PressThink: Guest writer Austin Bay : "Roll Forward: Why the Bush White House Needs the Press to Win the Big One"

Guest writer Austin Bay : "Roll Forward: Why the Bush White House Needs the Press to Win the Big One"

Weekly Standard writer, NPR commentator, Iraq War vet, Colonel in the Army Reserve, Republican, conservative, blogger with a lit PhD. That's Austin Bay. "America must win the War On Terror, and the poisoned White House—national press relationship harms that effort," he says. Plus, my reply.

On July 25, I sent Austin Bay (his bio, his blog) the following note:

In my post, Rollback, I argued that the Bush White House has been pro-active in pushing the press back, by: feeding it less information, answering almost none of the questions reporters choose to ask, reducing their role as interlocutor with the president, letting it be known within the White House that talking to the press would not only be frowned on but punished, and many other ways. This collection of policies I call rollback, which goes beyond wariness to change the terms of engagement with the press.
That is my view of what is happening. I think it correct but not exclusively so.

One of the benefits of doing a blog, as you know, is that you learn what people say back to you; and I know from doing PressThink that for a healthy percentage who support the President, or despise the cultural left, or believe with all their might in what we’re doing in Iraq, or think the news media hopelessly biased, “rollback” sounds like a pretty good idea. They’ve told me so, any number of times.

My questions for you. Do you think rollback has been happening to the press under Bush, 2001-05? Or is my description off? And if there is press rollback, is it a wise policy, a necessary one?

This is what he wrote in reply. I will save my commentary to the end. We’re publishing it at both blogs today.

Special to PressThink

Roll Forward: Why the Bush White House
Needs the Press to Win the Big One

by Austin Bay

One: What “Rollback” Echoes With

In his July 16 post, Rollback, Jay selects an interesting term—a frame, really—to describe what he calls the current Bush Administration’s “press strategy.”

Here’s his definition: “Press rollback, the policy for which McClellan signed on, means not feeding but starving the beast, downgrading journalism where possible, and reducing its effectiveness as an interlocutor with the President. This goes for Bush theory, as well as Bush practice. The President and his advisors have declared invalid the ‘fourth estate’ and watchdog press model.”

What’s in a name? “Rollback” has historic echoes— including “rolling back the Communists,” a strategy Dwight Eisenhower rejected as too risky. In early 1953 Ike had his national security team wargame the Truman Administration’s strategy of “containment.” Eisenhower commissioned two teams, one tasked with evaluating containment and various related options, the other evaluating “rollback” or offensive-type strategies against the Soviet Union.

Ike had his teams examine the options in detail. Rollback’s economic costs—as well as its risk of all-out war—led Eisenhower to conclude that a modified-form of containment (a reinvigorated shield of conventional forces backed by the threat of nuclear retaliation) made the most sense.

Ike knew the Cold War would be a long, tedious test of wills, and he agreed with the Truman Administration’s assessment that the social, political, and economic vitality of the U.S. would be very effective tools in that struggle. The Hungarian revolt in 1956 was the ultimate test for Ike’s decision to forego “rollback” and stick with “containing” the Soviets. Because the U.S. didn’t intervene or back the armed revolt, Hungary suffered another 33 years of Red fascist Hell. Of course, nuclear war didn’t turn Central Europe into radioactive glass, either. And ultimately, Communism was rolled back

Jay mentioned the “long roots” of the recent spat between White House Press Secretary and the “gaggle” of reporters. The roots are longer—and thornier—than his original post suggests.

Jay and I agree that the Bush Administration and what (for the moment) I’ll call “the national press” are locked in a figurative war. Let’s stipulate that this figurative war occurs in the midst of a real (non-figurative) and ever active global conflict—both hot and cold—that is first and foremost an information war waged by an enemy that is itself a strategic information power. I speak of course of Al Qaeda. The “press conflict” and US domestic political clashes cannot be isolated from this multi-dimensional war and its harsh historical circumstances. Those who think it can deceive themselves.

A quick review of Al Qaeda’s information warfare capabilities helps put the White House’s biggest challenge in perspective. Yup, Al Qaeda’s a more serious “information” challenge than the “the national press.” Let me quote from a recent column:

Al Qaeda…understands the power of perceived grievance and the appeal of Utopia. In the late 1990s Osama Bin Laden said Al Qaeda’s strategic goal was restoring the Islamic caliphate. Bin Laden expressed a special hatred for Turkey’s Kemal Ataturk, who ended the caliphate in 1924. History, going wrong for Islamist supremacists at least since the 16th century, really failed when the caliphate dissolved. Though Al Qaeda’s time-line to Utopia remains hazy, once the caliphate returns the decadent modern world will fade as Western power collapses— and presumably Eastern power as well. (Islamists are active in China’s Sinkiang province.) At some point Bin Laden-interpreted Islamic law will bring strict bliss to the entire world. If this sounds vaguely like a Marxist “Workers Paradise” that’s no accident— the Communists also justified the murder of millions pursuing their atheist Utopia.

The appeal to perceived grievance and promise of an Islamist utopia made Al Qaeda a regional information power in a Middle East where other political options were denied by tyrants. The 9/11 attacks made Al Qaeda a global information power: they became an international advertising campaign for Jihad. Four years later Al Qaeda remains a strategic information power, but little else. In every other measure of influence and success, Al Qaeda is very weak.

Our world, however, is “information-rich,” and “compressed.” I made this point in a Weekly Standard article that appeared July 22, 2005:

Oceans still spawn hurricanes, but they don’t stop ICBMs or terrorists. On 9/11 al Qaeda demonstrated that what the World War I generation called “over there” is nowadays very close to “back here.” America—according to its enemies—is everywhere, but a computer keystroke finds al Qaeda, Chinese spam, Nigerian scams, North Korean agitprop, Bhutanese rug prices, and Sudan’s hideous genocide in Darfur. An airline ticket, a sick tourist, and 22 hours moves the Asian flu from Bangkok to Denver. The upscale phrase is “technological compression,” but the down-to-Earth 21st century fact is all of us live next door.

When it comes to understanding the effects of technological compression in their area of expertise, public health officials are way ahead of journalists. No one doubts the flu is a contagion that harms us all—- though the health officials often face huge political fights when they attempt to impose quarantines that affect trade. Information isn’t a bug—health officials rely on the free flow of information to stop the transmission of infectious disease—but rapidly transmitted information can also kill. Here’s an example: A reporter’s or US military officer’s verbal slip-up on tv “live from the battlefield” can fatally compromise an on-going operation. By fatal I mean fatal for American soldiers.

Sparring between Scott McClellan and “the national press” comes in the midst of a war fought in a world where video and audio travel at the speed of light, but cultural, historical, and political contexts still move at the uncertain, iffy velocities of education, thoughtful analysis, common interests, and mutual respect, as well as accurate translation.

Two: The New York to DC to LA Axis

The first word in Jay’s definition of “rollback” is “press.” What do we mean by “press?” I used a provisional term “national press.” But—thanks to technology—there is no “national” press, not anymore, not in a world with technological compression as a defining feature. PressThink and my web log are both international platforms. So is a cellphone with a camera. Middle school teachers know their classroom yawns can be e-photographed by the kid-in-the-back and sent to every giggling student on campus. No campus, however, is an island. The photo of the awkward yawn can end up on a computer screen in New Guinea.

Quoting The Economist, Jay describes a case of lost power:

Power is moving away from old-fashioned networks and newspapers; it is swinging towards, on the one hand, smaller news providers (in the case of blogs, towards individuals) and, on the other, to the institutions of government, which have got into the business of providing news more or less directly.

If power is moving away from the “big” news engines, the next question has to be: the power to do what? Power to make money in the same way networks and newspapers have made money for the last fifty years? Yup— that business model’s moving. Power to investigate? It’s arguable that institutions of government cracked Watergate, since we now know Woodward and Bernstein’s Deep Throat was the FBI’s deputy director. Power to transmit information? I’ll agree that this form of “press power” is more diffuse: welcome to the 21st century. As Jay notes, government websites can dispense with the press as “middle man.” Readers can interpret the press release for themselves.

Or perhaps Jay means the “national press’” power to set an agenda is fading? Jay writes:

I think Rove also knew that the press is that rare special interest group that feels constrained in how “organized” it can be to protest or strike back. In fact the national press, which is only a semi-institution to start with (semi-legitimate, semi-independent, semi-protected by law, and semi-supported by the American people) has no strategic thinking or response capability at all.

So who is “the special interest group?” Here’s what I think the Bush Administration means by “the Press,” and I think it intersects with a definition Jay would grant has a degree of validity: The NY-DC-LA (Nid-Claw) axis that dominated American political and cultural information from the late 1920s to the mid-1990s.

What are the Nid-Claws most noticeable characteristics? Urban? Yes. Politically liberal? According to the received wisdom of polls, nine out of ten members of “the national press” say they are Democrats. Culturally liberal? Return to the description “urban.” When I lived on Manhattan’s Upper West Side in the early 1980s, I knew precisely six other Reagan Republicans. I was the only one who’d say it loud and say it proud.

Recently an international reporter told me (with a touch of bitterness) that his stories have to meet a specific editor’s expectations. That’s the word he used: “expectations.” Of course, you say, the editor is his boss. The reporter felt—felt, heck, he knew— important information he gleaned in the field was often cut from the account back home. Important nuances were lost. Do we blame it all on limited column inches or limited air time? Exercising good judgment, relying on professional experience, and just good, common sense editing are the upside of an information template— the affirmatives. Personal bias, ignorance of the facts, and lack of field experience are the downside— the negatives.

I’ve had way too many field reporters tell me that the people who get promoted to editor tend to be the NY and DC “stay at homes” who play the office and local political games well, but have minimal field experience themselves. It would be interesting to see some hard statistics to either dispute or support the anecdotes. The key questions wouldn’t simply be “years in the field” but “years where?”

Five years Paris, London, and Tokyo don’t score a tenth as many points as four months in Somalia, circa 1993. But I’ll wager that one type of editorial bias derives from the urban editors whose central experiences are Beltway, Manhattan and Hollywood politics or corporate gamesmanship within the media hierarchies themselves. This is a tough question to ask reporters; it could put their career on the line. However, if the “urban political milieu” affects editors, then that needs to be recognized and the bias vetted.

The memory of old institutional successes deeply affects the NY-DC-LA axis today. Two great gotcha successes drive the national press: Vietnam and Watergate. The Bush Administration thinks these “press templates” utterly distort today’s world. Some old guard media institutions operate on a “paper template”: a fossilized notion that information is still disseminated at the speed of the postman or delivery boy.

Again, from the July 22 Weekly Standard:

Unfortunately, many politicians and journalists still habitually live by 20th-century templates. Newsweek certainly thought [they’re] there and we’re here” when it ran its notorious “Koran flushing” anecdote, sparking deadly riots in Pakistan. Two other templates were also in play then: the Vietnam and the Watergate templates. Vietnam and Watergate for three decades have provided the New York-Washington-L.A. media axis with convenient—if reductive—headlines. The Vietnam and Watergate rules are simple and cynical. Rule One: Presume the U.S. government is lying—especially when the president is a Republican. Rule Two: Presume the worst about the U.S. military—even when the president is a Democrat. Rule Three: Allegations by “Third World victims” are presumptively true, while U.S. statements are met with arrogant contempt.

Yes, that’s the myth of the Noble Savage re-cast, just like “blood for oil” is a Cold War lie in jihadi clothing. Iraq is not Vietnam. Nor is Afghanistan. Nor was Desert Storm. But what’s the first template applied to any US military engagement since 1975? Vietnam.

Three: How About Rolling Forward?

The press templates are not only inaccurate, they are a disservice to the citizens the “national” press claims to serve. They are archaic domestic political frames that are particularly damaging in the midst of a global war against a strategic information power.

Editors and producers need to roll forward to the 21st century, and perhaps a new generation will. Glenn Reynolds says that 40 to 45 is the cut-off age between the graying fogies reveling in Vietnam/Watergate glory; and a newer, more acute crop of newshounds. He thinks the old boys and girls will have to retire before the templates go. I think —given the intricate and deadly global war— we don’t have that luxury.

Jay says the Bush Administration has declared the Fourth Estate and the “watchdog” press model invalid.

If there’s been a declaration I missed it. Jay’s rhetoric is a bit edgy here, but that’s the nature of blog debate. Let’s consider the core of his contention: the “watchdog” model. “Watchdog” (forgive me) begs a number of questions, including questions about the watchdog. Who does the watchdog watch? How does it watch? How does it bark? At whom does it bark? Like the dog Sherlock Holmes found strangely silent, how often does the watchdog not bark? Does the NY-DC-LA watchdog bark at Democratic and Republican presidents with equal ferocity? Is it even a watchdog, or is it a watch-pack, or watch-herd. (Herd is a more apt description of the press descending on Aruba to report on a missing tourist or hanging out in Santa Barbara while Michael Jackson faces a jury.)

Which leads to another point where Jay and I agree: The Bush Administration despises the “national press.” Key members of the current group despised the press prior to 9/11. I’ve presented the argument that “rollback” or “containment” by the Bush Administration, in the context of the War On Terror and 21st century information technologies, makes a kind of strategic sense. The “Vietnam” and “Watergate” templates distort. The White House leads the war effort, not a press clique dedicated to “playing gotcha” and/or “setting the agenda.” However, lurking behind the “rollback/containment” policy is a deep, abiding anger—and an anger that isn’t in the best interest of America.

Let’s not totally disparage anger as an emotion. The KosKidz at the DailyKos thrive on anger. Jay’s Rollback post displays an occasional flash of anger; and from the perspective of a journalism professor who knows, personally and professionally, that honest reporting protects and strengthens our democracy, his anger is just. The reporters snapping at Scott McClellan during the press conference Jay analyzes are angry; they believe they’ve been misled or lied to.

Key members of the Bush Administration believe they have been the victims of lies or victims of a relentless, decades-long selective reporting and commentary by members of the big media axis. Are Republicans ticked at Ambassador Joe Wilson’s truth challenged New York Times essay? One reason they are ticked is because they have seen this same kind of canard before. Recall Gary Sick and his nut-case story that George H W Bush flew to Paris on an SR-71 to negotiate with Iran? (See this, and Daniel Pipes with his Wall St Journal response; this link shows the conspiracy theory Sick pushed was first “reported” by Lyndon Larouche.)

The 1983 “Euro-Missile Crisis” is another bitter memory: the rhetorical hokum that Bush is “more dangerous than bin Laden” is 1983 recast. Oh, the accusations of 1983! Ronald Reagan was stupid. Reagan was a dangerous cowboy, a warmonger seeking the nuclear destruction of the USSR. Reagan was — good heavens — a unilateralist. In 2003 the Mayor of London called Bush “the greatest threat to life on the planet,” but then Ken Livingstone isn’t called “Red” because of his hair color. Hollywood also repeated a refrain. In 1983 ABC TV produced “The Day After,” a lousy piece of video propaganda that basically argued US nuclear forces would inevitably destroy the planet. In 2004 Michael Moore produced “Fahrenheit 911,” an even more explicitly anti-American film asserting Bush conspired to launch the 9/11 attacks.

Ironically, the Euromissile Crisis proved to be the last big political battle of the Cold War. In 1989, the Berlin Wall cracked, and the communists’ workers’ paradise was exposed as the Red Fascist gulag it always was. The repetition of 1983’s political scams by Democrats and their media allies—political scams that events would prove to be strategically foolish and historically wrong— receives little media attention outside of the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times and Fox News Network.

Republicans look, listen, and remember with chagrin. And chagrin—in the George W. Bush White House—has turned to disdain. At the human level it’s understandable. Why give such a biased, and myopic bunch a break?

Here’s a good reason: America must win the War On Terror, and the poisoned White House—national press relationship harms that effort. History will judge the Bush Administration’s prosecution of the War On Terror. A key strategic issue for the current White House—perhaps a determinative issue for historians—will be its success or failure in getting subsequent administrations to sustain the political and economic development policies that truly winning the War On Terror will entail.

The Bush Administration needs the dying, withering, but still powerful press axis to do this.

Four: Bridging the Political Cycle

Jay’s post quotes an unidentified Bush Administration minion who says:

We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality, judiciously, as you will, we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

I think Jay includes this story for several reasons. The man’s arrogance is supposed to indict the administration, and to a degree it does. His demeanor reminds me of the snooty, brat presumptiveness of George Stephanopoulos during his stint at the Clinton White House. (And for that matter, his continued brat act at ABC.)
If America is an empire it is an empire without precedent, which suggests the word is at best an inadequate description. America is a creative idea that defies geography, but I doubt this Bush minion understands that.

I also doubt our minion has ever served in the military; certainly he never served under fire. His are the words of a third-order actor. The minion’s soliloquy is a decadent and degraded version of Teddy Roosevelt’s critique of the critic. TR wrote, and I quote at length:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of the cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride or slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they are. The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be a cynic, a fop, or a voluptuary.

This is how the Administration’s raconteur casts himself, as a man “in the arena,” though I strongly suspect his arena of conflict is the Beltway, not in Baghdad or Al Anbar Province. It is the United States of America, however, that is actually “in” the arena. The Bush Administration knows this. Here’s how I put it in the recent Weekly Standard article:

Al Qaeda’s jihadists plotted a multi-generational war in the early 1990s our enemies began proselytizing London and New York mosques and in doing so began planting cadres throughout the world. If the US leads a successful global counter-terror war many of these cadres will turn gray, get fat, and rot. But that must be a multi-generational war, which means a multi-administration war, which means bridging the whipsaw of the US political cycle.
The Bush Administration has not done that, at least not in any focused and sustained fashion.

9-11’s strategic ambush sought to force America to fight on Al Qaeda’s terms, to suck the United States into a no-win Afghan war, to bait the United States into launching a “crusade against Islam.” Osama bin Laden believed he possessed an edge in ideological appeal, “faith based” strength against what he perceived as U.S. decadence. U.S. failure in Afghanistan would ignite a global “clash of civilizations” pitting all Muslims against America.

Toppling Saddam and bringing the hope of democracy to the Middle East strategically changed Al Qaeda. Time is now turned against Al Qaeda, in the form of a New Iraqi Army, in the political shape of a new, pluralistic Iraqi government, examples of what General Abizaid calls Iraqis taking control of their own lives.

So the rats have come to Iraq to fight. Building a New Iraq and defeating those who would destroy it is the grand strategy, but the Bush Administration didn’t make that case explicit. It suggested the case but not at the center of its public diplomacy. In retrospect that was a long-term political mistake. The Bush Administration must revitalize its public diplomacy, and that means “rolling forward” and establishing a new, more mature relationship with the press. Someone much higher up the food chain than Mr. Empire Creating His Own Reality has to make that call.

But the NY-DC-LA axis must also “roll forward.” It’s in their institutional interest as well as simple survival. Joe Wilson hasn’t gotten away with the game as cleanly as Gary Sick did, and Dan Rather, well, he’s like Conrad’s Mistah Kurtz, only he doesn’t know it. The Internet is doing precisely what Jay says it’s doing. Here’s Jay’s quote from Patrick Healty writing in the May 22 edition of the NY Times:

Scrutiny is intense. The Internet amplifies professional sins, and spreads the word quickly. And when a news organization confesses its shortcomings, it only draws more attention. Also, there is no unified front - no single standard of professionalism, no system of credentials. So rebuilding credibility is mostly a task shouldered network to network, publication to publication.

Network to network, publication to publication. No, the big city press axis is no single outfit, but it is a club. There may be no single standard, but there are club leaders. So let’s pick on the leaders.

Here are a few things The New York Times can do to heal itself and set a new standard for White House-press relations in the midst of war. (And don’t say I’m confusing reporting with the editorial page. Joe Wilson and Gary Sick began on the editorial page, and their allegations fed national reporting. As I recall, Sick ended up on The PBS News Hour, chatting with Jim Lehrer.)

First off, Fire Paul Krugman and replace him with a real economist like Arnold Kling or Walter Williams. Krugman’s been predicting economic doom for four years. He needs to get a sign and walk the streets, not write a newspaper column. Turn Maureen Dowd into a gossip columnist. Replace Dowd with someone like Froma Harrop (a New Yorker who has moved to Providence). The Times could also fire the op-ed editor who inserted Bush Hate into Phil Carter’s column. (See my post for the details.)

Here are a few other suggestions for The Axis:

Find Dan Rather’s missing Lucy Ramirez, the source for his fake but accurate documents. If they can’t find Lucy then that’s a big story, too.

Get us a copy of the still-unreleased Eason Jordan tape where the CNN bigwig accused the US military of targeting (meaning murdering) journalists.

Remove Linda Foley as national president of The Newspaper Guild. Linda Foley repeated Jordan’s slander.

When Roger Ailes gets dissed for running Fox News (Why, he’s a Republican!) mention the news presence of George Stephanopoulos and Tim Russert and Chris Matthews and Bill Moyers in the very next exhalation.

When Abu Ghraib rates a story or report, include a historical comment on FDR’s detention camps for Japanese Americans. Good guys make mistakes in war.

Jay, pass the ideas on to your Axis buddies. Tell ‘em it’s for starters. Ending rollback means rolling forward by both the Administration and The Axis.

Austin Bay copyright August 11, 2005

Jay Rosen replies:

Well there’s a lot that I don’t agree with in Austin Bay’s post, just as I’m sure there’s a lot he would dispute in my various posts on Bush and the national press. This is normal. (Right?) I reserve the right to amplify those points of diagreement later on.

The headline for me is that Austin Bay, proud Republican, friend of the Administration’s project in Iraq and a veteran of the war, believes the clever people in the White House are making a mistake in their policy of rolling back the press, which he prefers to call “containment.” He does not deny that the push back happened, and he says it made a certain sense to Republicans tired of the gotcha games and 70s frames.

Still, it’s dumb policy, he says.

Why is it dumb? According to Austin, it’s dumb because if you’re serious about a war on terror you know that it will have to be fought consistently and well across Administrations. This means that several waves of “players,” who are likely to be from both parties, will come in and out of policy-making before the war can in any sense be put to rest, or won. Each new generation has to understand what United States policy is, and continue on the path Bush the Younger set. This is a path Bay himself supports.

How is the strategy going to work if it shifts with each new cast of players? Austin says it can’t. Al Queda, a global information power, will be waiting on any wavering American governments show. Thus a key factor in winning the Big One is the Bush Administration’s “success or failure in getting subsequent administrations to sustain the political and economic development policies that truly winning the War On Terror will entail.”

For this, he says, the Bush team “needs the dying, withering, but still powerful press axis.” As far as I know, this has never occured to anyone in the White House.

What can the press do? (Here I am adding my own sense of what Austin was getting at.) For a long time the Washington press corps was considered part of the “permanent government.” There was a reason for that: Tim Russert and Jim Lehrer don’t leave, but Administrations come and go. This is exactly what drives people nuts about the big media establishment (how do we vote these guys out of office?) but Austin makes a different point.

Like it or not, journalists “carry” institutional memory. They port the story and its premises over from year-to-year, government to government. The press can create expectations of continuity by the way it looks at policy. It can treat as “surprising news” any plan to depart from principles established in 2002-03. At presidential debates it can ask the questions that would expose a shift in strategy. But will it? Not the way things are going, he says.

“The Bush Administration must revitalize its public diplomacy,” Austin writes. (I think the “re” is a bit much. This has never been a vital part of the White House’s approach.) “And that means ‘rolling forward’ and establishing a new, more mature relationship with the press.” What he means by more mature is found, I think, in this observation:

Ike knew the Cold War would be a long, tedious test of wills, and he agreed with the Truman Administration’s assessment that the social, political, and economic vitality of the U.S. would be very effective tools in that struggle.

A mature view would be that a weakened, timid or corrupted press, discredited and marginalized, under constant attack from office holders, or imploding from its own mistakes, is no sign of a strong and vital polity.

To me this was a key passage: “Key members of the Bush Administration believe they have been the victims of lies or victims of a relentless, decades-long selective reporting and commentary by members of the big media axis.” I think he’s exactly right. Once upon a time, Republicans had a more suspicious ear for the victim’s mentality.

“Why give such a biased, and myopic bunch a break?” writes Austin. But giving the press a break is not the way I see it. I don’t think chief-of-staff Andrew Card should do that— give reporters a break. But he could ask himself this: In the global arena where the war on terror is actually being fought, in what sense is a weakened, discredited, co-opted, or truth-starved press in the strategic interests of the United States?

I will be interested in hearing your reactions here and at Austin Bay’s blog.

My thanks to Austin Bay. The discussion has continued at a new post, An Open Thread after a Closed One. To comment go here.

Posted by Jay Rosen at August 19, 2005 1:28 AM Print

The People Formerly Known as the Audience: "You don't own the eyeballs. You don't own the press, which is now divided into pro and amateur zones. You don't control production on the new platform, which isn't one-way. There's a new balance of power between you and us." More...

Migration Point for the Press Tribe: "Like reluctant migrants everywhere, the people in the news tribe have to decide what to take with them. When to leave. Where to land. They have to figure out what is essential to their way of life. They have to ask if what they know is portable." More...

Bloggers vs. Journalists is Over: "Here is one advantage bloggers have in the struggle for reputation-- for the user's trust. They are closer to the transaction where trust gets built up on the Web. There's a big difference between tapping a built-up asset, like the St. Pete Times 'brand,' and creating it from scratch." More...

