press are acting "in character" which is only a little bit different than Corddry's behavior with you. Ari said on the show later that when the tape recorders are off the reporters will really tell him what they think, which may be completely different than what they write. Of course, Stewart had a great comeback, what does the White House say when the cameras and tape recorders are off too? I'm wondering if TV and the invention of "theater" in and of itself is what the problem is with the press briefings? If those briefings weren't on TV would there have been a reason to have a Jeff Gannon in the room at all? Might the way to "save" the press corps then to eliminate the televised briefings? Posted by: catrina at March 7, 2005 2:12 PM | Permalink Jay: sbw: When Ari Fleischer says the press is tough, and tough on everyone, Democrats and Republicans, he most definitely contradicts you, and many others in this and the previous thread, plus thousands of others who visit PressThink to drill the point home. Jay Rosen played the Ari Fleischer trump card. To respond, we reached into the White House gaggle transcript deck and randomly grabbed the first card -- Press Gaggle with Scott McClellan, March 4, 2005. That blind choice turns out to be a higher trump than Rosen's. [Try your luck. Reach into the deck and choose your own.] ... This is the White House press corps, Jay Rosen reminds us, Ari Fleisher called "tough". Yes, they are tough. Tough because they are focused on the peripheral. Tough because substantive explanation isn't important. Tough, because informing the public clearly and completely doesn't seem to interest them. See my full response at Gagging on the 'tough' gaggle. One camera. We did the interview twice, but I didn't answer the second time, just "received" the questions. Rob was the same in both, pretty much. I think the question of the briefings as "theatre" is a crucial one. Usually, we leave this at the level of, "since briefings are now televised, they've become theatre." But that begs the question of: alright, how do we make this ritual, which is political theate, work for the benefit of a political public? That's the American people in their capacity for caring about politics and tuning into what the President says. "Theatre" is to some--and Steve you may be one--a verdict on the falsity of the proceedings. It's theatre more or less means it's fake, worthless, just spin, etc. To me theatre is a more normal form for politics to take and the challenge is to understand how a theatre of facts, statements, questions and answers works, so as to distinguish the better possibilities from the dismal ones. Jay: "Theatre" is to some--and Steve you may be one--a verdict on the falsity of the proceedings. It's theatre more or less means it's fake, worthless, just spin, etc. ... To me theatre is a more normal form for politics to take and the challenge is to understand how a theatre of facts, statements, questions and answers works, so as to distinguish the better possibilities from the dismal ones. Jay's comment may have been directed at the other Steve, but the reference by Richard Lederer in the latest (I'm embarrassed to say) AARP Bulletin is too good to miss: After a long and puffy speech by Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln asked the audience, "How many legs would a horse have if you called his tail a leg?" "Five," called out some of the onlookers. "Four," replied Lincoln. "Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it true." Theatre may be the "more normal form" but why should people have to work so hard? This is the White House press corps, Jay Rosen reminds us, Ari Fleisher called "tough". Yes, they are tough. Tough because they are focused on the peripheral. Tough because substantive explanation isn't important. Tough, because informing the public clearly and completely doesn't seem to interest them. I just read the transcript you cited, and except for what was apparently a single reporter who got slightly confrontational after a non-response to his first question, I read absolutely nothing that suggests any kind of bias or partisanship whatsoever. (Indeed, glaringingly obvious questions like "How can the President suggest that Syrian withdrawal is necessary to sucessfully hold free elections in Lebanon while touting the success of the Iraqi elections that place while that country was occupied by the US?" were never asked.) The fact that McClelland refused to answer a direct question, and that a SINGLE reporter gave Scottie a hard time about it, is not evidence of bias of the White House press corps. Instead, your declaration that this particular gaggle represented "a higher trump than Rosen's" makes it obvious that the only partisanship and bias involved in this instance your own. Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 7, 2005 3:15 PM | Permalink p.lukasiak: I read absolutely nothing that suggests any kind of bias or partisanship whatsoever. Where in my piece did I suggest bias or partisanship? Ineffective journalism, my man. Lousy journalism that would cause the administration to turn elsewhere. You're quite hung up on the bias trip. I'm writing an analysis for this website for a class and am truly enjoying my discovery. Great job professor Rosen. Posted by: Bob at March 7, 2005 4:05 PM | Permalink If you haven't been following Garrett Graff's adventures as a blogger (Fishbowl DC) trying to get a day pass to the White House gaggle and briefing, then you should be. His report from today, when he finally got in, is well worth it: We'd been warned by a regular White House correspondent over the weekend that the "zoo" of the briefing would likely leave us knowing less and being more confused than when went in. Having sat through it now, we have to agree. Watching it on television doesn't quite do justice to the uselessness of many of the exchanges back and forth, nor the intensity of Scott McClellan's withering gaze nor the frustration boiling up in the reporters' voices as they butt their heads up against a rhetoric wall. Where in my piece did I suggest bias or partisanship? in your statement with regard to Jay using Fleischer as a "trump" card.... There was also no sign that the White House press corp was guilty of "lousy journalism" either, btw. The press corps wanted answer to issues concerning Syria/Lebanon, and Iran. McClennan consistently refused to address the questions that were asked, retreating behind talking points instead. Listen, its perfectly reasonable for the White House not to stake out unequivocal positions on foreign affairs. But its equally reasonable for the press corps to find out what the White House position actually is. And part of that process is asking questions, and seeing if the White House gives a direct response, or fudges the question. This is especially true with concern to Syria and Iran, given this administration's sabre rattling in the direction of both nations. And if, in your capacity as the editor of the Rome Sentinel, you allow the elected officials of Rome New York to get away with giving non-answers to questions of concern to the people of Rome, then you have no business calling yourself a journalist. Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 7, 2005 4:27 PM | Permalink Form 180 is just another myth creation tool. Play to the last once of doubt and the myth lives on. I repeat, did the other vets sign one? Ounce of doubt? There is no doubt here. John Kerry will do whatever it takes to avoid disclosing his complete military records, in spite of his unconditional promise to Tim Russert that he would do so. You can bet he didn't expect to have Don Imus put him on the spot on national radio and TV -- he thought he had dodged that issue for good. Did you read the Imus transcript I posted above? That's a good interview by a guy who endorsed Kerry for President and claims to have voted for him. Say what you will about Imus, at least he wasn't willing to be played by Kerry the way the MSM was. Which brings us full circle. If the the MSM keeps abdicating it's responsibility to non-journalist entertainers and pajama-wearing bloggers, who needs them? Should those demanding that Kerry keep his word and stop his "cheat and retreat" double-talk also sign the Form 180? I don't know. I guess if they run for public office on the premise that their military record qualifies them for that office it might be relevant. If they promised on national TV that they would sign the Form 180, they should be held to the promise. More importantly, should Kerry be able to continually move the goalpost and shift the focus away from what HE agreed to do? Apparently yes if no one is willing to call him to task. Posted by: capitano at March 7, 2005 4:30 PM | Permalink Should those demanding that Kerry keep his word and stop his "cheat and retreat" double-talk also sign the Form 180? I don't know. Insofar as Kerry is a member of the minority party of the Senate this is really a question between the people of Massachusetts and Kerry. (If the Democrats took control of the Senate, and Kerry wound up with a committee chairmanship as a result, it could be considered a national question. But he isn't, so he's not.) .....now that that's settled, I'm sure you will start agitating for the President to sign his form 180.
Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 7, 2005 4:45 PM | Permalink I agree with Jay that Garrett Graff's blogging the gaggle is worth reading. It is excellent. Glad to see someone unvarnish both sides. It's reporting. Form 180? No way. If you are determined to argue about that, do it somewhere else. We are not fighting that case again. Go away. Next form 180 post will be erased and you may scream all you want. Find some other alley for that rumble. DC Fishbowl's blogging was fascinating. What seems to have been the catalyst for being allowed entry was when the "real" media got involved, started asking questions and raising eyebrows "hey, if Talon News can get in, why can't this DC Fishbowl guy get in?" (or however they phrased it). I wish he had tried to ask a question though. His one about bloggers was timely, interesting and worth asking. Posted by: catrina at March 7, 2005 5:03 PM | Permalink Could we get our terms straight here ? Posted by: Steve Lovelady at March 7, 2005 5:20 PM | Permalink Steve Lovelady: If it is "wistful mythologizing" to defend a place for a free and inquisitive press in the White House, then perhaps we should expect a piece from you at CJR Daily (or for that matter, you could write it here) arguing that the press should leave the White House, since it's never going to get any better, or that we should give up on the idea of the "White House correspondent," along with the briefing, gaggle, press conference, press room, and so on. Isn't that the logical outcome of what you are saying? If so, why not say it, straight out? Jay-- Steve Posted by: Steve Lovelady at March 7, 2005 6:21 PM | Permalink I think the alternative would be an aggressive, curious and analytical press corps, based anywhere (including cyberspace), fact-checking the snot out of the White House and writing critically about the president's statements, proposals and actions, and those of his administration, in both daily coverage and investigative reporting. For each story, reporters might place one call to the press office if they chose, explaining what they were inquiring about, and then move on. If the WH chose not to comment, so be it. If done well for even a short amount of time, such journalism would have the White House begging reporters back in to converse with them so that their side of the story could be told more fully. The silly sparring that goes on now is mostly for show on both sides. Reporters don't need to talk to the press secretary, or the president, to assess and write about what the POTUS is doing. That's a bonus when it happens, or can be, but it's not necessary. Usually it simply helps the WH spread its spin. Posted by: Dan Weintraub at March 7, 2005 8:46 PM | Permalink While the right and the left prattle endlessly on here about who is a war hero and who is a war coward -- a question about as far removed from the original topic posed by Jay as I can imagine -- some interesting developments are going on back in the real world: http://www.cjrdaily.org/archives/001359.asp A whole new ballgame is unfolding. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at March 7, 2005 8:58 PM | Permalink BTC News is pleased to announce that we are now authorized to send credentialed individuals to White House briefings. The consequent (non-violent, completely philosophical) revolution (in White House daily briefing coverage) will almost certainly not occur, but in the unlikely event it does it'll be televised. I'd like to thank, among others who shall for the moment remain nameless, Jay Rosen and Jimmy Joe Bob Dale Jeff Guckert Gannon, both of whom were instrumental in my determination to pursue the goal. Check the BTC News site periodically for more details.
Posted by: weldon berger at March 7, 2005 9:28 PM | Permalink Jay, you played the Ari Fleisher trump card, and "Brian" trumped you one better by quoting Ari's views on liberal media bias in fuller context. For my part, I'm not surprised that a book salesman as clever as Ari would play to his liberal audience's sentiments on the Jon Stewart show. My empiricism: Bernard Goldberg's "Bias", an indider's account of liberal bias at CBS news, just one example of empirical evidence, as Jay apparently defines it (i.e. an admission against interest from the enemy camp), demonstrating the dominant media's ideology and its impact on their work. Understand, when I speak of media bias, I am speaking of the outcome or deliverable, if you like - - the report, article or broadcast; I am not speaking to the media's motivation, as if by conspiracy. Goldberg explains this well. Jay, I will concede, however, that your and P. Lukasiak's comments now convince me that, at least as regards the "media bias" question, we have already reached the dark future that "odograph" warned of above - - and it is an ideological Northern Ireland (or choose your own analogy to religious conflict). That is, a conflict of mutually exclusive ideologies held to by each side with equal religious fervor. Or at least, each side views the other side in those terms. And on this question, it takes just as much faith to hold the analogous atheist view: "What media bias?" I'm sure Lukasiak will be insulted, as he surely sees his views as enlightened and informed truth, derived from reason and supported by evidence, and not merely faith. Guess what: Conservatives seem themselves in the same light. Liberals, you must know that conservatives see you just as much the reality-challenged rube as you see conservatives, notwithstanding P. Lukasiak's increasingly insistent bleating that all other realities but his are imaginary. In Lukasiak's case, it seems the inmates really don't know they're insane. Posted by: Trained Auditor at March 7, 2005 9:38 PM | Permalink To the RH Steve Lovelady: Posted by: cal-boy at March 7, 2005 9:48 PM | Permalink Is this a great country, or what ? geez steve, that just as off topic as the Form Which Shall Not Be Named stuff (and its killing me not to discuss it, jay!) what I find interesting about the Apple case is that, under its original meaning, the first amendment definitely covered the bloggers. And although you probably already know this, "freedom of the press" is not a phrase found in the First Amendment; instead, "freedom of the press" is presented merely as an extension of the right of individuals to free speech. Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; the word "press" was not used as a synonym for newspapers or "journalism" until the early 19th Century, well after the First Amendment was written. "Press" in the First Amendment was a literal reference to the "printing press" which was being used as a means of self expression at that time. The founders wanted to protect the rights of individuals to say what they wanted to say....and that included saying it in pamphletes, etc. Now, to my way of thinking, blogging is the modern equivalent of "the press" as it is referred to in the First Amendment---an extension of the literal freedom to speak ones opinions and ideas to other media. In other words, the whole question of "are bloggers covered by the protections afforded to journalists" makes no sense in terms of the first amendment. The real constitutional question is whether blogging is the modern equivalent of "pamphleteering", and thus covered under the "speech, or the press" provisions of the first amendment. Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 7, 2005 10:08 PM | Permalink HST, if I could hook the Smith Corona up to the Babbage Engine, I would. We'll see what happens in the alternate universe. BTC News World Headquarters is in Hawaii, so to a large extent whatever comes of this is dependent upon the comfort level of my Waldos. Thanks for the kind words. Posted by: weldon berger at March 7, 2005 10:25 PM | Permalink To the RH HST: Posted by: cal-boy at March 7, 2005 10:46 PM | Permalink "and male gay prostitute journalists-I dont want to further that conservative stereotype" What stereotype? You mean there's more than one "Jeff Gannon" out there? Do tell, Rochelle! Posted by: David Ehrenstein at March 7, 2005 11:26 PM | Permalink To the RH David Ehrenstein: Posted by: cal-boy at March 7, 2005 11:41 PM | Permalink The level of intellectual dishonesty in Leo's column is outrageous---but the right-wing would not only not be outraged, it can not even detect what is intellectually dishonest about it. What is it going to take for you to realize that having different first premises than you is not the same thing as intellectual dishonesty? I know it's more fun to cast accusations and aspersions at the other side, but it doesn't get us anywhere- it wastes my time, and yours, unless you're doing this as a cheap substitute for therapy. Posted by: rosignol at March 7, 2005 11:47 PM | Permalink "What is it going to take for you to realize that having different first premises than you is not the same thing as intellectual dishonesty?" A very wise remark. Very wise indeed. To the RH Jay Rosen Blog and all DeadThreads: Posted by: cal-boy at March 8, 2005 12:56 AM | Permalink Prof. Rosen, No you're not in my courtroom. But it seems relevant that a president who is called illegitimate (an unprecedented charge in American politics over the previous 130 years) would have a bunker mentality and believe that any questions that seem to criticize him are leading down the path of arguing against his legitimacy to be president. My point is that whatever complaints you have about Bush not wanting to be questioned by the media need to take into account the environment Bush found himself in and the side the media is usually on in this country. Given that the media is usually on the left and given that many on the left made this unprecedented charge of illegitimacy, then questioning (not just informational questioning, but critical questioning) of his policies was perceived as first steps down the road to arguing that he is illegitimate. Does this maybe clarify why I thought that that question was relevant? Posted by: Yevgeny Vilensky at March 8, 2005 4:36 AM | Permalink I am glad to see comments like: What is it going to take for you to realize that having different first premises than you is not the same thing as intellectual dishonesty? That is a well distilled point. But it is bigger than the accusations flying, that difference in first premises effects the tone and perspective of everything written by everyone. Posted by: Blanknoone at March 8, 2005 5:03 AM | Permalink Rosignol, Near the end of the Pacific War, the Japanese began to report imaginary victories, began to make up fantasy numbers of ships and planes that were lost to keep up the will of the Japanese people to fight. They kept reporting the "good news" about all the Asians in the Co-Prosperity Sphere that loved them and who would tell the Japanese how grateful they were for being liberated from Euro-American colonialism, leaving out the news that 75% of the inhabitants of the sphere absolutely detested them as war criminals and murderers. I see a lot of this narcissism of the Tojo mentality in the contemporary US right-wing religion of media bias. I sincerely hope I'm wrong. History WILL ultimately be the judge--but then again, the lessons of history don't get settled all that easily, either. See the rest below: Posted by: Mark Anderson at March 8, 2005 6:14 AM | Permalink What is it going to take for you to realize that having different first premises than you is not the same thing as intellectual dishonesty? Something that suggests that those first premises bear some relation to objective reality, and are not simply prejudices and self gratification acting as a foundation for values. I don't believe that one can be a racist, and claim that genocide is justifiable based on objective reality, and be considered intellectually honest. I don't believe that hypocrisy can be justified with an intellectually honest argument. Intellectual honesty had nothing to do with "first premises", it has to do with the principles