"Where's the Business Model for News, People?" "It’s remarkable to me how many accomplished producers of those goods the future production of which is in doubt are still at the stage of asking other people, “How are we going to pay our reporters if you guys don’t want to pay for our news?'" More...

National Explainer: A Job for Journalists on the Demand Side of News This American Life's great mortgage crisis explainer, The Giant Pool of Money, suggests that "information" and "explanation" ought to be reversed in our order of thought. Especially as we contemplate new news systems. More...

The Beast Without a Brain: Why Horse Race Journalism Works for Journalists and Fails Us. "Just so you know, 'the media' has no mind. It cannot make decisions. Which means it does not 'get behind' candidates. It does not decide to oppose your guy… or gal. It is a beast without a brain. Most of the time, it doesn’t know what it’s doing.." More...

They're Not in Your Club but They Are in Your League: Firedoglake at the Libby Trial: "I’m just advising Newsroom Joe and Jill: make room for FDL in your own ideas about what’s coming on, news-wise. Don’t let your own formula (blog=opinion) fake you out. A conspiracy of the like minded to find out what happened when the national news media isn’t inclined to tell us might be way more practical than you think." More...

Twilight of the Curmudgeon Class: "We’re at the twilight of the curmudgeon class in newsrooms and J-schools. (Though they can still do a lot of damage.) You know they’re giving up when they no longer bother to inform themselves about what they themselves say is happening." More...

Getting the Politics of the Press Right: Walter Pincus Rips into Newsroom Neutrality "The important thing is to show integrity-- not to be a neuter, politically. And having good facts that hold up is a bigger advantage than claiming to reflect all sides equally well." More...

A Most Useful Definition of Citizen Journalism "It's mine, but it should be yours. Can we take the quote marks off now? Can we remove the 'so-called' from in front? With video!." More...

The Master Narrative in Journalism: "Were 'winning' to somehow be removed or retired as the operating system for news, campaign reporting would immediately become harder to do, not because there would be no news, but rather no common, repeatable instructions for deciding what is a key development in the story, a turning point, a surprise, a trend. Master narratives are thus harder to alter than they are to apprehend. For how do you keep the story running while a switch is made?" More...

He Said, She Said Journalism: Lame Formula in the Land of the Active User "Any good blogger, competing journalist or alert press critic can spot and publicize false balance and the lame acceptance of fact-free spin. Do users really want to be left helpless in sorting out who's faking it more? The he said, she said form says they do, but I say decline has set in." More...

Users-Know-More-than-We-Do Journalism: "It's a "put up or shut up" moment for open source methods in public interest reporting. Can we take good ideas like... distributed knowledge, social networks, collaborative editing, the wisdom of crowds, citizen journalism, pro-am reporting... and put them to work to break news?" More...

Introducing NewAssignment.Net: "Enterprise reporting goes pro-am. Assignments are open sourced. They begin online. Reporters working with smart users and blogging editors get the story the pack wouldn't, couldn't or didn't." More...

What I Learned from Assignment Zero "Here are my coordinates for the territory we need to be searching. I got them from doing a distributed trend story with Wired.com and thinking through the results." More...

If Bloggers Had No Ethics Blogging Would Have Failed, But it Didn't. So Let's Get a Clue: "Those in journalism who want to bring ethics to blogging ought to start with why people trust (some) bloggers, not with an ethics template made for a prior platform operating as a closed system in a one-to-many world." More...

The View From Nowhere: "Occupy the reasonable middle between two markers for 'vocal critic,' and critics look ridiculous charging you with bias. Their symmetrical existence feels like proof of an underlying hysteria. Their mutually incompatible charges seem to cancel each other out. The minute evidence they marshall even shows a touch of fanaticism." More...

Rollback: "This White House doesn't settle for managing the news--what used to be called 'feeding the beast'--because there is a larger aim: to roll back the press as a player within the executive branch, to make it less important in running the White House and governing the country." More...

Retreat from Empiricism: On Ron Suskind's Scoop: ""Realist, a classic term in foreign policy debates, and reality-based, which is not a classic term but more of an instant classic, are different ideas. We shouldn't fuzz them up. The press is capable of doing that because it never came to terms with what Suskind reported in 2004." More...

Karl Rove and the Religion of the Washington Press: "Savviness--that quality of being shrewd, practical, well-informed, perceptive, ironic, 'with it,' and unsentimental in all things political--is, in a sense, their professional religion. They make a cult of it. And it was this cult that Karl Rove understood and exploited for political gain." More...

Journalism Is Itself a Religion: "We're headed, I think, for schism, tumult and divide as the religion of the American press meets the upheavals in global politics and public media that are well underway. Changing around us are the terms on which authority can be established by journalists. The Net is opening things up, shifting the power to publish around. Consumers are becoming producers, readers can be writers." More...

News Turns from a Lecture to a Conversation: "Some of the pressure the blogs are putting on journalists shows up, then, in the demand for "news as conversation," more of a back-and-forth, less of a pronouncement. This is an idea with long roots in academic journalism that suddenly (as in this year) jumped the track to become part of the news industry's internal dialogue." More...

Two Washington Posts May Be Better Than One: "They're not equals, but Washington and Arlington have their own spheres. Over the newspaper and reporting beats Len Downie is king. Over the website Jim Brady is sovereign. Over the userï¿½s experience no one has total control. There's tension because there's supposed to be tension." More...

Laying the Newspaper Gently Down to Die: "An industry that won't move until it is certain of days as good as its golden past is effectively dead, from a strategic point of view. Besides, there is an alternative if you don't have the faith or will or courage needed to accept reality and deal. The alternative is to drive the property to a profitable demise." More...

Grokking Woodward: "Woodward and Bernstein of 1972-74 didn't have such access, and this probably influenced--for the better--their view of what Nixon and his men were capable of. Watergate wasn't broken by reporters who had entree to the inner corridors of power. It was two guys on the Metro Desk." More...

Maybe Media Bias Has Become a Dumb Debate: "This here is a post for practically everyone in the game of seizing on media bias and denouncing it, which is part of our popular culture, and of course a loud part of our politics. And this is especially for the 'we're fair and balanced, you're not' crowd, wherever I may have located you." More...

Bill O'Reilly and the Paranoid Style in News: "O'Reilly feeds off his own resentments--the establishment sneering at Inside Edition--and like Howard Beale, the 'mad prophet of the airwaves,' his resentments are enlarged by the medium into public grievances among a mass of Americans unfairly denied voice." More...

Thoughts on the Killing of a Young Correspondent: "Among foreign correspondents, there is a phrase: 'parachuting in.' That's when a reporter drops into foreign territory during an emergency, without much preparation, staying only as long as the story remains big. The high profile people who might parachute in are called Bigfoots in the jargon of network news. The problem with being a Bigfoot, of course, is that it's hard to walk in other people's shoes." More...

The News From Iraq is Not Too Negative. But it is Too Narrow: "The bias charges are getting more serious lately as the stakes rise in Iraq and the election. But there is something lacking in press coverage, and it may be time for wise journalists to assess it. The re-building story has gone missing. And without it, how can we judge the job Bush is doing?." More...

The Abyss of Observation Alone. "There are hidden moral hazards in the ethic of neutral observation and the belief in a professional 'role' that transcends other loyalties. I think there is an abyss to observation alone. And I feel it has something to do with why more people don't trust journalists. They don't trust that abyss." More...

"Find Some New Information and Put it Into Your Post." Standards for Pro-Am Journalism at OffTheBus: "Opinion based on information 'everyone' has is less valuable than opinion journalism based on information that you dug up, originated, or pieced together. So it’s not important to us that contributors keep opinion out. What’s important is that they put new information in. More...

Out in the Great Wide Open: Maybe you heard about the implosion of Wide Open, a political blog started by the Cleveland Plain Dealer with four "outside" voices brought in from the ranks of Ohio bloggers: two left, two right. Twelve points you may not have seen elsewhere." More...

Some Bloggers Meet the Bosses From Big Media: "What capacity for product development do news organizations show? Zip. How are they on nurturing innovation? Terrible. Is there an entreprenurial spirit in newsrooms? No. Do smart young people ever come in and overturn everything? Never." More...

Notes and Comment on BlogHer 2005 "I think the happiest conference goers at BlogHer were probably the newbies, people who want to start blogging or just did. They got a lot of good information and advice. Some of the best information was actually dispensed in response to the fears provoked by blogging, which shouldnï¿½t be avoided, the sages said, but examined, turned around, defused, and creatively shrunk.." More...

Top Ten List: What's Radical About the Weblog Form in Journalism? "The weblog comes out of the gift economy, whereas most of today's journalism comes out of the market economy." More...

A Second Top Ten List: What's Conservative About the Weblog Form in Journalism? "The quality of any weblog in journalism depends greatly on its fidelity to age old newsroom commandments like check facts, check links, spell things correctly, be accurate, be timely, quote fairly." More...

Blogging is About Making and Changing Minds: "Sure, weblogs are good for making statements, big and small. But they also force re-statement. Yes, they're opinion forming. But they are equally good at unforming opinion, breaking it down, stretching it out." More...

The Weblog: An Extremely Democratic Form in Journalism "It's pirate radio, legalized; it's public access coming closer to life. Inside the borders of Blogistan (a real place with all the problems of a real place) we're closer to a vision of 'producer democracy' than we are to any of the consumerist views that long ago took hold in the mass media, including much of the journalism presented on that platform." More...

No One Owns Journalism: "And Big Media doesn't entirely own the press, because if it did then the First Amendment, which mentions the press, would belong to Big Media. And it doesn't. These things were always true. The weblog doesn't change them. It just opens up an outlet to the sea. Which in turn extends 'the press' to the desk in the bedroom of the suburban mom, where she blogs at night." More...

Brain Food for BloggerCon: Journalism and Weblogging in Their Corrected Fullness "Blogging is one universe. Its standard unit is the post, its strengths are the link and the low costs of entry, which means lots of voices. Jounalism is another universe. Its standard unit is "the story." Its strengths are in reporting, verification and access-- as in getting your calls returned." More...

Dispatches From the Un-Journalists: "Journalists think good information leads to opinion and argument. It's a logical sequence. Bloggers think that good argument and strong opinion cause people to seek information, an equally logical sequence. What do the bloggers bring to this? My short answer to the press is: everything you have removed."More...

Political Jihad and the American Blog: Chris Satullo Raises the Stakes "Journalists, you can stop worrying about bloggers 'replacing' the traditional news media. We're grist for their mill, says Satullo, a mill that doesn't run without us. Bloggers consume and extend the shelf life of our reporting, and they scrutinize it at a new level of intensity.."More...

Raze Spin Alley, That Strange Creation of the Press: "Spin Alley, an invention of the American press and politicos, shows that the system we have is in certain ways a partnership between the press and insiders in politics. They come together to mount the ritual. An intelligent nation is entitled to ask if the partners are engaged in public service when they bring to life their invention... Alternative thesis: they are in a pact of mutual convenience that serves no intelligible public good." More...

Horse Race Now! Horse Race Tomorrow! Horse Race Forever!: "How is it you know you're the press? Because you have a pass that says PRESS, and people open the gate. The locker room doors admit you. The story must be inside that gate; that's why they give us credentials. We get closer. We tell the fans what's going on. And if this was your logic, Bill James tried to bust it. Fellahs, said he to the baseball press, you have to realize that you are the gate." More...

Psst.... The Press is a Player: "The answer, I think, involves an open secret in political journalism that has been recognized for at least 20 years. But it is never dealt with, probably because the costs of facing it head on seem larger than the light tax on honesty any open secret demands. The secret is this: pssst... the press is a player in the campaign. And even though it knows this, as everyone knows it, the professional code of the journalist contains no instructions in what the press could or should be playing for?" More...

Die, Strategy News: "I think it's a bankrupt form. It serves no clear purpose, has no sensible rationale. The journalists who offer us strategy news do not know what public service they are providing, why they are providing it, for whom it is intended, or how we are supposed to use this strange variety of news."More...

He Said, She Said, We Said: "When journalists avoid drawing open conclusions, they are more vulnerable to charges of covert bias, of having a concealed agenda, of not being up front about their perspective, of unfairly building a case (for, against) while pretending only to report 'what happened.'" More...

If Religion Writers Rode the Campaign Bus: "Maybe irony, backstage peaking and "de-mystify the process" only get you so far, and past that point they explain nothing. Puzzling through the convention story, because I'm heading right into it myself, made me to realize that journalism's contempt for ritual was deeply involved here. Ritual is newsless; therefore it must be meaningless. But is that really true?."More...

Convention Coverage is a Failed Regime and Bloggers Have Their Credentials: "No one knows what a political convention actually is, anymore, or why it takes 15,000 people to report on it. Two successive regimes for making sense of the event have collapsed; a third has not emerged. That's a good starting point for the webloggers credentialed in Boston. No investment in the old regime and its ironizing." More...

Philip Gourevitch: Campaign Reporting as Foreign Beat: "'A presidential election is a like a gigantic moving television show,' he said. It is the extreme opposite of an overlooked event. The show takes place inside a bubble, which is a security perimeter overseen by the Secret Service. If you go outside the bubble for any reason, you become a security risk until you are screened again by hand."More...

What Time is it in Political Journalism? "Adam Gopnik argued ten years ago that the press did not know who it was within politics, or what it stood for. There was a vacuum in journalism where political argument and imagination should be. Now there are signs that this absence of thought is ending." More...

Off the Grid Journalism: “The assignment was straightforward enough,” writes Marjie Lundstrom of the Sacramento Bee, “talk to people.” When a writer dissents from it or departs from it, the master narrative is a very real thing. Here are two examples: one from politics, one from music. More...

Questions and Answers About PressThink "The Web is good for many opposite things. For quick hitting information. For clicking across a field. For talk and interaction. It's also a depth finder, a memory device, a library, an editor. Not to use a weblog for extended analysis (because most users won't pick that option) is Web dumb but media smart. What's strange is that I try to write short, snappy things, but they turn into long ones." More...

As an ex-Libertarian, new-Republican, I can affirm my own Rep rage against the press, while totally agreeing with Austin Bay that the White House needs to get better Public Relations, and better relations with the Press. In prior threads there was a desire to have writers with passion. Most Rep bloggers have lots of passion – against unfair Bush-hate by the press (with few Leftists making any serious attempt to understand the Rep position.)

For most Unreal Perfectionists who complain about the Iraq war, I feel they deserve:
"Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world."

War is hell; it means killing, dying (like Casey and many others), and even killing the innocent.

I wish the Bush-critics & supporters could focus more on the future, on rolling forward.

The future is never a "fact". Previously GW made an argument of the form:
‘A is taking action because of a belief B is coming. B is coming. Those are the facts.’

While "A is taking action" is a fact, "B is coming" is merely a prediction. In a longer analysis of such a story, I'd expect to see more evidence that B really is coming, including the strongest argument the B is NOT coming.

We DO have facts about the past.

Austin Bay: “Building a New Iraq and defeating those who would destroy it is the grand strategy, but the Bush Administration didn’t make that case explicit.”

This has been and remains a real problem. Bush is failing in not explaining what Building a New Iraq really means. Not finding out what it means is how the press is failing. It seems that the speeches Bush gives don’t tell enough, and the questions the press asks don’t clarify what is known and not known, enough. As in any building, it’s not done yet; much of the construction hasn’t even started yet. The Iraqi Constitution is the blueprint for the future institutions, to replace the current temporary gov’t. We don’t know what it is yet, nor whether it will be approved in October. (I hope they go for an Iraqi National Oil Trust so most oil money goes to Iraqi people directly; it’s not too late.)

After Austin discussed how Reps feel they’ve been victims, Jay writes: “I think he’s exactly right. Once upon a time, Republicans had a more suspicious ear for the victim’s mentality.” This is SOOO rich, Jay complaining about Rep unhappiness in being victims, Jay blaming the victims! -- ‘It’s the Reps fault the Press unfairly hates them’; or maybe Jay means ‘yes, the Reps do believe this stupid media-bias stuff, they used to be smarter than this.’ Admittedly, Jay more often does discuss how the press needs to change, which I celebrate him for. Since Bush just DID get reelected, I suggest the press change first (fire more of them?)

Jay asks: “in what sense is a weakened, discredited, co-opted, or truth-starved press in the strategic interests of the United States?”

If you believe, as I do, that the current goal of the “national press” is to repeat their glory days of Vietnam, the goal of such a press is Public Relations against Bush, implicitly supporting the death squad terrorists in Iraq. I think weakening press Bush-hate is good, and discrediting a Bush-hate filled press is good. It is both good and will save American lives.

A co-opted, pro-war press is not quite what I want, since I accept more Americans dying in order to fight for a free press; though I want a press more balanced than the anti-Bush (=pro-terror) press I (seldom now) read. Yet a pro-war, pro-Bush, pro-America press would minimize the casualties in the building of a New Iraq.

The press is not starved for “truth” by Bush. What the press is looking for and feel starved for is gotcha’ quotes. Jay, please consider Bush since 9/11, and describe some “truth” that Bush refused to feed the press. I might not understand what you mean.

Perhaps it’s the difference between being wrong and lying.

Consider the Downing Street Memo. Their use by the Left is to show that Bush was preparing plans to go after Iraq even before 9/11 (looks true). The Right uses them to show that Bush really believed Saddam had WMDs (Bush was wrong). What is the “truth” that Jay thinks the press is starved for? It seems to me the DSM serves both the Left and the Right. However, insofar as Bush’s belief in Saddam having WMDs conflicts with the primary Leftist narrative that “Bush lied” – the press has let this story become “uninteresting” and thus not NYT front page. (Bush being merely wrong doesn’t fit with the Leftist need to claim the moral superior position that Bush lied.)

Similarly I read a lot of junk about Bush incompetence in Iraq – but never see a standard by which to compare. Kosovo? Rwanda? Or Cambodia & Vietnam? The UN child-rapists in the Congo? It is not “truth” that is missing, but honesty about “incompetence” as a judgment, and a standard of comparison. The implicit standard is Unreal Perfection, so I judge most press critics by Austin’s great Teddy Roosevelt quote:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.”

I’m fully aware that, as a critic of the critics, I’m with those who do not count. (waiting for Pajama Media …)

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 19, 2005 6:16 AM | Permalink

It is interesting to consider that both sides in this discussion feel that an administration that has won all the elective battles in which it has engaged and passed (for better or worse) much of the legislation promised during those election campaigns is somehow "failing" because of its dealings with the press. Perhaps the administration view that the press has a negligible value might be correct? Certainly, the assessment that NYT/WaPo/Trib editors have lost the ability to frame a national debate is correct. The disclosure that Deep Throat was a Feeb feeding pre-chewed pablum to the Woodward/Bernstein team in furtherance an FBI agenda has effectively destroyed a mythos that elevated "investigative journalism" to an unearned position. The current practice of labeling opposition research "investigative reporting" might also be a factor in the administrations decision to lock the press out.

What objective, concrete goal of this administration could a press that promised 15 points to John Kerry possibly be expected to advance? A policy of "if you don't talk to them, they have less to lie about" seems very reasonable to me. Perhaps the press might consider reporting facts in an objective manner. I'm not sure that it has ever been tried but I'm willing to wager that the administration's doors (and mouths) will remain shut until it has occurred. I don't see any particular downside to another three and one-half years of the same treatment. The press has earned it in spades.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at August 19, 2005 8:33 AM | Permalink

The underlying point you both seem to be making is that the press is necessary for victory. The question being addressed seems to be: How to get there from here.

I think you may be wrong. The last election was a press nightmare for Mr. Bush - yet he did quite well. Both 2006 and 2008 will be interesting years.

Posted by: mrsizer at August 19, 2005 8:46 AM | Permalink

I understand that Professor Rosen is on vacation and kept his comments brief for that reason, but I found his initial response to Austin Bay's long and thoughtful post both amusing and unsurprising. Professor Rosen's headline: "Republican Criticizes Bush Administration."

Posted by: JEK at August 19, 2005 9:07 AM | Permalink

The press is much worse than postulated above. The idea that the problem is a little "bias" masks the fact that the Press is riddled with ideologues, liars, and essentially uneducated journalism majors. The phrase "weakened, timid or corrupted press" points toward a solution - a corrupted press is less damaging if it's also weakened. Better would be to reform it entirely, but I'm not sure that the idea that the Executive should remake the press (even if it could) is an idea which is consistent with Founding principles. The Press should be independent. It is not necessary that it be both independent and good. And thank gawd for that, as it's never been good - think of the great days of the Yellow Kid.

So in general, a press which is both independent and poor is a better choice for the Republic than a hypothetical Press which is good but is little more than an extension of the White House Press Office. That would make it indistinguishable from a Ministry of Propaganda controlling the news. And that would be a disaster no matter which party happened to be running it.

So where is our institutional memory to come from? Not from the Press, for sure - it's busy losing Vietnam all over again. And not from the Executive, as its time constant is too short for the tackling of deeds on a global scale. Theoretically it was supposed to come from Congress, but in all of US history Congress has never been good enough to do that competently, and it's not likely to change soon.

So how about relying on the Electorate? The Electorate can lose the war against international terrorism by electing an Executive which lacks the insight, imagination, and courage to fight our mortal enemies. We have certainly had such executives before, and have come perilously close to electing others. By the same token, the Electorate can win the war - and it's going to have to.

The same Electorate can control the Press by voting with its wallet, as, whatever else it may be, the MSM is a business, and it needs customers to survive. There are indications that this is happening now.

Fobbing all responsibility off on the Administration - for the state of the Press, as well as for the state of the war against homicidal Islam - is a distinctly un-American notion. The public is going to have to do its bit, because that's how the country is put together. We the Electorate put the Administration there, and kept them there. We have to do our bit with the Press as well.

Posted by: big dirigible at August 19, 2005 9:34 AM | Permalink

It is hard to "negotiate" a new relationship with an institution like "the media" that is really like a herd of cats each convinced both of it's own complete probity and it's species' ability to outlast you. You must shake those convictions before you can establish a new relationship based on actual changes in behavior.

"Starving the beast" while openly applauding the Internet and other institutions rapidly growing up as alternatives to it – is the method the Bushies are using to help shake "Old Media's" institutional complacency.

And Old Media –- as an institution -- is only just now starting to get an uncomfortable -- and unaccustomed -- sense of it's own possible mortality.

If this causes it to begin evolving again, fine. If not, we will have "New Media" instead.

All to the good.

Posted by: Tom Paine at August 19, 2005 9:53 AM | Permalink

The 'uneducated' journalism majors are a bigger problem than anybody realizes. More and more people are catching on to this, and as time goes on, nothing the MSM says is going to be taken at face value. mrsizer may be right.

Posted by: Eric Blair at August 19, 2005 10:03 AM | Permalink

Despite the resolve of pro-Bushies to hate the press, it is still important. It is important because it is part of the public debate, which is crucial to an open democracy.

Refusing to speak to anyone (press, bloggers, enemies, etc) is the quickest way to kill democracy. The White House is taking the wrong approach because it assumes its own righteousness while refusing to address critical issues like the Plame affair and the Downing Street Memo.

I'm confident, however, that true righteousness will win out. It won't take the guise of a new president or a return of troops: it will take the guise of open, public debate.

Posted by: Joshua Porter at August 19, 2005 10:14 AM | Permalink

I don't think many people truly grasp the fact that "the media" as it has been constituted for the past 50 or so years is "a dead man walking". For the purposes of information distribution the internet is analagous to the invention of the printing press. I think the Bush people see this much more clearly than Mr. Rosen or Mr. Bay. Journalists do, in fact, "carry institutional memory" as Mr. Rosen says. It's one of the things killing them.

Posted by: Mike in Colorado at August 19, 2005 10:46 AM | Permalink

In the global arena where the war on terror is actually being fought, in what sense is a weakened, discredited, co-opted, or truth-starved press in the strategic interests of the United States?

When the alternative is an empowered, objectively defeatist, media with its own agenda for reporting 'facts' on the ground.

Would you argue that a Russian 'democrat' should such a thing have really existed in the Soviet Union, should have tried to 'get along' with Pravda as it remained the house organ of the Communist Party? Clearly by definition Pravda was NOT going to provide useful or real reporting. It was going to provide propaganda no matter how carefully it was catered to by other than its masters.

The media is not of one organized mind; it is however of one osmosis like attitude. It will not assist in the War because it cannot and will not see that it is a War.

Rather than 'co-=opt' the Press, the administration should declare full-scale conflict with the Press. This current period is largely a one-sided affair with the media in open attack and doing everything possible to hamper the WAR effort. The Administration should call them on it 24-7.

Stiffle dissent. No, but legitimate complaints about media bias and its affect on the fighting men doing their duties is not only fair; it is essential.

A 'better' media will invariably emerge, but the current incarnation needs to be exiled to the wilderness. Let them preach to the converted, but ensure that they can convert no more.

Posted by: dougf at August 19, 2005 10:47 AM | Permalink

Austin Bay's comments are, as usual, on target. The problem is that the urban press and the Democratic Party are indistinguishable in policy preferences and they are both unserious about national security. I spend quite a bit of time reading, and occasionally posting on, left wing web sites. Every national security issue is seen as a tactical opportunity, not as a strategic problem.