of logic and rational argument, including the honest presentation of facts (in other words, someone who says 'the sun rises in the west' is not intellectually honest.) So when John Leo says: We've also generated two years' worth of claims that Iraqi women are no better off and in some cases worse off today than they were under Saddam. Of course under Saddam they were turned over to rape squads, sexually tortured, and beheaded. it doesn't matter what your first premises are, you should be able to recognize the intellectual dishonesty of this statement. And since I obviously have to explain what is intellectually dishonest here, I will. In the first sentence, Leo refers to claims mades about the status of "Iraqi women" as a whole. In other words, "Iraqi women" refers to all Iraqi women. In the second sentence, Leo uses the word "they" to refer to what occurred to a miniscule minority of Iraqi women in the past. In other words, the statement made by Leo is only as intellectually honest as this one... We've also generated two years' worth of claims that Iraqi women are far better off and certainly no worse off than under Saddam. Of course under the occupation they are being kidnapped, sexually tortured, and murdered. If Michael Moore were to make such a statement, the average right-winger would have no problem understanding why the statement is intellectually dishonest. The primary difference here is that left-wingers would also have no problem understanding that the statement is intellectually dishonest. Its not a question if first premises, its a question of whether or not you are intellectually honest in the application of those first premises. And pretending that it is a matter of "first premises" is intellectually dishonest in and of itself. When the President of the United States talks about the coming Social Security "disaster", and says that "drastic changes" have to be made in Social Security to save it, and uses these "facts" to push a "drastic changes" that (objectively) not only fails to prevent the disaster by results in a deeper "disaster" that will happen sooner, he is being intellectually dishonest. You may have "first premises" regarding the role of government from which you derive the conclusion that "private accounts" should replace Social Security. But those "first premises" do not make intellectually dishonest arguments and appeals any less intellectually dishonest. Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 8, 2005 7:05 AM | Permalink [b]Yevgeny Vilensky[/b] I'm reminded of an account I read recently that when Bush went to scold Putin about his country, Putin reputated said "we didn't critize you when you fired Dan Rather!" What is shocking about that remark isn't what Putin gets wrong (of course Bush had no hand in the firing of Rather) but what it reveals about Putin's interpration of the role of gov't's hand in media. To Putin, Rather was just another government media critic which Bush silenced. Of course to Putin all media who are not supportive must then only be political "opposition." Posted by: catrina at March 8, 2005 10:20 AM | Permalink Prof. Rosen,
p.lukasiak, Iraqis, both women and men, were in a Ba'athist hell hole. They suffered a lot in the transition from the Ba'athist hell hole. They are still suffering. We are not entirely clear where it will end up, but there are at least promising signs that it will end with a state that at least comes much closer to freedom and liberty than they had. Are they better off? Was the suffering of the war, and the post-war, worth it? That is a question of perspective, a question of first premises. John Leo did not make a good case for his position, but his position is not intellectually dishonest. America suffered a lot in its revolution. Was it worth it? I am not making the case that Iraq and the American revolution are parallel, but the idea that suffering in war cannot be 'worth it' is invalid. Posted by: Blanknoone at March 8, 2005 10:30 AM | Permalink The demonstrated push for "de-certification" of the press is all the more reason for a Peoples Bill of Rights for White House-Media Transparency, as I have proposed since February 18, 2004 -- the day the Gannon story was originally broken in the blogosphere. Other segments of society are governed by bills of rights that were adopted by Congress, and are binding. The key provision in such a bill of rights would transfer authority for credentialing of reporters OUT of the WH press office and back to the profession itself, where it was held until the 1940s. This WH has abused the credentialing authority by planting shills, by threatening and intimidating reporters, and by allowing a prostitute using a false identity daily access to the White House (under the apparent sponsorship of someone in the WH) -- a man who now threatens blackmail against the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Community. It is only the press that stands between the people and tyranny. The peoples rights regarding press coverage of the presidency must be codified, as they are codified regarding press coverage of Congress. A standing committee of reporters holds the authority to credential members of the press who seek to cover Congress. That is the process I urge for the White House. I'm not sure if this thread is still open. I'll check the current thread, too. Run, don't walk, to Fresh Air after 3 PM today for the audio of Terry Gross's interview with Ari Fleischer. Jay, buy a transcript. You'll want to be able to pull quotes. I don't mind saying that I feel very comfortable with his answers, although some people who visit this forum will not. It is poor arguementation or logic, but does not rise to intellectual dishonesty...at least not without further evidence from you. The question here is whether Leo's "poor argumentation" was done out of ignorance of the rules of argument. And given that Leo is not some eighth grader, but an experienced writer who has worked for major daily and periodical publication, is syndicated by UPI, and has written a number of books, the suggestion that Leo is unaware of the difference between a valid and invalid argument is laughable. The demand for more evidence is also intellectually dishonest itself because your actual "argument" (that Leo doesn't know the difference between a valid and invalid argument) is absurd on its face. To suggest that it is not absurd is to acknowledge not merely that a conservative opinion leader's opinions are worthless, but that the millions of conservatives who comprise his approving audience are equally ignorant and that their opinions should be considered worthless as well. If this is your claim, then I will be happy to agree with you, and withdraw my assertion that both you and Leo is intellectually dishonest. But, as for additional evidence, it is plentiful in the column itself (indeed, the column is a rhetorical fire hazard will all of those straw men that have been knocked over lying around it.)
Posted by: p.lukasiak at March 8, 2005 1:35 PM | Permalink Paraphrasing content to whet your appetite for NPR's Fresh Air on Ari Fleisher. Please don't trust my memory; go listen for yourself: The press is trained to find the Next Big Story. The President feels, as President, that story should come from him. That irritates the press. Bush Number 1's administration leaked like a sieve leading to reports that the White House was in disarray. Discussions in Bush Number 2 happen inside the President's office, where he can hear both sides and make decisions. The press see that as walled off, but it's good management. The press has a bias towards conflict and social issues that make it appear biased towards the liberal. it shows itself in subtle language usage. Clinton, adopting a policy, might be reported as fulfilling a campaign promise, where Bush would be reported as appealing to the right wing of the party -- even when the subject is the same issue. The press often has a labeling issue. They will label someone as "right wing" but no reporter ever labels Ted kennedy as "left wing". The press does not generally misrepresent facts. Every day they get thousands of facts right. It is just a subtle labeling issue. Fox is a conservative network. The other major networks are perceived a liberal. Fox owes its success as a rection to the other networks. (The issue isn't the opinion shows, but the major newscasts.) I haven't posted in this thread because I don't think that I have anything to add to the points about the current situation in journalism that I made in the earlier thread on de-certifying the press. I do want to extend congratulations, though, to rosignol for his post on first premises. A very welcome point. It does seem to me, too, that the argument under discussion is not dismissable by claiming it is logically invalid, and it does, in fact, seem to me that it's a good example of different first premises leading to different conclusions (although I would tend to refer to first principles, since they don't necessarily occur in the major premise, and political arguments aren't necessarily deductive in nature.) It's rare that a political (or any other) argument is constructed purely in syllogism (or sorites) form. If you really want to test the argument, you have to pull the premises out - and usually, to fill in the implied connecting premises. In this case, I don't think you can claim an equivocation as much as an implied premise along the lines of: All women are hurt by an official policy of political rape. or "...entire of itself every man is a piece of the continent" If you don't buy that, I invite you to formally construct the argument, or to just consider the following statement, which, as far as I can tell, is logically equivalent to the all women / some women "equivocation" example advanced by p.lukasiak NOW exists to improve conditions for all women in America, so they shouldn't advocate for tougher rape laws, because rape is something that happens to some women, and NOW claims to represent all women. The underlying disagreement is whether Iraqi women in general are better or worse off than they were before the invasion. The answer to that question will be empirical, not deductive. The question of how the empirical evidence is weighed and counted is definitional, and will thus be informed by the questioner's first principles. The freedom of all women from the fear of rape, sexual torture, and beheading as an instrument of government policy could be considered a positive development to be considered along with other development, both positive and negative, in weighing the question. While first principles may not be explicitly stated, they will be implicit in what developments are considered significant and how they are weighted to draw a conclusion. And I don't see how the statement: "Of course under Saddam they were turned over to rape squads, sexually tortured, and beheaded." can possibly be considered ad populum. You could argue that it's an ad misericordium argument, perhaps, but I don't think that holds up either. While the subject is rightly laden with emotion, the statement is a testable proposition. "...under Saddam [some women] were turned over to rape squads, sexually tortured, and beheaded." True or False? If we want to play fallacies of relevance for $100, on the other hand, "The first premise has to valid and free from logical fallacies. I've yet to see right-wing argument that passes this test." can be construed as the genetic fallacy, while "In the case of Bush it's like taking candy from a baby since the facts of any given issue make him out to the inept spinmeister snake oil peddler he really is." and "And your childish presentation ruins what grain of truth it may or may not contain." and "Cal-boy: so you're both drunk and ignorant" might all be interpreted as abusive ad hominem, while "What's O'Neill's agenda son? He's a Republican businessman and CEO turned Treasury Secretary." might be considered to be circumstantial ad hominem.