The Iraq war can be debated if one accepts a few objective premises. One is that sanctions were failing. Saddam had deeply undermined the UN and the will of the US's "allies" like France and Russia. The same national press that attacks the war was printing accounts of starving Iraqi children. The choice that Bush faced was between two options: end the sanctions and go home, or attack after giving Saddam one more chance to comply. We chose the second. The failure to address the consequences of accepting the first option, especially after 9/11 and the challenge from bin Laden, shows the unserious nature of the left's criticism.

Another issue that is not seriously debated is energy policy. I think the one good idea that Al Gore ever proposed was an energy tax. I like Tom Freidman's proposal to use the revenue to fund defense. Solar power and wind power and all the other hobby horses of the left will never provide a serious source of energy. Their failure to include nuclear power in a mix of options to reduce dependence on foreign oil (and natural gas) shows how unserious they are.

Everything the left, and the MSM, gets interested in is seen only as a tactical issue. "Can we attack Republicans with this ?"

In spite of a steady drumbeat of negative coverage of the Iraq situation, the majority will not agree to cut and run unless some major disaster makes success impossible. The steady negative coverage does fuel the insurgency, however. The press will have to answer for this someday. The LA Times is circling the drain and I have to believe their alienation of long-term subscribers is a part of that story.

The administration could do a much better job explaining itself but the press is losing the confidence of the people. That will prove the greater error.

Posted by: Mike_K at August 19, 2005 10:49 AM | Permalink

Every national security issue is seen as a tactical opportunity, not as a strategic problem.
Mike,
I think you've got something there. It's well worth a post or two.

Posted by: Chap at August 19, 2005 11:09 AM | Permalink

Kevin Drum's blog is a good example. Read the post and accompanying comments on "Liberal Hawks." When was the last time we read about "staged withdrawal?" At least McGovern was open about his plan to cut and run from Vietnam.

Does the fact that Johnson and NIxon tried to have a "decent interval" improve their place in history ? There is not a serious comment about Iraq on that blog except from an occasional "troll" of whom I am one from time to time.

The self deception about choices is the sad story of the Democrats these days. I might even be a Truman Democrat today what with illegal immigration and other issues in which I disagree with Bush. There is no serious alternative.

Austin is right about the Bush administration's poor communications. The problem is that the Democrats are nothing but communications. Too bad for us.

Posted by: Mike_K at August 19, 2005 11:32 AM | Permalink

The White House is confronting a two-headed monster. The press bias is certainly a serious obstacle. The incompetence, however, when coupled with the bias may be the principal reason that the administration has given up on the MSM. Great example of cluelessness spanning the entire AP here at http://www.americanprowler.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8616

Posted by: stan at August 19, 2005 11:37 AM | Permalink

Bush has gotten a multigenerational comittment from Congress.

Ending tyranny in the world.

Now tell me: how has the right, the left, the center, major blogs, and the Dinosaur media missed the story?

This policy is not some obscure opinion. It is the US Congress.

Why is every one asleep?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 19, 2005 11:43 AM | Permalink

Mike K,

I was with you until you spouted the tired rhetoric about the energy hobby horses of the left.

I was a Naval Reactor Operator so I know a bit about energy, generators, electrical system etc.

At the current rate of decline in the cost off wind power - wind will cost less than any other power source in 5 to 10 years. (once turbine size reaches 8 to 12 MW peak). America is the Saudi Arabia of wind. There are enough wind resources to cover our whole range of energy requirements from electricity to transportation (for that wind may have to be converted into liquid fuel) with energy to spare.

In addition solar electricity is also coming down the cost curve - although at a slower pace.

Where is the accurate reporting on these facts? Why the obsession with nuclear power? (did I mention my Naval Nuke experience?)

Why is our population so ill informed on these subjects? From the messianic greenies to the wind/solar is bunk folks?

The reaason utilities are buying wind is because they can read a learning curve. They have been doing it since 1900. You would think that after 100 years of commercial experience the press would know some of this. Wrong.

Why?

Lack of technical people who can write is one problem. It can't be the only one.

It goes back to what I said on a previous post where I was down on drug war reporting. Reporters do not know how to ask interesting question.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 19, 2005 12:09 PM | Permalink

It's hard to believe, and foolish, that CBS' production of phony documents to sway an election is the only time the media has done something like. The ammo dump story that went away the day after the election, the flu vaccine shortage that turned into a surplus the day after the election, the....

If the press is weak discredited, fewer people will believe them when they lie. That's good.

If the media were honest and competent, it would be good if they had credit in the public eye. Now, the less, the better.

Posted by: RichardAubrey at August 19, 2005 12:10 PM | Permalink

BTW if a paying media organization is interested in a person who understands energy, is not blinded by philosophy, and can write a tolerable column, I'm available. Drop me a line.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 19, 2005 12:15 PM | Permalink

The most interesting aspect to this dialog between Jay and Austin, to me, is Jay's unwillingness to see the truth of Austin's explanations. Austin clearly spent hours writing a thoughtful and well-documented piece for Jay. Jay pulls out a nugget useful to him ("the Administration should do better") and plays Gotcha again with it. It must be frustrating to be Austin.

Reading the comments posted in response, I see that we are all (so far) supportive of Austin and decrying the National Press. Sadly, every liberal reading this page, including Jay himself, is quite likely to write this off not as evidence of being right, but as evidence of being wrong--some 'vast right-wing conspiracy' to spam the debate and stifle the dissent of the people with the power.

Doubtless, Austin will keep writing his amazing summaries and we lowly commenters will keep chiming in. Perhaps one day the fog in the mirror will clear, and the "MSM" will be able to read these posts with an open mind and see what they have become.

Posted by: Keith at August 19, 2005 12:16 PM | Permalink

My point re: my reply to Mike K.

It is not even political/war reporting that is the problem.

Even on relatively content neutral technical subjects the press is hopeless.

It is not left/right bias. The press lacks a certain fundamental curiosity. i.e. Rummys questions. What do we know we know? What do we know about our ignorance? Where are we ignorant about our ignorance?

The press wants to be authorative. It wants to project an air of certainty. That leads to projecting an air of blindness.

Reporters need to respect their ignorance.

And yet so many people in this country made fun of that bit of wisdom so fundamental that it trancends oplitics.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 19, 2005 12:42 PM | Permalink

I think there's a better headline that Jay could have taken from Austin Bay's piece (which would also provide an answer to Jay's question, "...in what sense is a weakened, discredited, co-opted, or truth-starved press in the strategic interests of the United States?"), that headline being:

"Media Plays War on Terror Like Vietnam"

As Austin Bay states, above:

"Two great gotcha successes drive the national press: Vietnam and Watergate... Vietnam and Watergate for three decades have provided the New York-Washington-L.A. media axis with convenient—if reductive—headlines... But what’s the first template applied to any US military engagement since 1975? Vietnam."

So we have a dominant media (perhaps subconsciously, in part) seeking to recapture it's halcyon days of power, when it stopped a war it couldn't buy into. We see many of the same tactics - - lionizing anti-war protestors (Wash. Post press critic Howard Kurtz: "The Post is certainly not alone here -- Cindy Sheehan has been all over television and in other publications like the New York Times. What she has accomplished, whether you agree with her or not, is a classic bit of media manipulation."); over-reporting unreprestentative negative events. Sure, the point is arguable. Understand, however, that the President's team and a large section of Americans believe it.

Yet the media are a consequential participant in the public consciousness, promulgating information on which Americans base political judgments. So what's a President to do when trying to win a war on terror waged on multiple fronts, when the media are largely arrayed in opposition? He might try to change the dominant media's minds about the war, as Austin Bay suggests. Yet there is no time for that:

Glenn Reynolds says that 40 to 45 is the cut-off age between the graying fogies reveling in Vietnam/Watergate glory; and a newer, more acute crop of newshounds. He thinks the old boys and girls will have to retire before the templates go. I think —given the intricate and deadly global war— we don’t have that luxury. - Austin Bay, above

Lacking time to persuade the press, the Bush team appears to have chosen and unhappy but necessary tactic, the only choice left under the grave circumstances - - limit the media's ability to wage information war against the President's goals by "starving the beast" and, more effectively, publicizing the press' de-legitimization of itself as a player in the nation's governance.

Posted by: Trained Auditor at August 19, 2005 1:01 PM | Permalink

"I’ve had way too many field reporters tell me that the people who get promoted to editor tend to be the NY and DC “stay at homes” who play the office and local political games well, but have minimal field experience themselves. It would be interesting to see some hard statistics to either dispute or support the anecdotes."

Austin --
A little inside baseball: The phenomenon that you describe is true at all too many newspapers but not, you might be surprised to learn, at the top ones (which are also the ones most derided by right-wing blogs).
Bill Keller, who runs the NYT's news-gathering efforts, earned his chops as the Times' Moscow correspondent before, during and after the fall of Communism.
Len Downie, boss at the Washington Post, came up through the Metro operation, with a dollop of foreign experience, but he made his name as a hard-nosed investigative reporter.
John Carroll, who just retired as editor of the LA Times, first distinguished himself as a reporter in Vietnam.
Paul Steiger, who runs the Wall St Jrnl news operation, was a first-rate business reporter for years before he was recruited into the editing ranks.
All these guys came from out on "the field," as you put it, not up from the bureaucracy.
It's at the second-tier papers that the “stay-at-homes who play the office and local political games well, but have minimal field experience" prevail.
Most of those papers have no national reporters at all, much less foreign postings, so the folks who end up running the show are mechanics, tech wizards, masters at making the trains run on time, but not at much else.
So what foreign news they do run is usually culled from AP, Reuters, or various syndicated news services.
And the papers they run, in Topeka, or Denver, or Chatanooga, or Tampa, or Tucson, or Sacramento, or wherever, have a cumulative readership far exceeding that of the big boys.
So that theory may need some re-examination.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at August 19, 2005 1:01 PM | Permalink

While much of what Austin Bay says is correct, and prudent advice, I can't see the "press" ever meeting the Republicans half way. They are far too entrenched in their groupthink to ever roll-forward.

There is in my view an irreparable distrust of the press by Republican administrations, and for good reason as we have seen time and time again an undeserved hostility by the Bi-Coastal press elites towards anyone with an (R) behind their name.

The fact that Paul Krugman still has a position at the NYTimes should be proof enough that the press will never change their tune. The consistent negative tone in nearly all Iraq reporting, the slanderous reporting against Israel in its attempts to protect itself, the attempted "gotcha" reporting with every story, the failure to report the Air America scandal for weeks by the NYTimes and other major press outlets. I mean there are just far too many examples of press hostility towards Republicans/Conservatives. I can’t recall the “uniliateralist” meme being pushed by the NYTimes when Clinton went into Bosnia or Yugoslavia, there were no long winded diatribes lambasting the lack of UN involvement.

My perception is that the blaringly obvious double standard is what’s killing any rolling forward by the Bush administration. As important as the points Bay makes about this conflict being multi-administration in scope, I can’t fathom a change occurring. It’s a pipe dream.

Posted by: Gabriel Chapman at August 19, 2005 1:06 PM | Permalink

A recurring theme here is that the MSM aren't getting educated, smart, curious people. I've been in the newspaper bidness for 21 years, at least 10 of those involved in recruiting and hiring, and I can say without reservation that that claim is true.

It's true because media companies would rather have a 30% pretax profit margin than go to the time, trouble and expense of hiring smart people. I see no serious disincentive to their position, at least in the near term.

Posted by: Lex at August 19, 2005 1:10 PM | Permalink

Steve L.,

How hard is it to pick up a phone and ask a few questions?

Actually pretty hard if you want to ask really good questions. The writing itself is trivial compared to the required preparation.

Evidently even editors who were field reporters never passed on their trade. Or they focused on the wrong aspect: writing vs preparation.

You going to interview an author? At least read his book. It might not hurt to read a couple of other books on the subject.

What are the odds?

Part of it is a culture which wants to get by vs be outstanding. I suppose that is what makes "cutting the corners" stories so popular in the press. It avoids having to look in the mirror. I think it is in part responsible for some of the press cynicism. They assume everybody is like them.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 19, 2005 1:19 PM | Permalink

It hasn't a damned thing to do with the education level of the media or what the White House does. The simple fact is, beyond all this intellectual posturing spouted here, Bush can't get a fair shake from the MSM no matter what he does, because the MSM is controlled by leftist geeks who hate him. It's just that simple.

Posted by: Felix at August 19, 2005 1:22 PM | Permalink

Well, you certainly gave reporters a break, Mr. Rosen. Your response led with a 'gotcha' at the Bush Administration for making a mistake, then pulled its punches in criticizing the press for its role in the breakdown. I love PressThink, but this time you've let me down.

The question a journalist might better ask at such a critical time is not what the Bush Administration should do to strengthen mainstream American journalism, but what mainstream American journalism should be doing to strengthen itself in a time of decline and serve its constituents in a time of deadly worldwide information warfare. If the health of the White House press corps and its national organs are as dependent on the Bush Administration's cooperation as Rosen's analysis implies, then that doesn't say much for its status as a permanent anything, let alone a permanent government.

In the 1970's the press learned what not to do in terrorist situations where coverage would compound the danger. It has refused to apply those lessons to the present context. Before Vietnam the press had learned what not to do in wartime where insensitive coverage would harm the war effort. It has failed to apply those lessons adequately to the present context. The national press is a source of immense frustration not only to the White House, but to millions of Americans who are trying to win in Iraq, the Middle East, and ultimately everywhere Al Qaeda and its allies would render unsafe.

I agree with Bay that the White House needs to find a better approach with such a shortsighted and uncooperative institution. However, your pass-the-buck attitude leaves me disappointed yet again with a mainstream press I once respected but now find (with exceptions I deeply appreciate) basically culturally decadent and increasingly even dangerous to the rest of us.

Posted by: Telford Work at August 19, 2005 1:31 PM | Permalink

"In the global arena where the war on terror is actually being fought, in what sense is a weakened, discredited, co-opted, or truth-starved press in the strategic interests of the United States?"

If the mainstream media (NY-DC-LA, national media, whatever name you choose) does not support the war effort, and insists upon reporting only setbacks or failures to achieve perfection - and then casting each such incident, no matter how minor, as the defining and culminative proof that we are truly doomed - while ignoring heroic deeds, clear successes, slow progress and any other good sign, then the best possible role for the press in the security of the nation is to be weak, discredited and co-opted.

People are not stupid, and would see such a press clearly as "damaged goods" unable to tell a straight story. This would allow the real story to emerge from the different narratives present in the world around us, as the blogs are already proving works quite well.

Because the media is, right now, the primary voice of defeatism, as well as the most effective provider of enemy propaganda, a discounted press is clearly a national security win. A better win would be a press that is on our side, that wants us to win, but that in the process does not shrink from calling the administration on its mistakes. I'm sure that most reporters believe that this is what they are doing. They are wrong.

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at August 19, 2005 1:51 PM | Permalink

I am neither a critic or analyst of the media but a medical doctor who watches politics and the media while I daily practice medicine. Interestinly, in the past decade, there has been in medicine a push for "evidence-based" medicine. Physicians now look critically at the practice of medicine and decide if that practice is supported by objective data, expert opinion or is based on nothing more than unscientific habits passed through generations of physicians because only poor science is available to guide them. Many routine medical treatments have disappeared as it has become apparent that they do not, in fact, work. (Look at hormone treatment in postmenopausal women, episiotomies and Dick Cheney's defibrillator for examples.)

My point, Professor Rosen, is that the press and academics like you are now in the same boat. As information management improves, you need to "show me the evidence" which has been severely lacking in most of the work of the press in the past. Medicine is moving forward with evidence, good science, and an ethical foundation for practice. The national news media is held in disdain precisely because its research is flawed and subjective, its data management is poor and ethics....well, problems exist there, too.

If the White House doesn't engage the national press, the fault doesn't just lie with the administration. Other reasonble questions to ask besides those about the White House include: What is the press doing to regain its credibility and relevance? What is the press doing to make the administration take it seriously as an information gathering and analyzing institution? What is the press doing to attract serious readers/thinkers to its product and to prevent further decline in readers/viewers? Does the press really bring any new information to its readers or is it just sound bites? Where is the original research being done?

The Administration may need to improve public relations but "improvement" may mean using improved versions of information management and dissemination which doesn't necessarily mean the use of existing institutions. They may become as infrequently used as some of our medical therapies which have fallen by the wayside.

Posted by: RHH at August 19, 2005 1:56 PM | Permalink

I'd be more impressed with Mr. Bay's post if he'd cut short the self-congratulation for supporting Reagan (for the record, so did I -- if you dig through the archives of my high school paper, you'll find the proof) and focused on the actual problem.

Neither Bay nor Jay addressed the actual problem -- it should be someone's job to hold government accountable.

Can bloggers or others who aren't full-time journalists do it? To an extent, maybe, but they have to have a lot of time to do so. That makes this group even more self-selecting than the MSM. People with a lot of time to devote to a high-powered blog tend to be financially secure -- much moreso than the rank-and-file $30K-in-high-rent-areas journalist. And today's political bloggers, paradoxically, are people who aren't particularly civic-minded. If you devote so much of your free time to arguing red-vs.-blue on a national level, you're generally not plugged into *local* politics or community projects, which is still the bread and butter of anyone coming up through the ranks in journalism.

That, incidentally, is one reason why it's silly to talk of bloggers *replacing* journalists -- it should be obvious that we all benefit from each group bringing its perspective to the table.

Yet there's a downside to having a diversity of voices, and it's this -- the government can choose "friendly" media through which to give its message without being seriously challenged. That shouldn't mean the media shouldn't diversity. The MSM is already much more diverse than Bay and Jay present it here (why do people assume NYT columnists and one CNN exec represent the entire "media"?), and bloggers add to the mix. But it means the government needs to answer to *all*, or else we *all* need to get outraged about it.

BTW -- Reynolds thinks the media will be better off when journalists under 40 push the older crop out of the way? I'd agree that seeing a few fogies go out to pasture is a good thing, but I'd like to know where he found that ray of optimism in today's youth.

Posted by: Beau Dure at August 19, 2005 2:11 PM | Permalink

Beau Dure,

Holding government accountable is a fine sentiment. A fine goal.

It can't be done properly if only failures are reported. If no context is given. If no history is provided.

What are the alternatives? How have they worked in the past?

How about some understanding of other cultures? No just language, and food. How does the thinking differ?

We learn a lot about fantasy ideologies (the Caliphate) on the www. What kind of psychology drives that kind of thinking? Can the circle be squared, can that kind of thinking coexist with other models?

You so often see the press willing to tell what they know are lies of comission and omission for "access". (the Palestinians, Saddam's Iraq, many other places) How does that serve the needs of the public for truth (in so far as it can be known)? It is a disgrace as big (maybe bigger) than anonymous sources. Yet it is a blip on the radar screen.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 19, 2005 3:27 PM | Permalink

M. Simon: Holding government accountable is made much more difficult when they lack humility. Never once have I heard the White House admit failure for getting the WMD wrong or for their failure to nab the world's #1 terrorist.

Instead, they don't talk about it. They don't talk about Plame or Downing. A little sleight of hand. Don't look that way, you're getting too close to the truth.

I'm glad it's not my job to get the truth from the government.

Posted by: Joshua Porter at August 19, 2005 4:09 PM | Permalink

"Bush has gotten a multigenerational comittment from Congress.
...
This policy is not some obscure opinion."

Please. One Jimmy Carter, one Howard Dean, and the whole multigenerational effort would be flushed down the toilet in 4 years, and the next administration would be left to pick up the pieces.

Imagine pro-democracy Iraqis scambling to the rooftops to catch the retreating helicopters as the armies of Al Qaeda or Iranian Shias or Assad's Ba'athists close in. That part of the "Vietnam Template" is exactly what we'll get if the wrong person gets into the White House, and there's nothing the Congress could do to stop it.

Posted by: Vietnam Template at August 19, 2005 4:17 PM | Permalink

Yet, of course, it wasn't a Carter or a Dean or a McCarthy in the White House when Vietnam imploded and the rush for the last helicopter out occurred.

It was Nixon. He with the secret plan. He of the Christmas Bombings and Peace With Honor. He declared victory and bugged out. Now we find it was all the liberals fault.

But enough history. Iraq isn't Vietnam. It's its own craphole. In this flurry of self-congratulation and press condemnation, I think we should take a pause from all the certitude.

Beau Dure's points bear repeating. The press isn't supposed to be the White House's buddy. Or Congress' or the mayor's. As BD said, it's to hold government accountable.

Around some journalistic circles, it's evolved as "cut through the bullshit and get to the bottom of things." To a depressing degree, the media haven't done that very well lately.

Which is why I find all the "this would be a great war if it wasn't for the media" chatter. Or the 'liberal' meme. Sweet Jesus, I'll give you guys a liberal economist on the Op/Ed page if you'll take Judith Miller out of News.

But back to BD's other salient point: The fragmentation of the news. Government can now more easily tailor its argument through friendly outlets and ignore the rest. And news consumers increasingly be 'informed by the news/blogs/talk shows they want and ignore the rest.

Which puts hopes for an informed people up the creek.

If the government wants to go to war and spend the nation's treasure and blood of its children, than the government has to make a damn good case for it. And not change reasons in mid-stream when those motives fall apart. And there has to be some planning for the peace. Or the war never really ends.

The media's other role is as a stand-in for the public. It's why we go to school board meetings and trials and legislative sessions. God knows, it's not for the coffee.

If the government doesn't live up to its obligation to the public to say why there must be war and how that war may transition to peace, why should it expect unquestioning support from either the media or the people?

Posted by: Dave McLemore at August 19, 2005 4:46 PM | Permalink

Dave,

I blame Lincoln for the trend of changing war aims in the middle of a war.

At the beginning it was about Union. Then he got on the slavery kick.

Lincoln was a Republican. Figures.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 19, 2005 5:04 PM | Permalink

The slave issue was one of many pressures that led to the Civil War, M. But the war, at least in Lincoln's statements and letters, was always about the union. Preserving it. Defending it. Restoring it.

Iraq is not our War Between the States. And Bush is no Lincoln. But then, who is?

Posted by: Dave McLemore at August 19, 2005 5:10 PM | Permalink

God help us if we get another Nixon. Add his name to list alongside Carter and Dean.

As for the obligation to say why there's a war, Bush said there were terrorists in Iraq, and there were terrorists in Iraq, at least one of whom belonged to Al Qaeda and bombed the World Trade Center.

Even the Left will agree that Bush has linked Al Qaeda and Iraq in his speeches.

Works for me. Let's roll.

Posted by: Vietnam Template at August 19, 2005 5:19 PM | Permalink

First it was weapons of mass destruction and intimations of mushroom clouds and poison gas. Al Qaeda in Iraq was merely a twinkle in the eye of the beholder.

And so we reduced our forces in Afghanistan, where Osama and his Al Qaeda buds were still very much active.

How quickly we forget.

Posted by: Dave McLemore at August 19, 2005 5:27 PM | Permalink

Jay, it would be hard to find a more perfect example, a pathognomonic example, of what Austin is saying than in your response. Summarized:

Bay: "The Administration has justifications for its attitude to the press, which has been irresponsible and completely without useful self-examination. Still, the Administration needs to carry out the Information War against terrorism; they can and should be usefully criticized for not making sufficiently effective use of the press."

Rosen: "See? Austin Bay says 'The Administration ... should be ... criticized for not making sufficiently effective use of the press.'"

It's a truism in 12 Step programs that the first step is to overcome denial, and see the faults in one's self first. With recognition can come recovery.

When you and other press can see that the reason Bush's administration doesn't make use of the press as it might, it's because (with October Surprises, Tet offensives, and continuing pictures of Jerry Ford stumbling) they no longer feel they can trust the press to give them a fair shake, as well as seeing that the Bush administration needs to make a better use of information services, you will be on the road to recovery.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 19, 2005 6:13 PM | Permalink

It's good you remind us a bit about WHY we are in a pre-emptive war -- to stop Iraq BEFORE he gets nukes.

Looks like Bush succeeded to me.

Root cause of terrorism? Dictatorships, funded by oil profits. Looks like Bush is successfully changing that in Iraq, FASTER than in Kosovo.

it should be someone's job to hold government accountable.

Accountability? Have you ever looked at budget accounts? Usually 3 columns:
Actual -- Plan/Budget -- Difference

Bush has been lousy on not specifying a clear plan/budget, of how much it will cost (lives, dollars). But his actual numbers are great in terms of very few lives. (If he gets democracy in Iraq at less than 2500 US soldiers, he's doing great.)

I never see, despite constantly asking for, any Bush-critic specify an alternate plan or budget to use in holding Bush "accountable". This leads me to think they aren't really serious about true accountability.

Jay, as I noted early, I salute your desire to help the press change.

One of the changes that would be very good is to try to get simple alternative plans & budgets from gov't folks -- yet there also needs to be understanding by the public that when "actuals" are "different" than "plans", it is NOT a lie.

If the press is going to treat any deviation from "plan" as if it's a lie, then it would be irresponsible of Bush to tell such a press any plan.

The main accountability for politicians is elections. Bush got elected in 2000; re-elected in 2004.

Message to top editors in NYT, WaPo, LAT, CNN -- or anywhere: if the actuals are a lot lower than the plan, time for editors to start leaving.