Posted by: sfalphageek at March 8, 2005 5:29 PM | Permalink p.Lukasiak, Moving on...the point is not whether he made a poor argument out of ignorance or the rules of argumentation. He wrote emotionally. But for you to say that is intellectually dishonest, the requirement is on you to PROVE that Iraqi women are in fact worse off. He can intellectually honestly come to the conclusion that Iraqi women are better off and still make a weak argument for it. Go ahead and prove he is intellectually dishonest by PROVING that Iraqi women are worse off by any and all reasonable definitions of weighing the pros and cons. Go ahead. And for the record, you very often make mushy poor arguments very similar to Leo's, although from the opposite perspective. To get from Leo's poor argument to "that the millions of conservatives who comprise his approving audience are equally ignorant and that their opinions should be considered worthless as well" is a very close parallel to the some/all Iraqi women mistake of Leo's. So are you intellectually dishonest as well? Posted by: Blanknoone at March 8, 2005 6:48 PM | Permalink Lukasiak is not intellectually dishonest; he is an intellectual dilettante. His (and similar others') shrill insistence that those who hold views contrary to his own must be ignorant, or blind, or mouth-breathing yahoos has all the gravity and relevance of a child insisting that his imaginary friends are real, and that you must be blind because you cannot see them. Posted by: Trained Auditor at March 8, 2005 7:23 PM | Permalink Forgot to say, by way of civility: I don't mind if you ultimately reject my opinion (or assertion of fact), but at least explore it in a full and broadminded manner before doing so. Posted by: Trained Auditor at March 8, 2005 7:39 PM | Permalink And it might not great swamy. O'Neill was in the fold, hence his agenda is not liberal Democrat as implied in YOUR circumstanial ad hominem that he's biased. Please try to grasp reality. Posted by: HST at March 9, 2005 12:11 PM | Permalink HST: "And it might not great swamy. O'Neill was in the fold, hence his agenda is not liberal Democrat as implied in YOUR circumstanial ad hominem that he's biased. Please try to grasp reality." Yes, I would have to agree that the O'Neill agenda is not that of a liberal Democrat. However, as one who has worked with a number of CEO's, I can say that it is not hard to surmise that after having been top dog at Alcoa for a number of years in addition to Board positions with Lucent, Eastman-Kodak, and the Rand Corporation, I'll bet old Paul wasn't too pleased to find that he was just one of many Cabinet Officers and that, holy cow, his opinion and views were not always going to carry the day within the Bush Administration. He did the right thing and bailed at the earliest opportunity and it was easy to figure that he would write a book chronicling how all those incredibly dumb guys in DC wouldn't take his advice!! Let's face it, it's "good to be the King", and very hard to reset your expections when you are no longer the big kahuna. Of course, that doesn't make him (O'Neill) wrong, it's just that anyone with such finely tuned antennae to the subtle complexities and nuances of modern life (such as HST and elmo, no doubt..) would understand that and be, if not skeptical, then at least desirous of a more 360degree view of particular events. Posted by: drago |
|
Print![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://archive.pressthink.org/nav-commenters.gif)