Owners need to hold the press editors accountable; I can guarantee that there will be more editors changing in the next 3 years than US Presidents. That's a fact. (er, well, actually just a prediction...I'd bet LOTS of cash on it, though)
(See Marginal Revolution for more on betting markets as predictors of the future)

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 19, 2005 6:33 PM | Permalink

I disagree with with Austin Bay's thesis that the Whitehouse should "roll forward" by using diplomacy or any other means to build or rebuild ties to the "nidclaws".

The Whitehouse has abandoned the nidclaws, just as Israel has recently abandoned the Gaza strip, and for similar reasons.

The nidclaws would like everyone to think they are a 4th branch of government, but it is only a branding, not reality, they are actually a 5th column for the Democrat party ( and will probably convert into the same for the Republicans, if they retain power for 40+ years). It is the nature of power and type of people it attracts, much like moths to a light.

We are currently in a transition which has been triggered by Democrats becoming politically out of phase with most Americans, exacerbated by alternative media influence such as talk radio and the blogosphere.

Due to alternative media outlets, and the entry they provide people of non-Democrat/liberal views into the nidclaws institutions, the White House can ignore nidclaws until nidclaws conforms to the White House view of journalistic propriety, if, that is, the White House view of journalistic propriety does not vary overmuch from mainstream Americans' view of journalistic propriety.

If Austin Bay wants to make the argument that the White House has not utilized the Alternative Medias enough, to promote thier message to counter the nidclaws Democrat propagandizing, I would be in agreement.

Were I king of White House media relations, I would hold press conferences and put out releases to an assortment of media outlets which expressly excluded some, if not all the nidclaws. Making the exclusion a story unto itself so that the issue could be discussed and debated on a national level. If the nidclaws were offended, so what? What are they going to do, use fake documents to indict the President?

This would be acceptable to the American public as long as it was percieved as a slight against specific media outlets which are little more than Democrat organs, rather than a rebuke against press coverage in general, which is what thier current actions seem to indicate to some degree.

Posted by: Joel Mackey at August 19, 2005 6:52 PM | Permalink

Vietnam Template,

My take is that the "law" will implant the idea in the public mind which will then hold the government accountable.

BTW Bush made ending tyranny one of the conerstones of his policy. Read it in his speeches. As to WMDs. it is quite possible they were spirited away to Syria. In any case Saddam never accounted for them which he agreed to do in '91. So I would say finding or not finding the WMDs was not the issue. Saddam's not living up to his agreements was.

As tomaking the case for war. Some of you may not have noticed this (it has been buried by the MSM) but Bush won the election in November 2004. Republicans increased their numbers in the House and Senate in that election.

Me? I'm with the current majority that does not believe Bush is doing a good job re: the war. I'd like to see more pressure on Iran and Syria.

So let me ask my friends on the left here. Why when the questions are asked in polls about Bush's war policy don't we see the option of a more vigorous prosecution of the war as part of the questioning?

OTOH. I think the polls as written give the Rs an advantage. Dems think "unhappy with the war" can mean only one thing. I'm happy to let them keep their illusions.

As to balance - I think the press ought to be objectively anti-fascist. You know like not giving the Soviets a pass. Not giving Mao a pass. Not giving Hitler a pass. Not giving the Islamic Nazis a pass. etc.

Islamic Nazis over the top?

Palestinian Role in the Holocaust

Why don't we see any of the history of the direct connection between the Nazis and Palestinian politics in the press? The usual historic amnesia. Doesn't fit the narrative.

Plame? It is quite possible Wilson outed her. Time will tell.

BTW what in hell does Plame have to do with the situation we are in now? Other than history. What is the way forward that will not lead to a disaster for the Iraqi people as the pullout from Vietnam was for the Vietnamese?

The press got its way in Vietnam (I was on their side for that one, much to my sorrow). 100,000 were slaughted and 500,000 went to sea - of which about 1/2 died.

So what is the motto of the left/press on this war? No worse than Vietnam? No worse than Rawanda?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 19, 2005 6:54 PM | Permalink

Tom Grey:
"I can guarantee that there will be more editors changing in the next 3 years than US Presidents."
Well, since there are about 3,000 editors in the country for every US President, that seems a pretty good bet, Tom. Even if we count just the news outlets with which you are aggrieved -- let's say the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Time, Newsweek, AP, Reuters, plus all the dotcoms that attach to each -- we have 24 editors whose jobs are up for grabs.
So if two of those guys (or gals) lose the corporate sweepstakes, you win -- but only, of course, by the terms you establish for the wager.
For once in my life, I'm with you, Tommy.

Dave:
Don't bother.
Already the thread has degenerated into "What the press reports doesn't correspond to my world view (of the White House, of Iraq, of Vietnam, of whatever), so it must be wrong."
It's too bad, because Austin Bay actually had some interesting things to say.
Now he knows what it's like to be obliterated in a tidal wave of static.
Welcome aboard the Fantasy Express, Colonel.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at August 19, 2005 6:56 PM | Permalink

Charlie -- Journalists are the most self-critical, self-loathing, self-flagellating people you'll ever encounter. There's a reason the old-school stereotype is that the bar across the street from the newspaper office was always full of journalists after deadline. And just check our trade publications, which have always made for dour reading. Don't let the arrogant cable punditocracy -- from Carville and Novak to Paige and Bayless -- fool you.

Tom -- Then who will be the new editors? The new White House reporters? Generally more of the same except with a little more postmodernist thought and a little more understanding of the Web.

There's a myth underlying journalism discussions these days that implies that you just need to get rid of a bunch of people in the media and things will somehow change. That's not how it works. Shareholders may not be happy with the current editor at a given publication, but they'll be even less happy if the job is handed to someone who hasn't paid his or her dues in the field. Even if you start pushing out the low-level employees, there could be 100 or more qualified people ready to plug into those holes, and you wouldn't notice much of a difference. Those are the people so eager to ask questions that they're willing to suffer the indignity of being yelled at by high school coaches, semi-corrupt local politicians and parents who think their precious little Madison or Jacob should be on the front page because he has a B average in middle school -- all while pulling a salary that makes teaching look attractive.

No, this isn't rocket science, and any number of reasonably intelligent people can do these jobs with a bit of practice. That's true of pretty much any career. The people you see in journalism now are the people who were willing to make the (relatively small) sacrifices to do it.

Posted by: Beau Dure at August 19, 2005 7:15 PM | Permalink

The problem Bay identifies is groupthink. It is as simple as that, and resembles the NASA groupthink that consistently views the Space Shuttle as inherently safe despite the obvious evidence to the contrary.

Bay's recounting of the complete lack of Republicans in the Press and the social setting they come out of is important, because it shows a lack of diversity of intellectual/political views that ends up challenging assumptions and preventing groupthink.

Example: Dan Rather is not a partisan monster. However he "knew" as all his staff did that the TANG documents were "genuine" because it fit with the groupthink assumptions of everyone in his circle. Heck his Daughter is a staffer in the Texas Democratic Party. If his Producer or some other folks on his staff had been Republicans and Bush supporters, they might have cast critical eyes on the evidence and prevented Rather from making a fool out of himself and throwing away thirty years of generally solid reporting.

Sy Hersh has in the New Yorker done some very good, solid reporting, and helped publicize My Lai (the story was not one he dug out, he was essentially handed it but had the courage to go forward and for that deserves accolades). Nevertheless his groupthink assumption was that the US shortly before Kabul fell was mired in a "quagmire" that would cost thousands of American lives. That the Taliban was some unstoppable force that drove the Russians out and would do the same for us. Hersh is not a bad person, and probably does not think himself hostile to Republicans. But his assumptions never got challenged because he does not work, socialize, or interact with folks who say, have military experience.

Reporters simply don't KNOW anything about the military, have never served, and view military folk as either brutal, blood crazed killers or mindless simpletons who are exploited. The reporting on the F-22, Crusader, Osprey, LandWarrior, and other weapons systems is abysmal since reporters don't even know what the systems are supposed to DO and the advantages promised versus delivered.

Unfortunately there is too much J-School certainty (the same socially isolated groupthink) and too little diverse experiences (military reporters should have ... military experience).

Your average football broadcast has one or two ex players or coaches who know the game because they played it; I find it astonishing that no correspondent in the media has any first hand knowledge of combat operations as a soldier.

Christiane Amanpour may know many things, but combat operations is not one of them.

Posted by: Jim Rockford at August 19, 2005 7:40 PM | Permalink

"First it was weapons of mass destruction and intimations of mushroom clouds and poison gas."

Well I was being charitable in not associating poison gas with WMD's -- it is, of course, and many on the left would do a tire-squealing bootleg 180 to embrace nerve gas as a WMD if the U.S. military started using it, but it isn't on the same level as nuclear weapons.

However, since you brought it up, we not only found terrorists in Iraq but poison gas as well -- bona fide WMD's, by your own definition.

I think you've just shot yourself in the foot.

The head shot, though, is the presence of terrorists, not WMD's. Fighting terrorists has always been a stated objective of President Bush, in every speech, television appearance, and written word, both in the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq.

"In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations ... [a]nd al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq."

President George W. Bush, September 2002

Given what terrorists can do with simple box
cutters, let alone nerve gas, the Bush Doctrine's focus on defeating them shows a profound wisdom far deeper than the left's quibbles over whether or not nerve gas qualifies as a WMD.

Posted by: Vietnam Template at August 19, 2005 7:48 PM | Permalink

Reporters simply don't KNOW anything about the military, have never served, and view military folk as either brutal, blood crazed killers or mindless simpletons who are exploited.

OK. Competition is officially closed. We now have a winner for the most grotesquely overstated and simplistic statement on journalism this year.

Posted by: Dave McLemore at August 19, 2005 7:51 PM | Permalink

Charlie -- Journalists are the most self-critical, self-loathing, self-flagellating people you'll ever encounter.

Something that makes the analogy with alcoholics more apt yet. But (and I'm a "journalist" too, or at least I get paid for writing in the trades and have had press credentials) I'm more talking about the arrogant TV punditry... and fairly specifically about Jay's response, which managed to avoid any mention of the criticisms of HOW the situation got as it did, while going for a shot at Bush.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 19, 2005 8:44 PM | Permalink

My deskmate will stunned to learn that he never served in the military. I think he'll wonder what he was doing in Saudi Arabia a few years ago.

And he won't be the only one.

That said, the "groupthink" accusation is accurate, though I still wonder why media critics apply this to only to simplified left-right bias discussions and not to larger, more damaging issues. The "groupthink" in the media is responsible for how issues are framed, regardless of alleged ideology (i.e., they're framed the same way on Fox as they are on CNN or in the NYT). Today's journalists frame issues in terms of whether or not the Democrats or Republicans gain. Usually, that's not the point. But we've reduced political coverage to team-sports, horse-race coverage. That's misleading on so many levels, and that's why people think the media's problems can be solved just by somehow digging up more Republicans willing to work in such a sad profession.

Posted by: Beau Dure at August 19, 2005 8:54 PM | Permalink

As I said earlier, Colonel Bay, welcome aboard the Fantasy Expressy.
It's a strange and wondrous land, where [see thread above] Jimmy Carter, who was growing peanuts at the time, or even Howard Dean, who was nine-years-old at the time, is apparently responsible for the Vietnam cut-and-run.
Silly me -- all this time I thought that Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger were the engineers of that cowardly cave-in.
The Fantasy Express is also a place where the president of the United States didn't abandon the search for bin Laden in favor of attacking a straw man, Saddam Hussein ( whom any Navy Seal team worth its salt could have taken out, at a vast saving of lives.)
The result, in all its glory, now lies before us. We've created the single best recruiting tool bin Laden could ever have imagined.
The strategy seems to be, If you don't like soccer, change the game to baseball.
The bad news ? The enemy is still playing soccer.
And so we wait for the next 9/11.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at August 19, 2005 10:12 PM | Permalink

Template, President Bush said a lot of things. And his contention al Quaeda was in Iraq prior to 9-11 proved as elusive as his certainty of stockpiles of serin gas and mobile nuke labs. Remember those?

In a June 16, 2004 Washington Post story, the Sept. 11 Commission's report found no al Qaeda connection.

"The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994.

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

That said, I have zero interest in debating the minutia of the build up that leads of a "T'is so; T'ain't" kind of discussion. You want to believe that Osama and Saddam planned world domination over coffee and pastries, feel free. That way leads to delusion.

My point remains. If we were out to get the guys behind 9-11, why didn't we continue operations in Afghanistan?

The press failed miserably in the build up to the war and immediately afterward. There was no real effort to press the adminstration for its cause of war or how this thing was supposed to work.

Nearly four years later, the critiques are that 'leftist' media didn't/haven't gotten on board and are too critical of the president. If the media doesn't ask questions, who will?

Posted by: Dave McLemore at August 19, 2005 10:33 PM | Permalink

Steve,

Actually Nixon had stabilized the situation and the South was in pretty good shape. American troops were mostly gone.

When the North sent Divisions South Congress in its infinite wisdom declined support for the South. Neither troops nor significant material. They were abandoned to their fate.

Since the Congress was Democrat controlled I guess the responsibility falls on the Democrats, Kerry who promised no more than 3,000 murders, and their friends in the press.

PS. I despise Nixon. He cranked up the drug war specifically to attack Democrats. He was scum. However, despite my animosity I calls 'em like I see 'em.

==================================

I was in the Navy 'til '67. When Kerry said atrocities were a regular thing ordered by the chain of command I had no way to tell if it was true or false. My 'Nam tour was spent on Yankee Station. Certainly the press gave the impression that there was something to Kerry's statements. Like a chump I fell for it. Well I thought socialism/communism was the wave of the future then. Just to show you how out of touch with reality I was.

One of the reasons Kerry did not get my vote this last election. The revenge of the 'Nam vets.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 19, 2005 10:47 PM | Permalink

The press was in bed with Saddam for "access". How could they ask impartial questions? Saddam was buying friends with oil. Which explians France's position.

As to why we are in Iraq? When I look at a map the answer is obvious.

But that is history. The quuestion now is how do we support the Iraqi people. I do not want another cut an run on my concience.

The press I see today is in the same mould (not a misspelling) as they were during the Vietnam era. They ought to be ashamed.

It is nothing new. Think Copperheads during Lincoln's war.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 19, 2005 10:59 PM | Permalink

There is a ‘crisis’ of purpose in the MSM. Is the purpose of the press to observe and record history (events)? to interpret history (tell people what something means and why it means that)? to influence history (to build a case for a course of action)? Clearly, there must be a commitment to gather, record, organize events—but the very process of gathering (what to record and why) and organizing becomes an interpretative process too often governed by a person’s predisposition and perspective. When you factor in the personal desire for recognition by your peers and a desire for significance in life, it is small wonder that the lines between observation, interpretation and influence are often obliterated.

The problem is simply that to the degree the press desires to influence they lose credibility as objective truth-tellers.

The press, in order to maintain some semblance of ‘objectivity’ then defines its role as ‘adversarial’ (to keep others honest). Our legal system is adversarial—with the assumption that if the two adversaries present their cases as well as possible then a third party (judge) will be convinced and ‘truth’ will be found in the process. But an adversarial attitude is an inherently bad model for news gathering and reporting.

The MSM should neither be an advocate for the President nor an adversary, but an honest broker asking the questions to seek to clarify truth reporting and giving people as complete a true picture as humanly possible.

Posted by: s watson at August 19, 2005 11:26 PM | Permalink

McLemore's post is an excellent example of what's wrong with the MSM. The MSM and the Democrat left have stuffed his head full of misinformation about the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, all of which he accepts as gospel, though it would not require much research to show that everything he says about this matter is nonsense. He might start by looking at the Murdock blog, which PowerLine linked to a couple of days ago. There is certain evidence of a working relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda going back many years. Al Qaeda had training camps in Iraq before the invasion. The 9/11 committee report did not say there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda; that is a lie spread by the MSM, which jerked a carefully worded sentence out of context and has gone on repeating it. In any case that report has been discredited. That committee was riddled with members of the Clinton administration who were concerned to cover up the connection. Ever heard of Able Danger? Ever heard of the Senate Intelligence report, which concluded that the intelligence agencies had so ignored the evidence for the Saddam-alQaeda connection that they were in no position to draw conclusions about it?
The war on terrorism has to be fought in Iraq. The left can't make any useful contribution to this debate until they face these facts.

Posted by: doyne dawson at August 20, 2005 12:04 AM | Permalink

This is depressing. Austin and I had hoped that perhaps we'd move the dialogue a tiny bit with this.

I'll let it go for a day or so, and see if anything changes. If not, PressThink will go on full vacation mode, and comments will shut down. Cheers, everyone.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at August 20, 2005 12:11 AM | Permalink

"Neither Bay nor Jay addressed the actual problem -- it should be someone's job to hold government accountable."

And here I thought that was the voters' job. Silly me.

Posted by: antimedia at August 20, 2005 1:19 AM | Permalink

If you want to know what's wrong with the media, the Cindy Sheehan story is a perfect example. She has received 24 7 coverage in the print and television media. Yet the stories of Rowena Jhant and Debbie Argel Bastian have received almost no coverage at all. (And no, I'm not going to tell you about them. Use Google or read my blog.)

The problem is one of balance. There is no balance at all. So why should the administration cooperate with the press?

Posted by: antimedia at August 20, 2005 1:24 AM | Permalink

Jay Rosen writes: To me this was a key passage: “Key members of the Bush Administration believe they have been the victims of lies or victims of a relentless, decades-long selective reporting and commentary by members of the big media axis.” I think he’s exactly right. Once upon a time, Republicans had a more suspicious ear for the victim’s mentality.

The operative word here is "believe." Does the Bush Administration just "believe" themselves to be "victims" of such a campaign, or are they in fact the targets of such a campaign? I believe the preponderance of evidence is that it is the latter. People who are guilty of the aforementioned "victim mentality" are people who whine and carry on about how victimized they are, and who use it as an excuse to do nothing. That is manisfestly not what the Bush Administration is doing, whatever you happen to think of Bush.

In fact, a better analogy in psychological terms would be that the Bush Administration is refusing to "enable" a press whose attitude is distortion and "gotcha" journalism. That's the opposite of a victim mentality.

I agree with Austin Bay in almost all of what he writes here, a careful and judicious analysis that does not let the administration off scot-free. Journalism now has some very serious credibility problems (see this) that are obvious to anyone who cares to look.

To Steve Lovelady: Vietnam can hardly be mentioned, even today, without bitter and probably fruitless argument and disagreement, but it's just a fact that it was the Democratic Congress that cut the funding and paved the way for the North Vietnamese takeover after Nixon had been ignominiously dispatched by his own participation in Watergate, and Gerald Ford was President. See this.

Posted by: neo-neocon at August 20, 2005 1:32 AM | Permalink

I'm curious, Jay, what you mean by "move the dialogue?" Do you mean that the comments so far are somewhat one-sided? I'm not just trying to be cute; I actually don't quite understand and would like some clarification. It seems to me the dialogue is moving along at quite a rapid clip. Is it only a "dialogue" if there's equal representation of both points of view in the comments?

Posted by: neo-neocon at August 20, 2005 1:40 AM | Permalink

In the hopes of moving the dialog forward...

Austin Bay wrote a detailed piece that, boiled down, claims the Administration refuses to cooperate with the major media (MSM, NYDCLA, etc.) because the media has proven itself to be antagonistic to Republican politicians. If the Bush Administration's belief is accurate, they would be foolish to cooperate with "the Media" because "the Media" would simply stab them in the back at every opportunity.

So, perhaps we should examine the thesis. Does "the Media" treat Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc. fairly, even though the role of watchdog requires skepticism and persistence? Or do they play a Gotcha game based on the Vietnam/Watergate template, with the objective of damaging the Administration (or prophit or ideology)?

A lot of folks here are probably fairly biased one way or the other, but is there a common ground we could use to answer the question? Does Bush have a valid reason for keeping the press at a distance?

Posted by: John Hawkins at August 20, 2005 3:48 AM | Permalink

Austin's "Kick Me" sign first:

Austin Bay is a military guy. He's familiar with the chain of command. He knows that Roger Ailes is a former Republican media strategist who now runs the news division of Fox. If he wants to compare someone with Ailes, he needs to come up with a former Democratic media strategist who runs a network or cable news operation. Russert and Stephanopolous are talking heads, not top executives. If Matthews at MSNBC looks liberal to Bay, he can take heart in Joe Scarborough.

Jay’s post quotes an unidentified Bush Administration minion who says:
We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality, judiciously, as you will, we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.
I think Jay includes this story for several reasons. The man’s arrogance is supposed to indict the administration, and to a degree it does. His demeanor reminds me of the snooty, brat presumptiveness of George Stephanopoulos during his stint at the Clinton White House. (And for that matter, his continued brat act at ABC.) If America is an empire it is an empire without precedent, which suggests the word is at best an inadequate description. America is a creative idea that defies geography, but I doubt this Bush minion understands that.
I also doubt our minion has ever served in the military; certainly he never served under fire. His are the words of a third-order actor.

I doubt our minion is actually a minion; he's probably one of the top ten White House officials. Bay is no doubt correct in thinking El Minion never served under fire because, well, almost no one in the White House has done. Surely Bay can't be firing the chickenhawk charge at the administration.

I'm cherrypicking here, and the reason I'm doing so is that there is no coherent theme to Bay's essay. If you boil it down, what you're left with is that the press are generally harder on Republican administrations than on Democratic ones, are always hard on the military and refuse to adopt and promulgate the strategic vision of, in this instance, the Bush administration, across generations.

The subtext seems to be that when an administration have as their goal the implementation of a grand strategy centered upon democratizing the Middle East, the press are obliged to articulate and market that strategy even if the administration neglect to do so and even if succeeding administrations have different tactics for achieving that goal or have different goals.

They should, in other words, make themselves part of a process in which the administration can say, "Look, we want to invade Iraq and pursue the greatest social engineering project in the history of the planet, but if we tell Americans and the rest of the world about it they won't let us, so would you mind playing along?"

And the funny thing, which gets lost in all the fulminating, is that for the most part the press did play along.

Neoconservatives are often and mostly inaccurately called Straussians, but Bay actually seems to be one — a Straussian, that is; I have no idea what his politics are — and wants the press to abandon its own sense of elitism in favor of the governing class's one.

Bay uses the Newsweek Koran story as an example of how the press misunderstand the nature of information in a global environment, but that story had nowhere near the impact of Abu Ghraib or Bush's reference to the "war on terror" as a crusade. He seems to either entirely miss the point that what the government say and do has considerably more impact on the world than what the press say and do, or to believe that the press should censor itself in reporting on government statements and actions that will redound to our country's detriment. The more practical approach would be for the government to avoid saying and doing those things.

Bay's is a lost cause. The press are not capable of making a committment to a particular ideology and realizing that commitment across administrations and years even if that were a wise thing to do. There's an advertisement for the Animal Planet cable channel that pretty well summarizes the press as an entity. It shows a goldfish swimming in a bowl with a voiceover saying, "Imagine a planet where your memory only lasts three seconds. [3-second pause] Imagine a planet where your memory only lasts three seconds."

That there is your national press.

And finally, Ronald Reagan didn't win the Cold War and the Euromissile crisis wasn't the last big battle of it: that would be Charlie Wilson and Afghanistan, respectively.

Posted by: weldon berger at August 20, 2005 4:31 AM | Permalink

Mr. Rosen is to be congratulated for opening up his blog to Mr. Austin, and to the the present debate. Thank you, Mr. Rosen.

Perhaps one thing Mr. Rosen has found "depressing," is how quickly this string has devolved into a discussion of the merits and probity of the present war. If so, I agree with Mr. Rosen. That is not the topic. The topic is whether the Bush administration is attempting to "rollback" and diminish the power of the press, and if so, whether that policy is justified:

"My questions for you. Do you think rollback has been happening to the press under Bush, 2001-05? Or is my description off? And if there is press rollback, is it a wise policy, a necessary one?"

My Answers:

1. In my own mind, there is no question that Bush is "rolling back" the press. I think it would be fair to say that Bush and his administration view the mainstream press as objectively hostile, objectively Pro-Democratic Party and objectively opposed to our war in Iraq.

Is Bush justified in his opinion? If he is, he would be justified in his attempt to rollback and diminish the power of the press, on the grounds that the press has forefited the right to its own legitimacy, by claiming to be non-partisan and non-ideological, while being partisan and ideological to the hilt.

At this point I fear that I am going to dissapoint and depress our cordial and genuinely liberal, as opposed to "liberal" host. I am willing to grant that this war might be ill-advised and that we might lose it. But that's as far as I can go. Speaking as a lifelong Liberal and Democrat who voted straight Republican in 2004 on a single issue, I am unaware of any evidence that suggests the MSM is making a good-faith effort to be non-idealogical and non-partisan.

If I want to read about Islamists and Islamist terrror organizations I have to read the right-wing press and blogs. If I want to read about indices of progress in Iraq, beyond the number of deaths, I have to read the right-wing press and blogs. If I want to read about military strategy, military tactics, military capabilities, I have to read the right-wing press and blogs.

With all of that said, I'm not convinced that we are going to win this war or that that this war was politic. I am utterly convinced, however, that the the MSM is partisan, ideological and dishonest to the core, and that the MSM hopes that we lose it.

Rollaway, President Bush.

Posted by: samuel stott at August 20, 2005 4:51 AM | Permalink

Shut down the comments? On a most interesting debate that is mostly on topic? (unusual for this many comments).

Well it is your show.

BTW Bush needs the press. He just doesn't need the Dinosaur Media. His press on the www is adequate. As the www grows it will become more than adequate.

Chrysler is putting more and more of its advertising $$$ on the www. Almost 20% this year. The writing is on the wall.

By 2008 the MSM will be dead. Its business model cannot handle a 50% drop in revenue.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 20, 2005 7:58 AM | Permalink

"And his contention al Quaeda was in Iraq prior to 9-11 proved as elusive ..."

As elusive as Google and the name Abdul Rahman Yasin. Give it a whirl. Then there are Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. There's also Abu Abbas, although he wasn't Al Qaeda. Saddam had a host of terrorists operating from Iraq, training in Iraq, and given safe harbor in Iraq.

"... the Sept. 11 Commission's report found no al Qaeda connection."

You're playing word games here. Just as the criminal running the safe house might well be "innocent" of planning the bank heists, Saddam Hussein harbored terrorists but had "no connection" to planning 9/11. Harboring terrorists is the issue, and you've chosen to ignore it in favor of playing games with semantics.

"If we were out to get the guys behind 9-11, why didn't we continue operations in Afghanistan?"

We're still in Afghanistan.

"The staff report said that bin Laden ..."

Al Qaeda is bigger than bin Laden, and bin Laden was not the only member of Al Qaeda to bomb the WTC. He was just the first to do it successfully.

Perhaps if Bin Laden were leader of a band of regional outlaws such as Pancho Villa an obsession with a single manhunt for a single individual would be appropriate. In the context of the Al Qaeda global terror network it would be dangerously myopic.

"You want to believe that Osama and Saddam planned world domination over coffee and pastries, feel free."

What I believe is that your grasp of the English language is insufficient for you to apprehend the difference between "planning" and "harboring". Until you gain the ability to distinguish between the two, meaningful communication between us is impossible.

Mr. Lovelady:

There is more than one crisis that could precipitate the nightmare scenario of a premature American withdrawal from Iraq. A Nixon-like President making a Watergate-level mistake is one such crisis. A pacifist President is another. These very different situations resolve to the same catastrophic end state. As for your "Fantasy Express" comments, they would apply to all attempts to project the future -- although you seem to have mistakenly interpreted a conjecture on the future as a reminiscence on the past.

Posted by: Vietnam Template at August 20, 2005 8:08 AM | Permalink

Jay -- The comments here are the same as the comments on any blog. A few people are making honest efforts to discuss some of the issues. Some others are not. The latter group always dominates the discussion because (A) they post frequently and (B) they're prone to ludicrous statements that tempt others to respond. That's especially difficult on sites that attract journalists -- inaccuracies cause us pain, and it's hard not to get sucked into a pointless discussion in which people will try to tell you things about yourself and your profession that simply aren't true.

That's because blogs and blog comments, to an extent, mirror the media. Venom draws attention; rational arguments in good faith do not. And the only points of view that draw attention are the extremists, those who consider it their sacred duty to defend their party no matter how much blood and idiocy is on their parties' hands.

That's why I find s.watson's comment so interesting. He raises the point that the media have decided that their role (and by the way, folks, "media" is a plural word -- the singular use only reinforces the myth that the media are one monolitic entity) is to be adversarial. There's a lot of truth to that. And didn't Karl Rove say something similar?

The history behind the adversarial relationship dates back at least to the days of McCarthy, who was a master at exploiting the news cycles of the day with well-timed press releases. Murrow changed the rules and asked more pointed questions. Since then, political spin doctors have grown ever more sophisticated. Many journalists have since succumbed to the temptation to believe that everything they're being fed is swill. They've shed healthy skepticism in favor of unabashed cynicism.

And yet, a lot of the adversarial relationship is itself a myth. It's a dog-and-pony show. It's a game of "gotcha," but in the end, it's just a game. As is the case with a lot of sports, it means more to the fans than it does to the participants. A lot of the rhetoric is just a show for the rest of us. If the Bush administration didn't care what reporters thought of them, they wouldn't have their operatives running around during a Bush-Kerry debate tossing rebuttals in reporters' laps and firing off instant messages and e-mails to them so that the reporters were overwhelmed. (Yes, the Kerry folks absolutely did the same thing.)

There is, of course, some substance beneath all of this. But the substance can't fill a 24-hour news cycle without devoting a lot of research to it. Talk is cheaper.

That's why Fox, CNN and MSNBC are the same garbage on three networks. If you honestly think Fox is somehow redeemed because it's some sort of right-wing counterweight (even though MSNBC has given platforms to every GOP fringe-dweller from Pat Buchanan to Alan Keyes to Joe Scarborough), watch all three at the same time as journalists these days unfortunately do. (Or take a more amusing approach and let Jon Stewart do it for you.) CNN is occasionally redeemed because it sometimes remembers that it, unlike Fox, has an actual news-gathering staff that is capable of impressive work such as their coverage of the papal transition. But without an intriguing event such as that, it's the same dreck as the others.

There are a number of journalists who still do honest, valuable work. It's just getting harder and harder for their voices to stand out, just as it's tougher for the people arguing in good faith to stand out in the typical comments thread of a blog.

What's the answer? Jay won't like this, but deep down, I think he knows I'm right.

Back off the supposedly "serious" news a bit. Give us something useful or fun -- preferably both. Newspapers aren't terrified of bloggers -- they're terrified of Craigslist and Yahoo's local guides.

Ramp up the health news. Do some colorful features that show different parts of the country as something other than red states and blue states. Get serious about technology coverage. Talk to your Vatican correspondents sometime when the Pope is NOT dying.

In other words, get out of Washington from time to time. The Nationals are falling out of the pennant race, D.C. United only has a handful of home games left this season and the Redskins are looking anemic, so you won't miss much.

Because the thought that we're somehow getting anything useful in all this blather over politics is itself a myth.

Posted by: Beau Dure at August 20, 2005 9:33 AM | Permalink

You are absolutely right. A Seal Team could have taken out Saddam (at the cost of the team).

But your impeccable logic fails in one important respect. What comes after Saddam in such a scenario? Democracy (however imperfect) in Iraq? Or a new gang of thugs with a continuous supply of oil money even more antagonistic to America and its pretention of supporting self government?

It is possible that taking out Saddam would give self government a chance? What are the odds? 100 to 1? 1,000 to 1? 1,000,000 to 1?

==========================================

We on the right/center-right know David Duke supports Cindy. We even know why. Why isn't the Dinosaur Media all over this story? Taints the hope that Cindy will be the core of a new anti-war movement (as my local paper REPORTED in the headlines of a NEWS story)?

You will note that the Pres. has credentialed bloggers (different ones at different times) as part of the White House Press Corps. Which seems to be very annoying to the Dinosaur Media press corps.

Helen Thomas is dead. The reason we haven't heard this is that the obits haven't been written yet in the Dinosaur Media.

=================================

Did I mention I'm a U Chicago alum? Never heard of Strauss before the war. Did I mention I have a son at UC? Well I guess the infection runs in the family. :-)

Posted by: M. Simon at August 20, 2005 10:21 AM | Permalink

Beau,

OK the media is adversarial. What is the adversarial position on wind mills? NIMBY?

Adversarial in my opinion is a weak model. It turns all news into horse race stories (is that why some of the best writing these days is found on the sports pages?).

But I do agree with your major point. And I have articulated it. We need better questions. And reporters who can accurately transcribe the answers. I particularly like the e-mail interview in that regard. In addition I like to let the people I report on see the final copy. It reduces errors of fact and emphasis.

In many respects a training in debate or law is very helpful. (notice how many of the top bloggers are lawyers?) The reason for this is that you get practice in arguing both sides of a question. That in itself reduces insularity. It also helps increase clarity.

Today I'd have to say that insularity is the #1 problem of Dinosaur Media. They have the idea that there is one correct answer and they know what it is. Scepticism of both sides of an argument would serve the press much better than what we see - scepticism of one side and support for the other. (of course that is a generalisation, but a fair one if you look at the public scepticism towards the press or the rise of FOX)

Posted by: M. Simon at August 20, 2005 11:17 AM | Permalink

M. Simon -- Interesting points. And yes, actually, the adversarial position on windmills probably would be NIMBYs. There's a development project near my home that is being covered in a simple "developer vs. NIMBY" frame, when it's really much more complicated than that.

I think lawyers make popular bloggers because they're persuasive, not because they have special insight. Others could probably find good counterexamples, but from what I've seen, lawyer-bloggers are simply arguing one side, just as they're paid to do in court. I frankly find Powerline far more insular than the journalists I know and read. (To be fair, I don't read most op-ed columnists, and I don't listen to TV pundits. I'd imagine they're all pretty much the same.)

(BTW, my wife is a lawyer, so no bias accusations, please!)

I also disagree with the David Duke note. There are some reprehensible people in this country, and they're bound to support somebody. A lot of racists vote Republican even though today's Republicans are decidedly not racist themselves, as a quick look at Bush's Cabinet shows. I'm sure you'll see some lefty bloggers dig up some racist endorsements for GOP candidates, and it's just as irrelevant when they do it -- unless the candidates embrace that support, of course.

But I don't mean to dismiss your main point -- journalists need to be able to see the other side of the argument and be equally skeptical of both -- actually, ALL -- sides. I'm happy to see someone else believes this is possible.

And frankly, I think the MSM have shown more capacity to do this than most bloggers. I cringe a little at some of the features I see and hear in which a reporter goes to an unfamiliar (to them) destination and reports as if he or she has just discovered a new tribe in the Serengeti. But they're making the effort. I've seen time and time again that when journalists and their supposed enemies actually meet in a forum other than an online discussion, they understand each other a bit better. That's all the more reason we should all be spending more time in our local communities and a little less time playing national-politics "gotcha" in the blogosphere.

You're not going to see any attempts to forge understandings on typical cable news shows. Fox is popular because Fox figured out that cable news isn't really "news" -- it's entertainment. They didn't need to invest in reporters. They needed some people who could fire off zingers in the course of pointless discussions that reinforced everyone's stereotypes of each other, thereby making them more comfortable. They actually took the worst parts of CNN's coverage and blew them up large.

As entertainment, it's not really fair to say Fox has blown away the competition. Sure, they're beating CNN. But they're getting crushed by Family Guy, let alone American Idol.

Meanwhile, NPR -- with little fanfare -- now claims its weekly listenership has grown from 11.5 million in 1994 to nearly 22 million in 2004 (taken from an NPR press release announcing that it was raising the budgets for its news coverage). In an era of media proliferation, in which we have hundreds of choices, that's amazing.

I do think NPR trends leftward. It appeals to an academic audience, and academics of all political stripes aren't likely to agree with some of the current GOP thought on evolution, the environment, etc. But I don't think its audience is looking for comfortable reinforcement of stereotypes. According to the latest "State of the News Media" report, one-quarter of NPR's listeners identify themselves as Republican and less than half claim "Democrat" (24% GOP, 41% Dem). The people I know who listen to NPR -- of all persuasions -- simply want to be informed. It can't be for entertainment purposes -- I don't know about you, but I find a lot of NPR programming as tedious as the yard work I'm currently ignoring.

So again, I don't think tens of millions of people are looking for right-wing alternatives. Fox grabbed the largest slice of a small pie -- those of us who are cranky enough to watch news-based entertainment in prime time instead of something else. (And imagine how much smaller that would be if we weren't at war at the moment. We'd need to impeach someone or put a celebrity on trial just to feed the monster.) They're looking for alternatives for all sorts of reasons, "bias" being just one and not necessarily the biggest.

Posted by: Beau Dure at August 20, 2005 12:12 PM | Permalink

Austinn writes
"Why give such a biased, and myopic bunch a break?

Here’s a good reason: America must win the War On Terror, and the poisoned White House—national press relationship harms that effort. ... A key strategic issue for the current White House ...will be its success or failure in getting subsequent administrations to sustain the political and economic development policies that truly winning the War On Terror will entail."

All the more reason *not* to give them a break - at least until they've earned one.

So long as members of the NYDCLA press are following the Vietnam template they are working for US defeat. (Pauses and waits for howling and screeching to die down.) They don't intend it to be so, they don't want it to be so, yet it's inevitable. How can you *not* help the enemy when you follow these rules?

"Rule One: Presume the U.S. government is lying—especially when the president is a Republican. Rule Two: Presume the worst about the U.S. military—even when the president is a Democrat. Rule Three: Allegations by “Third World victims” are presumptively true, while U.S. statements are met with arrogant contempt."

The last time this template was followed lost a war. Is there any reason to expect the effect to be different now?

If information and public diplomacy are as immportant as I and everyone else here seems to think, then one of the most critically dire issues facing our nation and society is changing the "Vietnam template" attitude. But people don't like changing their attitudes, and it can be difficult to motivate them to do so.

Having it made abundantly clear that you are *not* indispensible can be a powerful motivating force.

Posted by: ralph phelan at August 20, 2005 12:24 PM | Permalink

For decades the press demanded accountability from government, and envisioned itself as a watchdog of the powerful. Those are noble goals, but what the press failed to realize is that it had become the monster it believed it was hunting. It had little if any accountability for its own work, and it wielded an ENORMOUS amount of power while doing it. Well, we all know what absolute power does, right?

Could the Bush administration have handled things better on there end? Perhaps. Sure. In an imperfect world, things could always be improved.

But the record of these last few decades, and of the last 5 years in particular, shows that the press is the one needing to reform its ways. I cannot blame the White House for not engaging with the press when every, single freaking thing ends up twisted, distorted or outright ignored if does not fit into the press' worldview.

The press is never happy. It complained about the lack of information and battlefield access prior to OIF, but when they were allowed to embed and actually be there, they still were upset because too many reporters were identifying with the troops. It was all a Pentagon ploy to seduce the media. Oh, and when they started getting killed, it wasn't because there was a war on, but because the US military wanted them dead.

The majority of the press is equivalent to a banana republic. It deserves not respect until it reforms itself.

Maybe when I see Krugman fired, or at least corrected daily to the point he quits, or when Dowd is bounced to the Enquirer, or the war in Iraq covered as more than a body and bomb count, I'll think they are making progress. Until then, what really can the President do with a group that is so vicious, partisan and contemptful? Austin or Jay, I'd love to hear how that is supposed to work. I agree that the WOT needs a combined effort, but with a press-corp that can't even agree who the enemy is, or who qualifies as a terrorist, you have got your work cut out for you.

BTW, I work in the media, at a large network. I see some of this crap on the part of the press first hand, so don't tell me I am exaggerating.

Posted by: Captain Wrath at August 20, 2005 1:23 PM | Permalink

"BTW Bush needs the press. He just doesn't need the Dinosaur Media. His press on the www is adequate. As the www grows it will become more than adequate.
Chrysler is putting more and more of its advertising $$$ on the www. Almost 20% this year. The writing is on the wall.
By 2008 the MSM will be dead. Its business model cannot handle a 50% drop in revenue."
-- M. Simon

You underestimate the business-side execs who run the MSM, my friend. The smartest of them are moving to co-opt www already. Chrysler (speaking of dinosaurs) won't be putting those ad dollars on PowerLine, or PressThink, or Josh Marshall.
They'll be putting them into the online versions of the top 20 newspapers and/or networks in the country.
Sulzberger, who runs the business of the NY Times, has said for some time now that he is "an agnostic as to platform." He cares not a whit whether the NY Times is a print phenomenon or an online phenomenon. He just wants it to be a phenomenon. That's why he's realigning the place so that the foreign editor of the newspaper is also the foreign editor of the website, and so with the national editor, the business editor, the culture editor, et. al. That's why he just acquired About.com. (for a grossly inflated price). That's why the Wall Street Journal just acquired MarketWatch (for a grossly inflated price).
Publishers have finally figured out that Yahoo and Google are the # 1 news sites on the web because they aggregate newspapers and networks, (not because they aggregate blogs.)
No newspapers and networks, no aggregation.
It will be fun to watch it play out. But I suspect it won't be www dominating over MSM. I suspect it will be a large chunk of www swallowed up by MSM.
(And I'm not saying that is a good thing; in truth, I suspect it is not a good thing. The future seldom is.)
BTW -- you and I have something in common. We both spent time at the U. of Chicago and in Vietnam. If you held a reunion of folks with that distinction, you could probably fill a table of eight. LOL.
Odd that both experiences led to the two of us to diametrically-opposed conclusions. But that's life. It is, as Larry McMurtry said, "a funny ol' thing."

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at August 20, 2005 1:29 PM | Permalink

Captain Wrath:
You state "what really can the President do with a group that is so vicious, partisan and contemptful?" Then you add, "BTW, I work in the media, at a large network. I see some of this crap on the part of the press first hand..."
Well, come on, man -- if you work there in any other capacity than janitor, surely you can raise some objections as you watch the process unfold in front of your eyes.
Get up on your hind legs and bark !
Or change professions, and go into shoe sales, or pumping gas, where you won't have to be complicit in a process you deplore.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at August 20, 2005 1:46 PM | Permalink

What no one wants to confront here is the fact that it is no longer possible to have a "national media". It may have been possible back in the Walter Cronkite days when we only had three networks and they all copied from the Times-Democrat, but not today.

This is the reason the public overwhelmingly supports their local media, but hates the national media. Our local media knows us and reports what concerns us; the national media reports----what? Mostly an East Coast Liberal Elite agenda, in my view. What have you read in the national media lately, that had any useful information for you personally? The national press, in my view, let us down in their reporting of both the 2004 election and Iraq. Notice how reporters feel they are doing a better job informing us about Iraq from their hotel rooms than from being embedded with the military. We're supposed to believe that the fear they feel will not color their coverage. OTOH, they could go the Eason Jordan route and bend over for terrorists in exchange for "access."

We live in a country that will not accept any one idea of "truth" or "fact". Frankly, I don't care----we need more POVs in the press, not less. Let a thousand POVs bloom!

All that aside, the Bush Administration has done a terrible job of explaining their actions. It's really pathetic when terrorists and extremist anti-war factions gain more coverage/sympathy in the press than the government. It's just wrong, and the Bushies need to do something about it.

Posted by: kilgore trout at August 20, 2005 1:53 PM | Permalink

Gabriel Chapman's view (at 01:06pm) is right on the money, as far as it goes.

For decades, Republicans have had virtually no outlet to promote their story, or to get anything resembling balance in their treatment by a press corp that has too often sucked up to Democrats like Ted Kennedy, who simply had with no other discernable intent than to demagogue about issues, or to engage in personal destruction.

Our retorts, though, had to be largly amongst ourselves.

As thorough as we might be on any issue, we were simply dismissed as irrelevant or controversial.

Today, my sense is that it is not as bad, but it is still very heavily canted. My own view is that with the collapse of Communism, people seriously began to question the prevailing liberal view of the question, "Where are we headed?"

On the national level, Republicans now recognize that there is another effective outlet for their views . . . through weblogs, and on-line publications. And we rightly feel energized that these efforts, and our legitimate viewpoints, are getting to a receptive audience.

The predominence of hate speech and vitrol in so many of the left-leaning blogs, is yet another sign that we are having an effect.

And other forms of frustration over election returns on the far left, are signs of positive movement.

Not only that, we feel can take on the "establishment" media, and especially where it miserably falls down, we can win. The old saw that "you never take on anyone who buys ink by the barrel," no longer has the sting it once had.

We also know that news circulations are down, bigtime. Newspapers are struggling with how to respond. I wonder what the demographics of the decline show?

So, maybe it will prove to be short-sighted in the long term -- but why should Republicans and conservatives be so eager for an accomodation with an institution that they feel has belittled and shortchanged them for so long?

Why shouldn't we see an accomodation as a come-on, or a sucker bet?

Why shouldn't we instead say, "We're from Missouri -- show us."

Posted by: Steve Robbins at August 20, 2005 2:46 PM | Permalink

I read very widely across the blogosphere.
The mainsteam media needs to start noticing they have a problem. I have to say 100% of those who support both the war on terror and the Iraq war believe the MSM wants America to lose. I like Charles Johnson's point: "Suppose Western media really was deliberately trying to subvert democracy and aid terrorism. How would the coverage differ?"

Posted by: Kay in CA at August 20, 2005 3:04 PM | Permalink

I'm always at a loss to understand conservative complaints about media bias. Much of it seems to be based on the failure of, say, the NY Times to sufficiently contribute to the war effort, as if a major newspaper has a patriotic duty to advance what the administration has defined as America's mission in the world. I don't believe this is true, and if Austin thinks the press was easier on Clinton (which it seems he implicitly does), he shows a breathtaking historical amnesia.

For years, we were numbed with front-page stories about blow jobs and constant blasts from Ken Starr's ultimately worthless investigation into long-ago crimes that turned out not to exist. After that, the media conservatives so decry (including Maureen Dowd) spent almost two years assassinating Al Gore's character by reporting over and over again things he never said in order to fit a narrative of Gore as a "serial exaggerater" (He never claimed to have invented the Internet, folks, not even close).

More recently, there was the press' failure to push for evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs or even to compare the administration's public statements (about nuclear bombs and mushroom clouds, for example, which NOBODY at CIA or the UN believed Iraq was remotely close to actually possessing) with what evidence was already in the public record. The fact that the United States went to war for reasons that turned out to be false is a very serious thing, and the fact that the press, including the hated NY Times, published many articles based on false information that sped the rush to war is a massive failure of journalism's most basic responsibility and belies all accusations of some deep-seated bias.

The press has many problems, and I don't think the general tone of gotcha! journalism practiced against all administrations serves the public very well; but the root of conservative complaints rests exclusively in the failure of most media outlets to parrot their own assumptions and beliefs about the world and thus to aid a specific ideological agenda. Many posts, including Austin's, more or less explicitly say this much. It is not the role of the press to help out in the War on Terror or any other war, no matter how necessary or justified that war is. Contributing to the war effort is the responsibility of citizens, not journalists, and the media should be judged on the factual accuracy of the stories they break not on how much they agree with what you already think. There are enough factual errors (see Dan Rather, WMD, etc.) to keep the axes grinding on both left and right, but getting hysterical about bias only makes the work of democracy, which is based on rational discussion, more difficult.

Posted by: pedler at August 20, 2005 3:19 PM | Permalink

Simple. They show that young people don't read newspapers. Whatever news they get, they get off the Internet. Also noteworthy -- there are some issues (the environment, globalization) that energize some young people that get little play in newspapers or on cable TV. Also also noteworthy -- newspaper Web sites are managing to get some, but not all, of the younger audience. Add in the newspaper-produced stories that are replicated on Yahoo, and that audience is a bit bigger. But probably not quite as big as newspapers would prefer.

Newspaper circulation has been declining for decades. Radio siphoned off part of the audience. Then TV. Then cable TV. Now the Internet. Add in the fact that people are less and less involved in their local communities, and you see the problem. Politics have little to do with it. The vitriol against the media has risen with the advent of blogging coinciding with a divisive war, but at the same time, war is good for circulation and ratings. (In case you wondered about institutional biases and why supposedly left-leaning news outlets might be inclined to sound the drumbeat.)

In fact, the news audience has been choosing its news outlet for at least a couple of decades, again before the advent of the Internet. In 1994, polls showed a substantial portion of voters were getting their "news" from talk radio. Polls also showed voters believed the country was still in recession, which was not at all true -- the Fed was already hitting the brakes.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Posted by: Beau Dure at August 20, 2005 4:28 PM | Permalink

If Hell is the impossibility of reason, then this thread is Hell.

This isn't a a discussion. This is a putsch. And I don't want to talk to these morons -- I want to take them out in the parking lot and settle things the old fashioned way. Great Gawd -- what color is the SKY in your world?

The stereotype says that press people are arrogant jerks, but our Jerk All-Star team would be strictly J.V. compared to this crowd.

Posted by: Daniel Conover at August 20, 2005 4:42 PM | Permalink

Pedler (03:19) asserts:

". . . the root of conservative complaints rests exclusively in the failure of most media outlets to parrot their own assumptions and beliefs about the world and thus to aid a specific ideological agenda."

This is not correct, though it is obviously Pedler's perception. The basis of many conservatives' complaints is that their ideas and their proposals are very frequently misrepresented, given very short shrift, or are completely ignored by a press or other media. Thus, they are convinced they cannot fairly compete in a struggle of ideas, when those ideas are not being fairly presented by a press that they know is largly populated by reporters who, in poll after poll, identify themselves as liberals. I hasten to add that this does not suggest that conservatives want a "litmus test" or "quotas" for reporters! And many, many reporters successfully detach their own thoughts or ideas from what they are reporting on.

By and large, conservatives want nothing more than a fair shot at engaging in what Pedler seems to hold out as the ideal, to wit:

. . . the work of democracy, which is based on rational discussion . . .

Conservatives feel that if they get that shot, they'll win on the merits of their ideas. Bias in the media is exactly what prevents that from happening, because it masks one side.

For example, Pedler concedes, perhaps even attributes "factual error" to Dan Rather concerning the phoney Bush Guard Memos. He is right. But any fair reading of the New York Times stories following that incident, or even reactions by Columbia University School of Journalism, reveal an unmistakable level of bias, and constituted an unwillingness to face the facts, or to carefully explore the issue to the benefit of their readers.

Of course, the evidence in that case was so overwhelming that Viacom's own "investigation team" came back with enough to turn the tide. But even they refused to accept the findings of their own (and only) document examiner, who concluded the documents were indeed fakes.

How was that not bias?

Posted by: Steve Robbins at August 20, 2005 5:20 PM | Permalink

"in what sense is a weakened, discredited, co-opted, or truth-starved press in the strategic interests of the United States?"

None whatsoever.

Which is why I wish the press would stop allowing itself to be coopted - whether it's Eason Jordan allowing himmself to be coopted by Saddam Hussein or the Washington press corps allowing themselves to be coopted by their anonymous sources. "Access journalism" is by definition coopted journalism.

And which is why I wish they'd stop starving themselves and their readers of the truth - don't just report that the Democrats say "It's raining," and the Republicans say "It's sunny." Actually do a little *research* for a change and tell us which one (if either) is making statements that are in accord with objective reality (aka "the truth.")

Which is why I wish they didn't weaken and discredit themselves by doing things like using obviously forged memos from an obviously untrustworthy source to take an obviously politically cheap shot at a candidate for President, while tossing his opponent nothing but softballs.

I'd really like to see a national press I could trust - one that I could read their stories without the rational expectation that I would be double spun (once by the reporter's bias, again by the spin the anonymous source is applying to the reporter) double misinformed (first by laziness and sloppy research, then by omission of inconvenient facts) and generally fed a "template" story that has nothing to do with reality, but is takes far less work than real reporting.

The Washington press doesn't want to be discredited? They could try earning a little credit for a change.

Posted by: ralph phelan at August 20, 2005 5:29 PM | Permalink

The Republicans/conservatives can't get a break in the media,we're told. No one listens or reports conservative views. The media don't support the adminstration's war goals.

Sweet Mother of God, where the hell have you people been?

If the media locks out Republican thought, how in hell did the GOP win the House in the mid-'90s, start the Gingrich Revolution, take over both Legislative houses and a significant number of governors and elect George Bush twice?

We have spent much time and typing energy in particular blog discussing the questionable merits of media bias. I see no real reason to continue a discussion that begins, "All reporters are leftist and hate Bush." It just ain't so. And all the heartfelt whining from the right doesn't make it so.

Mr. Bay posits that the media are insufficiently behind Bush's agenda, particularly the war in Iraq and that he shojuld 'roll forward' with the media to get them onboard.

But the authority to send American kids to war is an awesome power and one, I hope, we pray a president doesn't invoke without thoughtful consideration.

I'm still looking for an answer to my earlier question: If the media, in whatever form, doesn't hold the president - this or any president - accountable on wars started and the goals accomplished, who will?

Are we as a people simply supposed to let government send our kids to war and hope it comes out OK? How do people know what's going on.

If you want to answer by giving some variation on the theme that the media are liberal syncophants who hate the military, conservatives and God in roughly that order, I'll gladly concede that you don't know your ass from an I-beam about the American news media.

Posted by: Dave McLemore at August 20, 2005 5:49 PM | Permalink

Not counting election losses, indictments or near indictments (Torch), can anyone name one democratic politician, at the federal level, who has been forced from office or decided not to run for re-election, because of continuous negative coverage by the NYDCLA? (Time frame since Wilbur Mills/Fanny Foxxe.)

Now answer the same question about republican politicians.

Is there any disparity?

Posted by: Rich at August 20, 2005 5:53 PM | Permalink

"The press are not capable of making a committment to a particular ideology and realizing that commitment across administrations and years even if that were a wise thing to do."

This is an incredibly naive (or disingenuous) statement.

Posted by: antimedia at August 20, 2005 6:28 PM | Permalink

Steve Lovelady writes

You mean like Michael Yost did? Only to be met with your snide, gloating declaration that he would and should be out of a job by the next day? And comments from his co-workers that they were embarrassed to be associated with him?

You mean that kind of barking?

ISTM if the media wants objective criticism a prerequisite would be the acceptance (or at least careful consideration) of opposing views rather than ridicule and opprobrium.

But then you already know this since you're in the media criticism business, right? (And yes, I am being distastefully sardonic.)

Posted by: antimedia at August 20, 2005 6:40 PM | Permalink

Dave McLemore writes

When you falsely frame the debate, it's not possible to respond directly to your claims.

No one has ever said the media "locks out Republican thought". You said that. The media consistently frames Republican thought differently than they do Democratic thought.

No one has ever said "all reporters are leftists and hate Bush". You said that. The media has a clear bias which can be empirically demonstrated. If you can't see that, the problem isn't reality. It's your perception of it.

Asked and answered. The American voters have and will continue to do so.

It is not the job of the media to be adversaries to the government or to anyone else for that matter. It is the job of the media to report, to provide accurate information, to inform the public.

It is the job of the people to interpret that information and decide how to vote based upon their interpretation.

The biggest mistake the media has made is raising an entire generation of "journalists" to believe that their job was to be an adversary - to opppose those about whom they are supposed to report. By definition if one is opposed to another, one cannot be objective about the opponent.

If journalism would take a more scientific approach to reporting - investigate, dig for the facts and present those facts without interpretation and don't leave out facts, even if they seem to refute other facts, then the public would embrace journalism with open arms.

Posted by: antimedia at August 20, 2005 7:19 PM | Permalink

You raise a good and valid point, Kilgore. The media, particularly the print side, hasn't caught on to the rapidity of change.

I'm in favor of more voices as well. I just fear that too much is drowned out in the chatter. And that the speed of reporting outstrips our understanding and analysis (I mean 'our' as in all of us.)

News gathering/reporting is clearly in transition, but what it is transitioning too? More information? Or more noise?

antimedia: yes, people do so make grotesque generalizations about the media. If you haven't seen them, even in this thread, you haven't been paying attention.

Well, of course the people make the decisions. And the people hold government accountable. And they do so, with great extent, with the assistance of the news media.

I still hold to the old-school belief that we stand-in for the public. Their eyes and ears in the courthouse, City Hall and elsewhere.

There are clearly more venues for information, not all of them with the peoples' interest in mind. In that case, more voices just means more noise.

How do the people know on what to hold government acccountable? Osmosis?

Posted by: Dave McLemore at August 20, 2005 7:55 PM | Permalink

antimedia:
I would take defenders of Mark Yost ("Mark," by the way, not "Michael") a lot more seriously if Yost himself would ever, even once, step up and defend himself.
The first time that boy felt any heat, he dived under a rock faster than anyone I've ever seen. And hasn't been heard from since.
I'd say to him -- if I could find him --the same thing I said to our timid network employee who piped up here under the safety of a self-selected faux-macho identity:
For Christ's sake, man, stand up on your hind legs and bark !
Join the debate, engage the opposition; don't disappear like early-morning fog struck by sunlight; and don't put a towel over your head (or name) before you step up to the plate.
We've had quite enough of tough-talking patriots swathed in anonymity. Do you guys show up at community hearings wearing Hallo'ween masks and using voice-distortion technology?
Kilgore Trout ... Trained Auditor ... neo-neocon ...antimedia ... enough already! Is this junior high ?
Put your money where your mouth is.
Then we can begin.
Until then, it's all posturing.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at August 20, 2005 8:08 PM | Permalink

Dave McLemore asks:

"Are we as a people simply supposed to let government send our kids to war and hope it comes out OK? How do people know what's going on?"

That's a big problem for me, given my total mistrust of the MSM. I'm sure the Bush administration screws up, but I how can I trust negative stories about them from anyone who still respects Dan Rather? I agree that Bush is using the national press's self inflicted loss of credibility as an opportunity to avoid being questioned. This is understandable but unfortunate.

I check anything I read from you guys that I care about, and I get my news from a combo of Google, Instapundit, Reason, Powerline and Kos. Nothing is treated as true until confirmed, but at least I don't have to worry about important events just going unmentioned (I have friends who get their news from the MSM who still haven't of the UN oil-for-food scandal).

What I'd like to see Bush do is the equivalent of this - rather than freezing out the admittedly useless press gaggle, try inviting a wide enough variety of people to make it worthwhile again. I want bloggers, Reason, the Nation, more bloggers, representatives from NARAL and the NRA, yet more bloggers, the Daily Show, tourists and random citizens off the street - heck, even bring back Jeff Gannon;-)

One of the most frustrating things about watching the gaggle in action is the sameness and pointlessness of the questions - a hundred variations of "Is Rove goiing to resign over the Plame affair?", all of which elicit a perfectly predictable "no comment." I want people in there who don't care about the "official question of the day" and will instead ask about parks policy, bottom-level federal judge appointments, the new assistant secretary of transportation, and all the other unglamorous but important stuff that watchdogs of the government *should* be keeping their eyes on.

Posted by: ralph phelan at August 20, 2005 8:12 PM | Permalink

"I have to say 100% of those who support both the war on terror and the Iraq war believe the MSM wants America to lose."

Posted by: Kay in CA at August 20, 2005 03:04 PM

Kay -- First, let's dispense with the bogus phrase, "the war on terror." That's a slogan designed by image makers to create national unity. Terror is not a country; it's not even a group; terror is a tactic, employed by disparate groups worldwide, ranging from tribal warriors in Iraq, to both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to interrogators of prisoners in Venezuela, to tinpot dictators in Africa.
But, as a slogan, "war on terror" has it's uses; for one thing, in terms of world PR, it sounds a hell of a lot better than "war on revolutionaries" or "war on fundamentalist Islamic nutcases who have gone completely around the bend."
That aside, do you seriously think anyone in the ill-defined and misidentified "MSM" wants Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda to prevail over the forces of civilization ?
If so -- and it's a huge "if" -- what possible rationale could that theoretical person be operating on ?
"I really like seeing skyscrapers containing 3,000 of my friends and neighbors be reduced to rubble?"
"I'm tired of living, and making a living, in a country that gave me a chance to be the best that I could be?"
"What I'd really like is to live in a tent in a godforsaken dustbowl governed by murderous fanatics?"
I'm not kidding here.
I'd really like to know what makes you think any American journalist hopes we "lose" against the forces of darkness ?
And I'd really like to know what you think motivates such a benighted soul, if there is one ?
After all, something motivates everyone.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at August 20, 2005 9:09 PM | Permalink

How do the people know on what to hold government acccountable? Osmosis?Two responses. First, if you mean what you say about eyes and ears, then I agree completely. The problem is, the media, somewhere along the line, also decided to be the filter for the people, and that was wrong and had disasterous consquences for both the media and the people.

Second, have more faith in the people. We're not all so dumb that we need interpreters.

Posted by: antimedia at August 20, 2005 10:14 PM | Permalink

We've had quite enough of tough-talking patriots swathed in anonymity. Do you guys show up at community hearings wearing Hallo'ween masks and using voice-distortion technology?
Kilgore Trout ... Trained Auditor ... neo-neocon ...antimedia ... enough already! Is this junior high ?
Put your money where your mouth is.
Then we can begin.
Until then, it's all posturing.

I can't speak for the others, but I use a nom de plume for one reason - I think the ideas are what matter, not the personality of the one presenting them. We have far too many personalities in this country already - many with very little of worth to say. I'm not interested in fame and fortune, and you won't ever see me on TV being interviewed as an expert.

If you can't address my ideas, anonymous or not, then that's your problem, not mine.

Posted by: antimedia at August 20, 2005 10:22 PM | Permalink

Steve Lovelady asks

That aside, do you seriously think anyone in the ill-defined and misidentified "MSM" wants Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda to prevail over the forces of civilization ?

That isn't the question, is it Steve? The real question is, does anyone in the media want the "insurgents" to prevail in Iraq. The answer to that is, it certainly appears that way.

As to motivations, they're probably as varied as the people having those desires.

I seriously believe there are some in the media who don't see al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden as a threat to America and are totally convinced that, if we would just leave the poor Muslims alone, our problems would be solved.

Do you seriously believe there isn't anyone in the media that thinks that way? (Before you answer, recall Peter Arnett, for one.)

About Yost - Michael, Mark, whatever. The point remains the same. Why should he, or anyone like him, "come out" when people like you are salivating to see him fired and working at Walmart?

Posted by: antimedia at August 20, 2005 10:30 PM | Permalink

Lovelady sas:

The Fantasy Express is also a place where the president of the United States didn't abandon the search for bin Laden in favor of attacking a straw man

McElmore says:

If we were out to get the guys behind 9-11, why didn't we continue operations in Afghanistan?

You two need to do some browsing.

Posted by: Jeff Hartley at August 20, 2005 11:37 PM | Permalink

Steve Lovelady, you write: "We've had quite enough of tough-talking patriots swathed in anonymity.... Put your money where your mouth is.
Then we can begin. Until then, it's all posturing." Have you? (And who is this "we"?)

That's pretty tough talk, but I guess you're entitled, having left your real name and all. It makes your opinion that much more valuable than the rest. I'd leave my own name, but since I don't want anyone to take me seriously lest they be bothered by anything I write, I'll remain nameless. Keep up the good work over there at the CJR, and give my regards to Victor.

Posted by: Nameless at August 20, 2005 11:42 PM | Permalink

If the media, in whatever form, doesn't hold the president - this or any president - accountable on wars started and the goals accomplished, who will?

This was already answered by someone else. Perhaps you havn't read it yet. Answer: The People. The people have alreay decided this president has no significant infractions to be held accountable for. It's called an Election.

We don't need the press to tell us what to think -not anymore. It's a new day. Get used to it

Posted by: Jeff Hartley at August 21, 2005 12:23 AM | Permalink

Are we as a people simply supposed to let government send our kids to war and hope it comes out OK? How do people know what's going on?

As noted above by another commenter, we know what's going on because we visit Conservative Media sites and Blogs. We turn to these sources, not because we want to get our news from a source we identify with ideologically. No, we do so because the full story is simply not available in MSM.

Posted by: Jeff Hartley at August 21, 2005 12:56 AM | Permalink

According to globalsecurity.org and news reports, there are about 20,000 U.S. forces now deployed in Afghanistan. That's down from 60,000 before the Iraq invasion.

Meanwhile, intelligence suggests Osama leading al Qaeda from the Afghan badlands near Pakistan. The Taliban is showing a resurgence, killing civilians and GIs. And the opium fields are in full blossom again.

Among 'other tasks' assigned for U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan: drug interdiction, per orders of Rumsfeld.

How much more you want me to browse, Jeff?

If we're going after al Qaeda, then why aren't we concentrating forces where the terrorist leadership is?

Posted by: Dave McLemore at August 21, 2005 1:25 AM | Permalink

Speaking of the resurgence of the opium fields.

The press is openly critical of American War Policy.

It is almost totally silent on the merits of prohibition despite the fact that the results of this prohibition look a lot like the results of the last one: gangs, police corruption, etc.

I don't get it. Can any one explain the silence?

It seems like all the government needs to do is to put a few kilos of dope on a table and the press loses its critical thinking ability.

It can't be for a lack of same. They are critical of Bush's policies every day on many other issues. Some one above said the job of the press is to be adversarial. When it comes to drug prohibition, I don't see it.

Any theories why?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 21, 2005 8:48 AM | Permalink

Well, the thread degenerated again into differing perceptions of reality.

A lot of the bias hounds need to realize something -- while there are legitimate concerns about the lack of perspective in today's media (for an essential rundown, look up Andrew Cline's primer on bias at Rhetorica), some of the conspiracy theories dredged up here simply are. not. true.

What's most frustrating for journalists is when outright lies are spread about the business as a whole -- not just rash generalizations, but lies. It's like arguing with me about the color of the carpet in my basement. You can scream at me and tell me it's blue until you're blue in the face. I know, quite definitively, that it's not. That's why I'm not answering antimedia, Vietnam template and some of the other people who've bought into a pack of lies. They're not worth the effort -- I'll never convince them my basement carpet is actually some sort of beige. I've responded to people like m.simon who've raised legitimate points and interesting discussion topics.

To answer the questions on government accountability vs. voter accountability -- no, you don't need journalists telling you what to **think**, which is why I'm surprised so many of the people in here dwell on the op-ed pages. (Krugman? What does he have to do with anything?) But unless you happen to have time to read every paper the government produces AND discuss it with specialist lawyers, people with detailed military knowledge (detailed -- not just anyone who can tell the difference between a couple of guns) and a lot of people who'll be affected, you need to read some news coverage.

(I'll toss out a quick hypothetical -- some folks appear to think it's unpatriotic to question a president's war effort. Was it unpatriotic when images of dead soldiers in Somalia -- the inspiration for the movie Blackhawk Down, which itself was taken from a Philly Inquirer series -- ratcheted up the pressure on Clinton?)

By all means, get more than one source, or do as Ralph Phelan advises above and check it out. (FWIW, Ralph, I guarantee you there are a lot of people in the MSM -- me included -- who don't respect Rather and haven't for about 20 years. I admire your approach, but you've fallen for a stereotype on the Rather worship.) You CAN get the other sources. In addition to the NYT, read about it in the Wall Street Journal -- which, despite its edit page, isn't really "conservative" as an institution but still offers a different perspective. Read opinion magazines. Go to the BBC's Web site, which a lot of Americans happen to do. Read some Web site from someplace you never heard of. Read The Economist. Find some reputable bloggers who haven't been blinded by partisan loyalties (that rules out the big guns like Kos, Instapundit, Powerline, etc.) You actually have a fair amount of choice even before this supposed upcoming revolution in which half of the journalists who voted Kerry are magically replaced by thousands of Bush voters who desired the low pay and general frustration of a journalism job all along but were denied by some sort of sinister conspiracy.

And you had those choices before the Internet, even if met you could be misled. See my point about 1994 above.

Two final unrelated points:

- Ralph: I have read about the oil-for-food scandal in the MSM, though I'll grant that there always could be more coverage of it.

- Pixy Misa: Well-played. The funny thing is that there are indeed a lot of reporters doing honest work out there, but the people who populate the blogosphere seem to prefer (and yet screech about) the pundits.

OK, I think I'm done here. Resume macho posturing.

Posted by: Beau Dure at August 21, 2005 9:04 AM | Permalink

M. Simon -- That's an interesting question. I seem to recall some worthwhile work along those lines, but it might have been years ago.

I'll toss out two hypotheses, either of which might have a grain of truth to it:

1. Journalist groupthink -- The paradox of the unlimited newshole we have nowadays with 24-hour cable news and the Internet is that we wind up devoting an awful lot of blather to one topic. In 2005, that's Iraq. In 1998, it was Lewinsky. We've cut back coverage of state politics and the lower-tier federal agencies (yes, Ralph, that was another good point). And so we've forgotten about issues like that.

2. Reader/viewer groupthink -- If such stories had been done in the past few years, would anyone notice?

Posted by: Beau Dure at August 21, 2005 9:13 AM | Permalink

UC alum and 'Nam vet. That is interesting. :-)

What is different about the www is that right leaning press syndicates, and libertarian leaning centerists press syndicates, and many other types are beginning to form. The cost of entry is rediculously low.

Just as 500 channels have fragmented the TV market so too will 5,000,000 channels fragment the press market.

What the NYT doesn't yet get is that the www model is free content. The money will be made on advertising. The money will be made on targeted advertising. I think owning or even renting a printing press colors the financial side thinking.

The free weeklys stand a better chance than the papers like the NYT.

BTW I used to be more in your area of the political spectrum. Then I began reading Milton Friedman. So I got cured on economics. The aftermath of Vietnam cured me of my general procommunist/socialst views. Then I learned from Hayek that socialism must inevitably end in misery. I'm now on the libertarian right. I was a full fledged Libertarian until 9/11.

There is no doubt there are problems in America. How bad can they be when half of the bottom 20% own a house? Seventy percent or more own a car. Better than 90% own a color TV (you can buy a B&W model with a very small screen for $15 - amazing - did I mention it has an AM/FM radio included?) Something like 20% of the poor families own two autos.

Half the world would just love to be as well off as the poorest Americans.

In any case we did a huge disservice to the people of Vietnam by abandoning them. Compared to perfection this war is a disaster. Compared to other wars not so bad. Bush may be a terrible military strategist. Compared to cut and run he is a military genius. So says Armed Liberal who writes at Winds of Change. I agree.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 21, 2005 9:29 AM | Permalink

Now I'm really mad.

I just spent an hour reading all 107 comments and really enjoyed the discussion. Now I get to the end and discover (thanks to Beau) that there is no bias and all the indications otherwise are lies. If only I would have started reading at the end of the thread.

I just finished the Sunday paper. I'll now spend the rest of the day researching the BBC, WSJ, The Economist, and all the reputable bloggers to try and determine if all the AP articles I just read are true or not.

Posted by: Redfaced at August 21, 2005 10:06 AM | Permalink

M. Simon: "The free weeklys stand a better chance than the papers like the NYT."

As the proprietor of a free weekly, I sure hope you're right. But I have my doubts. I think weeklies are better positioned to survive in this market -- more opinionated, less process driven, less bureaucratic, less dependent on a few big advertisers, free from the dailies' quandary of trying to sell what people can get for free on the web -- but I also think that all newspapers, no matter what their position, are being hurt by the changes that are going on in the news biz. And big dailies have a far more powerful financial base from which to weather the storm. We may get hurt less, but it takes less to kill us.

The most endangered of all may the medium to large regional dailies that can't attract a national audience like the NYT or fly under the radar like some of us lesser folk. Those papers are usually ignored in discussions like this one, but they carry an awful lot of news that is important to an awful lot of people.

I think we are all in trouble, and it worries me both as a businessman and a citizen. If the day comes when I have to rely on Instapundit and Daily Kos for news, I think I'll switch on the DVD and turn off the news.

Of course, when that day comes, the worst of the Press Think posters will still be ranting about Dan Rather. Good grief.

Posted by: David Crisp at August 21, 2005 12:12 PM | Permalink

At the risk of overstaying my welcome, I should add that free weeklies also have some problems the dailies don't. One of the biggest for us is simply being able to get our papers in places where readers can find them. Locally owned and operated businesses tend to be our best friends. They support what we're doing, and believe we provide a needed service to the community. National chains don't give a damn. They rarely allow us on the premises, or expect us to pay to be there. And they almost never advertise with us. As they force local businesses out, we get a double whammy. As a business proposition, it's very hard to pay to give something away.

Posted by: David Crisp at August 21, 2005 12:21 PM | Permalink

Here is a prime example of a paper leaving out the relevant facts on a big story.

LA Times frugal with facts.

It is printed in the LA Times. But the column is by a - Ta Da - blogger.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 21, 2005 12:51 PM | Permalink

I'm concerned when our liberal-leaning friends here don't perceive this thead to be a valuable discussion. The difference between this thread and many previous ones at PressThink is a greater representation of conservative voices and voices of those who feel a liberal bias in our dominant media.

My friends on the left: Has this communication seemed less valuable for your purposes because it doesn't reflect your own biases so much? Instead of getting defensive or dismissive in the face of ideological media criticism, consider its potential merits with a broad mind. There are many who feel "aggrieved" by our dominant media's slanted coverage of Rebublicans and conservatism. They are real people who are as passionate and reasonable as you, and you may find some of their complaints legitimate.

The worst think our liberal press friends can do is dismiss such heartfelt criticism, regarding it as indirect politics or moronic brow-beating - - they lock themselves in thier ivory towers and perfumed salons by doing so.

Posted by: Trained Auditor at August 21, 2005 1:12 PM | Permalink

David,

Thanks. Very interesting.

Our local free paper is making a move to the internet. It is hesitant, but I think serious.

The problem it has is that the front page editorial fare is a combination of DailyKos, the tinfoil hat brigade, and a moderate Republican. Add into the mix an energy columnist couple on the back pages that is clueless about economics and it gets king of strange. The really good stuff though is a non-political conservation biologist talking about local plants an animals.

It is a strange beast in print and that makes it effective.

On the www I'd say only the conservation biologist has a chance. So I see your point.

For about a year and a half I wrote a weekly column on the drug war - from a medical biological/perspective. With the occasional column on alternative energy from a market perspective.

I'm told the local police were none too happy about my drug war stuff and the owner of the paper and his latest crew of editors believe that in energy policy the government needs to subsidize their hobby horses. So my columns dwindled.

I started a blog about a year ago to write about those topics and politics. I get about 100 readers a day - probably on the order of what I was getting in the paper. Plus the occasional instalanch.

Now I would think that bringing me back in the fold for www only articles would be a good way for the paper to move its readers to the www where the columns are not limited by space.

So far they are not smart enough to figure it out.

In the long run I think the place for newspapers will be to provide some writing but mostly pointers to the www. An editing function.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 21, 2005 1:21 PM | Permalink

Steve L, you're so busy in denial ... it is really sad.

Try asking this 1972 question: Do you really believe that anti-war folk want the US to leave Vietnam, and allow the evil commies to plunge into genocidal darkness? [short answer: yes]

Such a question is a dual item package: "leave Vietnam", "plunge into darkness". What the anti-war folk WANTED was to "leave Vietnam", and allow "more or less shades of human rights".
But the "human rights" item was only available with the "stay in Vietnam" package.

A: Leave and allow darkness.
B: Stay and allow (shades) of human rights.

Lots of Liberals know that Bush is pro-life, even though they, personally, are pro-choice. (Totten, Simon, etc.) They voted for: pro-war AND pro-life over the Kerry alternative, anti-war AND pro-choice.

In Vietnam, the anti-war package meant accepting genocide, the worst and greatest mistake the USA has made in my life. The fact that the press assisted in this mistake, supported leaving Vietnam, and has never been held accountable, has been a source of anger at justice denied.

Most political choices include multi- items, but the press is lousy at describing tradeoffs.

Jay, you're prolly disappointed in wanting some conclusion, which you can't support yourself, and the others here are also not supporting. Why you're disappointed is not really clear, and you should try to make it more clear. It would be enlightening. (even if it's ... not more Tom Grey & Vietnam as the source of moral rot in the media...)

But I think the press non-coverage, non-responsibility for their role in the post-Vietnam genocide is the most important media story in my life.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at August 21, 2005 1:47 PM | Permalink

M. Simon, I agree. Long term, I envision my paper more as a weekly handbill for the (currently weak) website than as a stand-alone entity. But getting to that point, without going broke first, is going to be awfully tricky.

And I'm still not persuaded that advertising will ever be sufficient on the web to support local news sites producing real reporting. I know there are people out there trying to prove me wrong, and I wish them well.

Posted by: David Crisp at August 21, 2005 2:02 PM | Permalink

M. Simon writes:
"Here is a prime example of a paper leaving out the relevant facts on a big story.
"LA Times frugal with facts.
"It is printed in the LA Times. But the column is by a - Ta Da - blogger."

Bingo !
The column printed in the LA Times itself corrects the problem (with LA Times coverage) that it cites.
I urge blogs from left to right to go and do likewise.
It would be a lot easier to take bloggers -- from David Swanson and Daily Kos on the left to Powerline, FreeRepublic and Little Green Footballs on the right -- seriously if they would display such intellectual honesty, going out of their way to print reasoned and factual responses from the loyal opposition.
But it's a lot more fun to sit around patting each other on the back for being such a fine affinity group, or circling the wagons to drive out any outside voice who happens to unwittingly wander into the inner sanctum.
That's a phenomenon as old as mankind -- but in the blogosphere, it's manifestation is particularly magnified and accentuated.
It's insular, and it's toxic to the public discourse.

Trained Auditor writes:
"I'm concerned when our liberal-leaning friends here don't perceive this thead to be a valuable discussion. The difference between this thread and many previous ones at PressThink is a greater representation of conservative voices and voices of those who feel a liberal bias in our dominant media."

I can't speak for Jay or for Austin Bay, but as I understand it, their hope was that the initial essay by Austin and the response by Jay would perhaps open the conversation up and dislodge the tired old stalement of "Bias ! Not so ! Is too ! Not so !! Is too, dammit !!"
Instead, it just hardened those sentiments.
I'd be disappointed myself if I were either Jay or Austin.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at August 21, 2005 3:36 PM | Permalink

Or, as my wife put it after reading the thread:
"Jay is too much the idealist. He's trying to break open a barrel filled with hardened cement. Using a garden trowel to boot."

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at August 21, 2005 3:45 PM | Permalink

Lovelady, I can sympathize with a desire for variety of discussion. It's Jay's blog, and he deserves the debate he desires. I accept others disagree, but it's just that "media bias" is the elephant in the room to so many - - the pattern of the drapes in that room (metaphorically speaking) don't seem as important...

Posted by: Trained Auditor at August 21, 2005 4:37 PM | Permalink

Steve L. asks:

I'd really like to know what makes you think any American journalist hopes we "lose" against the forces of darkness ?

Why don't we see the Iraqi terrorists called terrorists? Insurgents, militants, is what we see.

In South America we have right wing death squads. Where are the Islamic deatth squads?

Why don't we see Osama called an Islamic totolitarian? Or as I prefer Islamic Nazi? As I have pointed out there is a direct link from the Nazis to our Islamic Jew haters. Why doesn't the news cover this every time it talks about these thugs. Or at least allude to it.

For some reason or other Islam is on one side or the other of 90% of the wars currently active in the world. Sometimes both sides. You can't find out why this is so from your local paper. And should they actually write about it very occasionally they don't change their editorial policy re: naming the enemy.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 21, 2005 5:26 PM | Permalink

I am at a loss to say much of anything about this thread. To the extent that it is about the press, it is the realm of untruth-- untruth in layers. Participants must get something out of it, but I would be hard pressed to say what that thing is.

An expression of rage? Yes, I suppose so. But if you rage at a pathetic lie (the press is a fifth column, the press desires a U.S. defeat, the press supports the enemy, the press will do absolutely anything to "get" Bush, the press=the left, and on and on and on...) what is the meaning of your rage? I submit that it is meaningless, but also a form of self-infantalization.

There, I found something to say about it.

Carry on gentlemen...

Posted by: Jay Rosen at August 21, 2005 5:28 PM | Permalink

The model I see is 1 million free stringers with camera phones sending in reports.

The model will emerge. Watch for it. In the mean time you are going to have to get your costs way down.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 21, 2005 5:32 PM | Permalink

Since you are into trying to demean people:

"stand up on your hind legs and bark"?

You should be banned for comparing people to dogs. But, let me tell you why I think of you the way I do.

"timid network employee"

Actually, I ain't timid. I have been called on the carpet by management for responding to an email regarding our Oil for Food scandal coverage with which I disagreed. Even though I raised several good points, what I was cautioned on was "not appearing to be biased" because I had the temerity to call Saddam Hussein a crook, among other things.

"who piped up here under the safety of a self-selected faux-macho identity:"

Hey, Steve, you apparently being a lib in the news business, or at least NOT being a conservative in the news business, you feeling all safe and secure speaking up and talking like a big man? How very, very shocking, that. Very audacious of you. Now, let me explain it to you from the perspective of someone who does not follow the herd.

See, people who do not subscribe to the liberal orthodoxy are often shunned and ridiculed in the news business. If you attend church, you're a religious nut. If you even KNOW an M-16 from an AR-15 you are a gun nut. If you suggest calling a person or government evil is appropriate based on their mass murders, you are childish in your view of the world.

Another reason why I don't speak up more is because I am in the technical side of the business. That means my opinion does not count. I work in a business where if you point out to a producer that they got the capital of Turkey wrong, they say thank you to your face, and then say "blow me' under their breath. (True! Really happened!)

The reason why I have a screen name is partly due to the potential liability of speaking out in a work environment where my views are not welcome, and part of it has to due with the attitude and mental state of people on threads. There are some very freaking insane people on these boards, and I am not about to announce my name to them. The last time I was on the Drum website, some nut job somehow convinced himself I was gay, and then proceeded to throw every stereotype and epithet at me except "faggot". When I pointed this out to him as homophobic, he denied he was, then did it again repeatedly. Finally, this guy threatened to kill me. So, having to face nutjobs like that, I should be advertising my name? Sure, Steve.

"Join the debate, engage the opposition; don't disappear like early-morning fog struck by sunlight; and don't put a towel over your head (or name) before you step up to the plate.
We've had quite enough of tough-talking patriots swathed in anonymity. Do you guys show up at community hearings wearing Hallo'ween masks and using voice-distortion technology?
Kilgore Trout ... Trained Auditor ... neo-neocon ...antimedia ... enough already! Is this junior high ?
Put your money where your mouth is.
Then we can begin.
Until then, it's all posturing."

Uhhh, Steve, talk about posturing. I am in the debate, and your response is to try to demean me as a dog, and then to question my manhood? I notice you are not really dealing with the facts or arguments, but with the puerile veneer of screen names. How exactly is that an adult take on the discussion, Steve? Hint; it ain't.

So, thanks for helping to illustrate some of the dismissive and elitist attitudes which help make up our modern mass media. You've been a big help.

Posted by: Captain Wrath at August 21, 2005 5:38 PM | Permalink

Steve L.

The LA Times is not fixing the problem. They are not getting more balance in their news reports. The column is presented as a freak show.

BTW the columnist/blogger "Patterico" has been criticizing the LAT for three or four years now.

If the paper was serious about correcting errors of omission he should be a regular part of the paper rather than a once every few years bit.

As I have pointed out in another thread papers thrive on controversy. Either external from another paper, or internal. What we get instead is group think and the desire to eliminate anyone not in the group.

Start an argument. In print. Let it play out.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 21, 2005 5:43 PM | Permalink

I have been a Little Green Footballs fan/commenter since a few days after 9/11 (I got the link from a Sullivan piece). I was reading LGF when 20 comments to a thread was a very big deal. I remember the first 100 comment thread. It was a thing of wonder.

I have yet to see a reasoned response to any thing Charles posts about the Islamic Fascists.

The best time was during Rather Gate where Charles would link to arguments contra his and demolish them.

In fact I do see a lot of give and take on the www. Sometimes though you have to find the links to the opposition in the comments.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 21, 2005 5:57 PM | Permalink

I'm waiting to find your alternative to bias no bias.

How do we get beyond it?

It say the newsrooms need more diversity. How about instead of 10:1 D vs R we went to 1.5 to 1 D vs R.

To get such a huge chane in time to make a difference a lot of people will need to lose their jobs. If that does not happen a lot of people will lose their jobs anyway.

A tough spot to be in.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 21, 2005 6:07 PM | Permalink

"Captain Wrath":
As a general rule of thumb, I don't respond to anyone who begins, "You are a jerk."
But your assumptions about my world, my motivations and my intentions are so presumptuous, I can't resist.
Be assured, I don't feel "all safe and secure" because I'm a liberal. (Any "liberal" who feels safe and secure on this thread in particular is a liberal who hasn't been reading very carefully.)
I used to characterize myself as "slightly to the right of center," but since the center has disappeared that description itself is meaningless.
To the extent that I feel safe or secure at all, it's because I've been writing under my own name for 40 years, and it doesn't take that long to get comfortable with it. (Once you try it, it doesn't even take 40 hours.)
As for ...
"If you attend church, you're a religious nut. If you even KNOW an M-16 from an AR-15 you are a gun nut. If you suggest calling a person or government evil is appropriate based on their mass murders, you are childish ..."
... those fears are more are a breathtaking measure of your own sense of victimhood than they are anything else.
I swim in the same waters you do.
- Yet I attend church, and no one calls me a religious nut.
- I know an M-16 from an AR-15, and no one calls me a gun nut.
- I call al Qaeda and its recruits evil incarnate, and not once has anyone called that idea childish to my face.
- In fact, the only time I get called anything like "a jerk" is from petulant right-wingers oozing sound and fury from the safety of pen names.
I grow weary of it, but I bear up.
Try it for a change. It wears better than self-pity.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at August 21, 2005 6:36 PM | Permalink

At one time newspapers knew they were about entertainment. You get entertainment by controversy. I'm vastly entertained by this discussion. More so because I can join in.

Since two newspaper towns are are rarity any more then the controversy needs to be internally generated. Internal teams pitted against each other. With editors as referees.

Instead we get group think. Which was OK when most places had competing papers.

BTW in the 60s the Chicago Sun Times was liberal and the Tribune was conservative. Now that is reversed. Can some one tell me how that happened? I was living on the west Coast during the change.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 21, 2005 6:43 PM | Permalink

Not being inside a newspaper I can't tell what goes on.

From outside I see what Captain Wrath sees.

I come at this debate from the point of a centerist. I voted Bush/Obama. I can't abide theocons.

Yet you are utterly dismissive of him. OK it is possile he is a jerk, it is possible he is inarticulate. It is also possible that others see what he sees.

You know what they call people in business who ignore a rising tide of consumer complaints? Bankrupt.

When I was on the left it looked to me like it does to you. No bias. The papers are just presenting the truth.

Since I have shifted to the right it looks like bias. The fish only recognizes the ocean when it is out of the water.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 21, 2005 6:55 PM | Permalink

Dave McLemore sez:
"I still hold to the old-school belief that we stand-in for the public. Their eyes and ears in the courthouse, City Hall and elsewhere. "

If you're saying you still beliieve that's what the press should be, good for you! If you're saying you still beliieve that's what the press is ... gimme a break!

Posted by: Ralph Phelan at August 21, 2005 7:12 PM | Permalink

"If you're saying you still beliieve that's what the press should be, good for you! If you're saying you still beliieve that's what the press is ... gimme a break!"

LOL. And that, ladies and gentlemen, pretty much sums it up. Thanks Ralph!

Posted by: Captain Wrath at August 21, 2005 7:26 PM | Permalink

Trained Auditor, You sound as if you are looking for a serious answer, so I will venture one. Here's why I'm dismissive of the "liberal bias" argument:

1. It's all been said. Over and over. And over and over. I could read it or hear it 24 hours a day, seven days a week, if I wanted. Whole sites and whole books are devoted to nothing but bias. I'd rather read about Madonna.

2. So much of it is so far off base that it isn't worth wading through the garbage to get to legitimate criticism. When people start talking about reporters as pro-Osama, there really is no room for serious discussion. Even your reasonable post puts us in "ivory towers" and "perfumed salons." Come on. I'm the son of a mailman and a school teacher. I went to a small, state-supported college on the G.I. Bill. I run a small business and teach college courses to scrape by. My resume is more typical than not. I've never even seen an ivory tower, much less lived in one.

3. I don't disagree that the typical journalist leans a bit more left than the average American, but it's easy to overstate the significance of that. Most bankers lean right. So what? In my experience, journalists are a bit to the right of voters on economic issues, tend toward libertarian on social issues and lean a bit left on government spending. They haven't much use for either political party, and they generally choose their preferred politicians on the basis of who treats them well and returns their calls, not on the basis of ideology. Ideologues tend not to become journalists, and they tend not to last. It's not a business that rewards true believers of any stripe. Conservatives are probably right that journalists aren't too sympathetic to the military; I did my duty, but I hated wearing a uniform.

4. Even if I accepted your entire argument, what difference would it make? I know of absolutely no evidence, not even anecdotal evidence, that reporters are hired on the basis of their political beliefs. In my long career, I have never once been asked in a job interview about my politics, and I have never heard of anyone who has been. If you're asking for some sort of affirmative action program for conservative journalists, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

5. In light of all that's going on in journalism, to spend such a disproportionate amount of time on such a tiny issue seems like a pitiful waste. People ask me all the time what I think about Fox News. I think Fox News is fine. I probably watch Fox more than I read the NYT. Sure, Fox leans a bit right. Why should I care? I don't go to the news for philosophical guidance; I go to find out what happened today.

6. I'm a busy guy. I shouldn't even be doing this. I avoid commenting on blogs, but Jay writes a blog that covers issues of personal and professional interest to me. I would love to be part of a rational, ongoing discussion here about the very real and significant issues facing my business. Instead, I just get worn out.

Aside to M. Simon: I not ready to buy into the million free stringers model. For my paper, I can find opinion writers hanging from every tree. People willing to do reporting, even for money, are far, far tougher to find. Nothing I've seen in the blogosphere makes it look any different. But I am cutting the hell out of expenses.

Posted by: David Crisp at August 21, 2005 7:48 PM | Permalink

Well, I think most of us can say we've indulged in a little hyperbole now and then. I just hope it doesn't materially detract from a point I try to make...

Posted by: Trained Auditor at August 21, 2005 8:15 PM | Permalink

If you are looking for some one who can report in the area of energy (I know Carnot) and general technology (I know logistics i.e. how fast systems can change) contact me. I know nuclear power (reactor operator). I know wind (I never met a Reynolds number I didn't like). I know heat transfer and fluid flow. I am conversant with chemistry. I am a control systems expert. I understand economics and profit. I know that what is not profitable will not happen.

I call myself a Free Market Green.

I will work cheap.

You can google me on energy or go to my www site for links to some energy articles.

Make me an offer I can't refuse.

Did I mention my expertise in drug prohibition. A serious acquaintance with brain chemistry and genetics? etc.

I'm not a group think kind of guy. Some say this makes me hard to work with. They may be right.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 21, 2005 8:24 PM | Permalink

You can sum up the journalistic response to criticism in four words - talk to the hand.

I'll just address one point - David Crisp writes

It's all been said. Over and over. And over and over. I could read it or hear it 24 hours a day, seven days a week, if I wanted. Whole sites and whole books are devoted to nothing but bias. I'd rather read about Madonna.

Isn't that odd? Despite the fact that, as journalists constantly assure us, there is no bias in the media, "whole sites and whole books are devoted to nothing but bias". How exceedingly odd! You would think that if, as journalists constantly assure us, there is no bias, there would be no sites or books wholly dedicated to it.

It's so completely odd that so much is written about a problem that doesn't exist......

Posted by: antimedia at August 21, 2005 8:52 PM | Permalink

"Recall Gary Sick and his nut-case story that George H W Bush flew to Paris on an SR-71 to negotiate with Iran? (See this, and Daniel Pipes with his Wall St Journal response; this link shows the conspiracy theory Sick pushed was first “reported” by Lyndon Larouche.)"

While I wouldn't put any stock in anything Lyndon Larouche "reported", I'd put even less in anything that Daniel Pipes "reported."

While I'm not arguing if it's true or not...I am arguing that trying to pass this off as something that originated with wacko Larouche is just a straw man tactic.

Robert Parry wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal's editor Robert L. Bartley in 1996 after Brent Bozell peddled the same nonsense: link:

"On a more substantive point, Bozell is wrong when he cites a Newsweek claim that the October Surprise story originated with followers of Lyndon LaRouche in December 1980. [PBS] Frontline traced the first references to the allegations back to October 18, 1980, the very time when some witnesses later would claim William Casey and others were in contact with Iranian emissaries in France."

"On that day, a Chicago Tribune reporter, John Maclean, met with State Department officer David Henderson at Henderson's Washington apartment. Maclean stated that he had been told by a well-placed Republican that vice presidential candidate George Bush was on his way to Paris to meet with Iranians about the 52 American hostages then held in Iran."

"In 1991, Henderson described the decade-old Maclean conversation in a letter to Sen. Alan Cranston. When Frontline contacted Maclean, the reporter confirmed that he had told Henderson about the supposed Bush trip. The Maclean-Henderson discussion means that the October Surprise story was not concocted later by LaRouchies."

Posted by: Ron Brynaert at August 21, 2005 8:53 PM | Permalink

Jay,

Clearly any complaint, such as a conservative's complaint about our dominant media's perceived liberal bias, can look to an apathetic observer like unwarrated, gratuitous whining ("self-infantalization", self-"victimization") - - especially if you overstate the claims of those you observe. Such picturesque language evokes images of cry-babies and toddlers' tantrums. It's a clever device, ridiculing your ideological adversaries in that manner.

I have to believe, however, that reasonable people can find some truth in the discourse if each side tries hard enough. Given a representative variety of earnest participants and their deliberation in good faith, the debate itself may even help you understand a not insignificant part of the dominant media's "Press Think".

Posted by: Trained Auditor at August 21, 2005 9:08 PM | Permalink

Crisp, I'm afraid that some of what you think you know is not true:

"It’s one of the great political myths, about press bias. Most reporters are interested in a story. Most reporters don’t know whether they’re Republican or Democrat, and vote every which way. Now, a lot of politicians would like you to believe otherwise, but that’s the truth of the matter. I’ve worked around journalism all of my life, Tom Snyder has as well, and I think he’ll agree with this, that most reporters, when you get to know them, would fall in the general category of kind of common-sense moderates. And also, let me say that I don’t think that ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ means very much any more, except to those kind of inside-the-Beltway people who want to use it for their own partisan political advantage. I don’t think it holds up." — Dan Rather answering a caller’s question about liberal bias on CBS’s Late Late Show with Tom Snyder, February 8, 1995.

"The idea that we would set out, consciously or unconsciously, to put some kind of an ideological framework over what we’re doing is nonsense." — NBC’s Tom Brokaw, C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, May 24, 2001.

"I think there is a mainstream media. CNN is mainstream media, and the main, ABC, CBS, NBC are mainstream media. And I think it’s just essentially to make the point that we are largely in the center without particular axes to grind, without ideologies which are represented in our daily coverage, at least certainly not on purpose." — ABC’s Peter Jennings, CNN’s Larry King Live, May 15, 2001.

When you’re talking about pure journalists, I mean reporters, when you’re talking about reporters, not columnists, I don’t think there’s any liberal bias. I don’t think there really ever has been." — Los Angeles Times Senior Washington correspondent Jack Nelson on CNBC’s Politics ‘96, March 9, 1996.

Question: "I don’t think it’s your personal liberal bias that’s well-known, but the liberal bias of your network is obvious."
ABC News anchor Carole Simpson: "I challenge you to give me examples of that. I disagree wholeheartedly. I think it’s again, an example of the mean-spiritedness that is these days also directed at the media." — January 5, 1995 AOL auditorium session.

"I have yet to see a body of evidence that suggests the reporting that gets on the air reflects any political bias." — Former CNN and CBS reporter, now Executive Director of NewsLab, Deborah Potter as reported in "Leaning on the Media" by Mark Jurkowitz, The Boston Globe, January 17, 2002.

Posted by: Trained Auditor at August 21, 2005 9:40 PM | Permalink

Sigh ... I'm sorry, but it's necessary to address antimedia ...

You state: You would think that if, as journalists constantly assure us, there is no bias, there would be no sites or books wholly dedicated to it.

Restated: There are sites or books dedicated to bias; therefore, it must exist.

OK.

There are books and sites devoted to the notion that the media have a pro-corporate bias that aids and abets those in power, including the Bush White House. Therefore, by your logic, it must be true.

-------------

David -- I'll raise two quibbles with your thoughtful posts. First, you probably could find a couple of "journalists" who claim there's no bias problem. (For the record, I simply think it's more complicated that is usually discussed, and "liberal" bias is but a small part of it. Yet people focus on it, say, the way journalists focus on one missing girl in Aruba.)

Second, I think journalists are sympathetic to the rank and file in the military, but perhaps not the leaders.

But everything else you've mentioned here is excellent. When people tell me we journalists are all in "perfumed salons," well, we're back to people telling me the carpet in my basement is blue. One funny story from my first job: A reporter covering social services came across a financial questionnaire to determine if applicants qualified for assistance. You can probably guess what happened next.

M.Simon: Have you tried The Economist? You might want to play down the "Green" angle, but they often say they're looking for people who know science first and journalism second. Other than that, you'll either want to try a specialty publication or convince editors that energy issues matter. The latter will be difficult. We're biased against ... um ... energy? Or maybe for energy? In any case, if the missing girl from Aruba turns up at a nuclear reactor, there's your break.

Posted by: Beau Dure at August 21, 2005 9:56 PM | Permalink

Here's the gulf Jay is talking about, and here's the difference.
For over two years, Jay has been arguing that the press has huge problems ... structural problems ... perceptual problems ... a devotion to outmoded frames of reference ... a false notion of "balance" that informs no one ... a schizophrenic denial of its own role as a player in the equation at the same time that it wants "to make a difference" ... an ossified state of practices and procedures that leaves it a clumsy mark for card sharks like Karl Rove or Patrick Fitzgerald.
Those, not political bias, are the elephants in the room -- elephants that most of the press doesn't want to acknowledge or address.
Yet even now, a Trained Auditor, who has been here for a while, repeats the mantra, " it's just that 'media bias' is the elephant in the room to so many - - the pattern of the drapes in that room (metaphorically speaking) don't seem as important..."
Jay's truth is that "media bias" is a dodge adopted by partisans for partisan reasons, a refuge for those who are not interested in the very real shortcomings of an insular press that year after year eats its young and burrows deeper into a dilemma of its own making.
"Bias," is, in short, "the pattern of the drapes" -- not the elephant in the room.
The problems of editors and reporters -- like the problems of doctors, who look around in bewilderment and wonder how they became assembly line workers, or the problems of lawyers, who rank even lower than journalists on those "occupations-admired" surveys -- are of their own making. And they far transcend bias.
As Crisp says, most reporters are, if anything, dismayingly apolitical. (Most I know don't even bother to vote.)
If they had really wanted to be political operatives, they would have become political operatives. That field welcomes callow youth and the pay is better, the work is easier and the hours are shorter.
As for asking job applicants their political leanings, I suspect that if any editor did that he'd be hauled before his company's Human Resources and legal departments so fast that his head would swim.
Beyond that, it would be pointless -- 96 out of 100 of them aren't even going to get close to the political beat.
That's the heart of it, guys. It's not as sexy, or as reductionist, as the ol' right-center-left paradigm -- but it's the real world.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at August 21, 2005 10:25 PM | Permalink

You don't have to ask about political beliefs to find out which way a reporter leans.

I think the movie "Front Page" shows the hay day of reporting. What is the undelying theme? Competition of views. Fighting for a story. Controversy. Excitement. (of course the ethics are a bit tainted - that can be fixed - point of view is inherent).

Why doesn't the media cover drug prohibition as a prohibition story? When it covers drug prohibition as a drug story it follows the party line "drugs cause addiction". So why doesn't every one who tries drugs get addicted? The question is never asked. When abortion is covered you never see the black market aspects covered. In fact in any story where black markets are a feature that aspect is ignored. When the Soviet Union was still functioning black market stories were quite common. Yet when they happen in the USA they are invisible.

The fact that black markets always arise no matter what the prohibition is never discussed.

We do get the occasional cigarette smuggling story but it is never seen as an inherent part of human nature: the desire for profit. Buy low, sell high.

Enron was a great story. However, I saw very little about how Enron was going to get out of its financial bind: CO2 emissions trading forced by law. i.e. rent seeking. Yet the consensus is among the news media is that global warmingis real. So was Enron a white hat that went too far too fast or a black hat.

Then we get the greenhouse gas/global warming story. I see very few skeptical stories. Following the winter of '79 the big story was global cooling and the coming ice age. I have a book published from that era. I keep it to remind me that a lot of what happens in the press re: science is fashion rather that a serious study of opposing views. At this point the press assumes that the science is settled when in fact it is not.

Take wind - an energy system I favor. I have seen no one ask questions of utility systems about why they are buying wind. Future orientation (it is coming down in cost), customer demand, government regulation, the desire for operational experience. What? Reporters mostly ignorant of energy systems don't even know what questions to ask. Instead of skepticism we get cheer leading. Or the opposite - it will never amopunt to anything serious. Nothing wrong with either point of view if the facts support it. Where are the facts?

In some areas (politics especially) the press is very oppositional. In other areas the press is asleep. I see this also as a function of bias. If as some say the press is supposed to be a watchdog why are they so asleep in areas which I actually know something (and awake in areas where opinion matters more than facts - like war and peace).

I think what you fail to recognize is that all reporting is a matter of opinion. Opinion colors the questions asked. It is a lack of rigor in training in the scientific method. i.e. What fact or facts would invalidate a theory.

The problem with bias is not bias per se. The problem is the questions that don't get asked when assumptions are not challenged. Take my bit on wind where I admit my bias. My bias did not stop me from posing questions that might challenge my world view. I am willing to have my assumptions undermined. I think that is based on my engineering training and experience. Did I mention I am an aerospace engineer whith training in design and test of aircraft power systems? The testing part was most valuble. I learned how to test not just functions but also assumptions.

Lawyer get similar training. What question will destroy an argument?

I think you alluded to the core of the problem. People with the talents you need can make more money in other fields.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 21, 2005 10:39 PM | Permalink

Steve Lovelady writes:

For over two years, Jay has been arguing that the press has huge problems ... structural problems ... perceptual problems ... a devotion to outmoded frames of reference ... a false notion of "balance" that informs no one ... a schizophrenic denial of its own role as a player in the equation at the same time that it wants "to make a difference" ... an ossified state of practices and procedures that leaves it a clumsy mark for card sharks like Karl Rove or Patrick Fitzgerald.
Those, not political bias, are the elephants in the room -- elephants that most of the press doesn't want to acknowledge or address.

And yet somehow it almost always inures to the benefit of the left.

But to get past the bickering, I wonder if anyone (of the journalists in this discussion) could answer one question.

In the coverage of the Cindy Sheehan story, almost no one (and certainly no one in the "major" media outlets, has told the story of the woman who righted the crosses run over by the man in the pickup truck. There has also been little or no coverage of the parents of dead soldiers who have requested, more than once, to have the cross with their son's name on it removed from the protest, only to be rebuffed by the protesters who claim the parents have no rights in this instance.

How would you classify the lack of coverage of these stories? Bias? Laziness? Lack of interest? Not newsworthy?

Posted by: antimedia at August 21, 2005 11:01 PM | Permalink

Here is a nice blog bit about internal inconsistiencies in a NYT article. Peak oil.

The author of the NYT piece is writing about economics (of oil) without any understanding of economics. How can this be?

You would think that in a society based on capitalism an understanding of economics would be a fundamental skill. You would be wrong. Yet the blogger explains the economics in under 2,000 words (maybe under 1,000 - I didn't count).

When the NYTs gets something so basic wrong how can they be trusted on anything else? Where were the fact checkers. Hell, where were the checkers for internal consistiency?

Posted by: M. Simon at August 21, 2005 11:20 PM | Permalink

Here is a comment from the "Peak Oil" blog linked above that gets to what I have been saying.

I'd like to see you and James Kunstler, who has a new doomsaying book out, have a good optimist/pessimist debate. Us ordinary citizens don't know who to believe, but a good battle is always entertaining.

MSM has quit entertaining.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 21, 2005 11:29 PM | Permalink

I have a suggestion to make this debate more palatable to Jay, and more in the spirit of Austin's original post: perhaps we can look at the historical evolution of the role of the press in wartime?

However we describe the MSM's current biases (structural, adversarial, or liberal), they are certainly different from those that prevailed during WWII. Austin hinges his argument on the continuity of containment policy during the early phases the Cold War from Truman to Ike:

In that contest of wills, Ike could count on a press that, broadly speaking, shared a similar Cold War worldview to that of the administration, as well as a sense of collegiality that is now completely gone. A perusal of JFK's press conference transcripts reveals a stark contrast to today's, not only in tone, but in the content: Kennedy is challenged for being too soft, just as Kennedy had challenged Nixon from the right on the Cold War.

And yet, less than 5 years after Kennedy's assassination, the press has completely turned against the Vietnam War. These articles (linked at Austin Bay's comments section) demonstrate how the press not only was biased in its presentation of Tet, but how that bias turned the tide of war by breaking the American will to conduct the war.

Most of the right-of-center blogs I encounter are concerned that the current press bias, however labelled, may have the net effect of demoralizing the American public and lead to both tactical and strategic victories for the enemy. This may occur even if nobody in the MSM would prefer to live under Sharia law, just as they probably would not have preferred that a tens of thousands South Vietnamese and a million or two Cambodians be slaughtered at the hands of Communists after American troops left Southeast Asia.

I would be sincerely interested in Jay's (and Steve's) thoughts on these observations.

Posted by: Neuro-conservative at August 22, 2005 12:14 AM | Permalink

And again, how? Where exactly is all this leftward benefit? The political power in this nation has been on a rightward course for two decades. If the media are accruing benefit to the left, they are doing a horrible job.

World War was a different war. Not only was it truly global in scope, the White House and the Pentagon successfully presented a fairly coherent set of reasons to the American public.

In Harry Summers' book, On Strategy, he makes a compelling argument that Vietnam was a debacle, not because of the media (though they came in for their failures) because because two adminstrations failed to tell the public why their kids were dying in the jungles. There was never a coherent explanation provided. That, Col. Summers wrote, is what lost Vietnam.

To those who claim 'press bias' in Iraq, let me ask you again: why should the Adminstration and the generals get a free ride?

Comments here and by Austin Bay suggest a failing on the media for not supporting the president's war plans. Do you really believe that's the media's job?

Shouldn't the media's responsibility be to ask questions that provide the public some clarity on key questions of why the war began, why no one prepared for the transition once the conventional war ended and when US forces can come home?

Posted by: Dave McLemore at August 22, 2005 12:55 AM | Permalink

How hopelessly retro, Dave.

Bay's primary requirement of the press is that they buy into a vague concept and support it. He's perfectly willing to rag on Newsweek, but not once does he consider that what the US did at Abu Ghraib might have more of an impact on Iraqis than what the US press wrote about what the US did, or that seeing Iraq turn into a theocratic federal republic allied with Iran might raise more questions in American minds than what the press say about it. I suppose his preference would be that the press simply not say anything.

Rosen gave him a forum for an honest discussion and he spat on it.

Posted by: weldon berger at August 22, 2005 1:09 AM | Permalink

Trained Auditor: This may be the last time I reply to anything you write because I am starting to think you are here specifically to waste my time.

Here's you: "Clearly any complaint, such as a conservative's complaint about our dominant media's perceived liberal bias, can look to an apathetic observer like unwarrated, gratuitous whining... especially if you overstate the claims of those you observe."

You have a lot of nerve. Every claim I mentioned has been mentioned in this thread. I did not overstate. I stated.

Here: "This current period is largely a one-sided affair with the media in open attack and doing everything possible to hamper the war effort."

Did you hear that? The press is doing everything in its power to undermine the war effort.

Here: "the goal of such a press is Public Relations against Bush, implicitly supporting the death squad terrorists in Iraq."

Did you hear that? The press, in effect, supports the death squads who are murdering innocent Iraqis-- and journalists!

Here: "Everything the left, and the MSM, gets interested in is seen only as a tactical issue. 'Can we attack Republicans with this ?'..."

Did you hear that? The only interest the press has is to find more ways to attack the Republican party.

Here: "...the media is, right now, the primary voice of defeatism, as well as the most effective provider of enemy propaganda, a discounted press is clearly a national security win."

Did you hear that? The press is a propagandist for the enemy side.

Here: "I am utterly convinced, however, that the the MSM is partisan, ideological and dishonest to the core, and that the MSM hopes that we lose it.

Did you hear that? The press desires the defeat of the U.S.

Every one of these statements is a fantasia. It isn't possible to argue with them.

Wanna know what this thread is about? It's this...

"Bush can't get a fair shake from the MSM no matter what he does, because the MSM is controlled by leftist geeks who hate him."

... followed by anti-media with this:

No one has ever said 'all reporters are leftists and hate Bush'. You said that."

Posted by: Jay Rosen at August 22, 2005 1:51 AM | Permalink

"... those fears are more are a breathtaking measure of your own sense of victimhood than they are anything else."

Right Steve, my personal exposure to bias in the newsroom is all sort of a victim complex fantasy I have concocted. I see that now.

And when CBS News ran with a story on Bush's National Guard service based on blatently false documents which even their own experts expressed grave doubts over, obtained from a man with a history of mental instability and an axe to grind, it was Bush's sense of victimhood that was the real problem. When CBS news tried to stick its story for 11 days, despite mounting evidence that it was a huge fraud, it was all Bush's fault for "not getting over it".

It all makes sense, now. Thank you.

"I used to characterize myself as "slightly to the right of center,"

I am sure you did, and in the world of the MSM, you probably were right of center THERE. But, in the real world, had you bothered to really examine it, you might have found yourself in a relatively different place, no?

How do I know that for a fact? I don't, but you also don't know I am a "right-winder" either. All I have been saying is that I see a bias in the media and its obvious which side it leans. So, we apparently are equally incisive, or we are equally presumptious. You pick.

"In fact, the only time I get called anything like "a jerk" is from petulant right-wingers oozing sound and fury from the safety of pen names."

And the only time I get insults like I am a dog, and I have "macho issues" seems to be from the left which finds it a convenient way to deflect from the points I make.

And Steve, are you STILL upset over my screen name? Well, don't think of me as a screen or pen name. Tell you what, think of me as an "unnamed source". You know, the kind some reporters so love to utilize to further stories which are there, or you know, not.

As an anonymous source, you can trust what I say is the absolute truth, and that I have no other agenda, and there is no real need to verify what I say with either facts or logic. Presto-chango, Steve! I am no longer some rabid right-winger, but a trusted, highly-placed source in the MSM. Its so easy, even the New York Times does it!

Oh, and Steve, your 40 years of working as a journalist seems to track with the overall tanking of journalistic credibility. Coicidence? I'll let others decide.

Posted by: Captain Wrath at August 22, 2005 7:02 AM | Permalink

I got an anonymous tip! I did not really recognize your name, but I was directed to this:

“The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail. (Where is Jimmy Stewart when we need him ?) This convinces me more than ever that Eason Jordan is guilty of one thing, and one thing only — caring for the reporters he sent into battle, and haunted by the fact that not all of them came back. Like Gulliver, he was consumed by Lilliputians.”

Salivating morons? Lynch mob? Eason Jordon makes ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims that the US military is targeting reporters. The same Eason Jordon who admits spiking stories about Saddams crimes and brutality to retain access. And the people who demanded accountability from him are a moronic lynch mob?

Oh. My. God. You have got to be kidding me! I wish I had found this earlier. I wouldn't have even bothered arguing with you. LOL. Oh ,yeah, you are a paragon of fairness and objectivity. Color me vindicated.

LMAO.

Posted by: Captain Wrath at August 22, 2005 7:27 AM | Permalink

This thread offers a vivid demonstration of something press people don't talk about often enough: How the wheels come off our pretty ideals about civic discourse and fairness when the bully boys stomp into the room.

What's the typical newsroom response? We treat them like they're just another citizen with a point to be made. We offer them a forum. And while they stomp around, we pretend that we're agreeing to disagree, that we're encouraging discourse, that we're being fair. It's a sort of smug, "We're above the fray" paternalism, and it drives people nuts, because it's a fundamentally untrue. We're afraid we'll lose readers if we stand up and start drawing lines.

Meanwhile, letting the bully boys have the run of the shop just heightens their disdain for the press. For all their victimized self-righteousness, they know full well that when they call up a city editor or berate an ombudsman, they're talking to someone who is expected, as a professional, to be polite and respectful. Unless they're talking to a columnist or an editorial writer, they're fighting someone whose job depends on not fighting back.

So press criticism is like bear baiting in a sense: It looks big and scary, but it's chained to a post.

Instead of counterpunching against the cheap shots, we try to make the cheap-shotters happy. And this never works. As Ferris Bueller said of his friend Cameron's doomed future marriage: "She won't respect him because you can't respect someone who kisses your ass. It just doesn't work."

I'd say the majority of the complaint callers (left and right) in my old desk days were operating on the assumption that I was a contemptable, bow-tie-wearing, corporate appeaser. Someone they could push around for fun. Demonstrating that I was a working guy with a temper was a necessary step in having a meaningful discussion. If we want respect, we have to earn it, individually, and that includes standing up to bullies.

If we value civic discourse (and we should) and we value the good things that we do (and we should), then we need to show some cojones. Thugs on the left and right shouting across barricades is not civic discourse, and if we want to create it, we have to make a place where it may safely occur. What's the point in believing in something if you're not willing to fight for it?

These days it's the right wing producing most of the bullies. Ten years from now it might well be the left again. Whatever. The point isn't that the press should choose an ideological side, but that the press should choose to value truth, intellectual honesty and meaningful discussion.

And someone will say "truth, intellectual honesty and meaningful discussion! HA! Here are 25 obscure examples of how The Media is none of those things! But you cover that up! And none of you people know the first thing about an M-16!" And so on.

To which I say: Judging by the comments here, I think I know considerably more about assault rifles, military operations, conservative political ideology, economic theory, etc., than this crowd knows about how the press works.

Someone here made the point that a reporter who can't tell the diffence between a Bradley and an Abrams loses all credibility. I say that a press critic who doesn't understand how a newsroom works yet ascribes all sorts of dire, conspiratorial motives to every point of contention has exactly the same problem.

By the way, if you guys ever read PressThink before now, you'd know that the people who post here tend to be press critics, not press apologists.

Posted by: Daniel Conover at August 22, 2005 12:13 PM | Permalink

Daniel,

It is not a conspiracy. It is group think.

Which is why I have very rarely see a news story that connects the evils of drug prohibition with the evils of alcohol prohibitiion.

Now there is a story that the left and right both get wrong.

I do not think the problem with the newsroom is exclusively political. It is a lack of intelligent curiosity. It is an unwillingness to confront fundamental beliefs.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 22, 2005 12:49 PM | Permalink

Capt Wrath:

"Salivating morons ..."
Ummm, you didn't need an anonymous tip for that, Ace. All you needed was a search function on your keyboard. That indeed sailed around the world ... but it was initially printed right here on Press Think !
Ahh, my 15 minutes of fame ...
I miss it.
:-)

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at August 22, 2005 12:55 PM | Permalink

To Daniel Conover:

Bias can be (and often is) unconscious. So the vast majority of press bias would not necessarily have anything to do with a conspiracy, and those who exhibit it would not necessarily be aware of it (this of course is true whether the bias be on the left or the right).

This is why an informed readership is the best defense, including being informed about the political leanings of the journalist/reporter.

To Jay Rosen:

You wrote (on Aug 21 at 5:28 PM), "Carry on gentlemen." Is it clear that we are all gentlemen here? Perhaps you might heed the words of Abigail Adams and "remember the ladies."

Posted by: neo-neocon at August 22, 2005 12:55 PM | Permalink

Dave M,

I'm reading a book by John Hersey "Of Men and War" telling stories of WW2 soldiers, sailors and Marines.

The tone is so different from what I see today in the press. The closest I have come to seeing anything like it in the press is on a blog by a military man called "ArmorGeddon". Riveting. Heroic even.

Where are those stories?

So don't give the Generals and the President a pass. Where are the grunt stories? Where is the stuff about a fire fight today and civic action yesterday?

Then note the recent discussion by Matt Loury with a soldier about morale. Matt was surprised at how it could be so high. The soldier responded that if he was getting his news from the press he would wonder too.

I think that is a clue. What the soldier sees and what the press reports are disconnected.

Of course that is no problem, is it?

Just another case of reporters not willing to question their assumptions. Which as I have been saying is the core of the problem.

If I wanted to revamp the press without resort to ideological tests I would hire only lawyers and engineers. Because writing is easier to teach than thinking.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 22, 2005 1:26 PM | Permalink

We know in hindsight why our soldiers were fighting in 'Nam. To prevent a post war mass murder.

Now we would hear such statements from time to time from our elected leaders of that era. They were unifomly ridiculed by the vast majority of the press at the time. I sided with the press in those days. Much to my sorrow. Never again.

So let us fast forward to today. Might the current battles be for the same reason (no matter what got us in)?

I see a great clamor in the press for an exit strategy. So I ask - is the current motto "No worse than Rawanda" ?

During the 'Nam era there was no way to bypass the press. The message though delivered was discounted. In that respect I disagree with Col. Summers whose book in most other respects was excellent. It is still in my library and I re-read it every few years.

One might also want to read Giap as a counter to Summers. He thought the American press was an essential ally.

Posted by: M. Simon at August 22, 2005 1:57 PM | Permalink

"If I wanted to revamp the press without resort to ideological tests I would hire only lawyers and engineers. Because writing is easier to teach than thinking."
- M. Simon

Now that's a quote that inspires random thoughts and memories.
1 -- In my salad days as a young reporter at the Wall Street Journal, the managing editor, Warren Phillips, used to observe that "A story that is poorly written is a story that is poorly thought out."
2 -- As an editor at the Philadelphia Inquirer, I was once invited by U.S. Circuit Court Robert Gawthorpe and the Philadelphia Bar Association to address a group of young lawyers gathered together from the city's largest firms on the subject, "Why Lawyers Can't Write." (The topic was chosen not by me, but by the judge, who was sick to death of plowing through inpenetrable briefs and motions leading to no discernable point.)
3 -- Henry Mencken thought he had the answer to Judge Gawthorpe's question many decades earlier, when he wrote, "Trying to teach a lawyer to write is like trying to teach a pig to dance; by and large, it's a waste of your time and it just annoys the pig."
I suspect that points 1, 2 and 3 are intimately conjoined.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at August 22, 2005 2:07 PM | Permalink

"Salivating morons ..."

Actually, I did find it myself, via Google. Popped up as one of the first entries. (MAN, I love the internet, don't you?) I just wanted to say I had an anonymous source to make it sound so much more exciting. Gotta sex up the story, ya' know?

Steve, after 40 years in the business, that loony statement is your claim to fame? You must be very, very proud.

But, that's all you have to say about it?

You criticize me for calling names, and yet you are the one doing so, ones which made mine look tame.

You concoct this ravenous-lynch-mob-persecuting an-innocent-honest-reporter scenario for Jordan, but I am the one with the victim complex?

Hmm, so, lets see. You hold one person to a different standard than another, and you interpret very similar circumstances in very different ways based on those involved. Now, I think there is a word for that... What was it? I think it starts with a 'B'...

I do have to admit one thing, though. I do find reading you very entertaining.

Posted by: Captain Wrath at August 22, 2005 2:14 PM | Permalink

There's no good war reporting this war? Is that what you're saying M. Simon? Then you haven't been looking.

Dexter Filkin of the New York Times, for example, has written some riveting strories. A sample below:

In Falluja, Young Marines Saw the Savagery of an Urban War
By DEXTER FILKINS

ALLUJA, Iraq, Nov. 18 - Eight days after the Americans entered the city on foot, a pair of marines wound their way up the darkened innards of a minaret, shot through with holes by an American tank.

As the marines inched upward, a burst of gunfire rang down, fired by an insurgent hiding in the top of the tower. The bullets hit the first marine in the face, his blood spattering the marine behind him. The marine in the rear tumbled backward down the stairwell, while Lance Cpl. William Miller, age 22, lay in silence halfway up, mortally wounded.

"Miller!" the marines called from below. "Miller!"

With that, the marines' near mystical commandment against leaving a comrade behind seized the group. One after another, the young marines dashed into the minaret, into darkness and into gunfire, and wound their way up the stairs.

Google it, read it and tell me there is no good war reporting.

In the conventional stage of the war, there were any number of excellent reports about soldiers in combat. There still are, though the fighting has transformed to an insurgency/terrorist action. But you have to put away your blinders and look.

I get so bored of the refain, "The press doesn't report (fill in the blank)" The 'positive' stories about school rebuildings, getting the electricity on and the businesses going, etc., ARE BEING REPORTED. But they have to be reported with the horrible toll of daily car-bombings, IEDs and assassinations on GIs and civilians.

It's what reporters in Iraq do. Report so that the folks back home will know, at incredible risks to their own safety. But the critics, right-wing and otherwise, don't see that as journalism.

Posted by: Dave McLemore at August 22, 2005 2:23 PM | Permalink

neo-neo --

Suppose, though, the reporters and editors in question honestly aren't political ideologues?

A recent letter from Dan Mitchell to Romanesko put it this way:

The whole bias-spotting industry, left and right -- operates on the assumption that everybody in the world is a rank, simpleminded ideologue. I am more convinced every day that rank, simpleminded ideologues assume that everybody else -- perceived friend or perceived foe alike -- is the same as them.

Mitchell continues:

Most journalists-- and I have known hundreds -- aren't particularly political. Not even politics reporters. They have opinions -- just like regular humans do -- but generally, they are far more inquisitive than they are ideological.

My experience mirrors Mitchell's.

Sure, I've seen a few exceptions. Perhaps enough to do as Bernard Goldberg has done and crank out a couple of books. But I'd be lying to say they were the norm. (To be fair, I've never worked at CBS -- and again, I've never defended Rather.)

Given that, is it really that important to know the political leanings of everyone who produced a story? Or would it just give people an excuse to ignore the work, no matter how honestly it was produced?

And would you want EVERYONE's leanings? Should every newspaper story include the opinions of the reporter, the assignment editor, the assignment editor's boss, the rim copy editor (and likely headline writer) and the slot copy editor (the possible headline rewriter).

And finally -- is there a word limit? If you ask my political leanings, I'm going to need 2,000-3,000 words to explain. And that's going to seem awfully strange on a 300-word soccer note.

Posted by: Beau Dure at August 22, 2005 2:36 PM | Permalink

Simon: We were fighting a war in Vietnam to halt a post-war mass murder? How did you type that without giggling?

I assume you mean the Khymer Rouge in Cambodia. It's rise to power - and the resulting murderous reign - was not held in check by the U.S. war in Vietnam, but in no small part because of it. Or at e least the U.S. support of Lon Nol and the Cambodian bombing campaign.

Capt. Wrath, what exactly is your point? You've spent so much time fuming at Steve Lovelady, I've forgotten.

Posted by: Dave McLemore at August 22, 2005 2:43 PM | Permalink

"I do have to admit one thing, though. I do find reading you very entertaining." - Captain Wrath, adressing Lovelady, above.

I regret I'm in the same camp - - he's strangely compelling. Similar in a way, I suppose, to what's said about Howard Stern critics: They keep listening, despite their loathing of what they hear, because they just have to know what he's going to say next.

Posted by: Trained Auditor at August 22, 2005 2:56 PM | Permalink

"I say that a press critic who doesn't understand how a newsroom works yet ascribes all sorts of dire, conspiratorial motives to every point of contention has exactly the same problem."

How about having a basic understanding of fairness? I am sorry, you seem to be treating the newsroom as some mystical place beyond people's comprehension. It really is not, but that is not the point.

The point is people can see what results come from the newsroom on a regular basis, and then can come to conclusions about the process. If the results seem to consistently come out in a certain way, do they not have the ability to question it, including the motivations or mindsets of those involved? When the results are regularly tainted, should they not begin to get suspicious?

There are basic tenets to reporting and fairness that I learned, no joke, in second grade. Yet people see those violated in all manner of ways today, and what they get for their displeasure are cries that they are "bullyboys" for pointing it out.

Bullyboys? Who is wielding the power to be a bully here? A reporter, editor or producer has the ability to DESTROY a person or an institution, do they not? When a news outfit sets its sights on somebody, and goes after them, what recourse does the average person have to defend against the onslaught? As my original post pointed out, the press wielded an enormous amount of power before, and only recently have that power been challenged.

The public has seen galling displays of journalistic malfeasance in the last few years, and they are PISSED, not to put to fine a point on it. Their outrage has only grown as they have come to realize that this behaviour might not be a new development, but one that has only recently been exposed.

The public are not the bullboys, Daniel. They are pushing back against the bullyboys who had the power without the responsibility. The public has started asking who will watch the watchers, and they now realize they will have to do so.

But, go ahead. Keep denying it yourself, keep imagining that its all a delusion on the part of the public. They are moving on, and if they do not continue to fact-check and criticize you, they will simply ignore you. You decide which fate is worse.

I generally like my job, but the way my network, and the others, conduct themselves, who knows how long either one will be around?

Posted by: Captain Wrath at August 22, 2005 2:58 PM | Permalink

I'm embarrassed that this thread appeared at my weblog. I'm embarrassed that something I wrote and edited was the occasion for it. I embarrassed that the letters "edu" appear in the Web address at the top of this page, since most of this is the opposite of education. I'm embarrassed for having entertained, even for a second, the notion that Austin Bay, a Bush supporter and war veteran, might get a hearing for some of his warnings from those who agree with him on most things.

And I've had enough of anonymous tough guys with their victim's mentality raging at their own abstractions...

Those who wish to continue can head over to Austin's thread, where the story is pretty much the same. But four days of this pathetic spectacle is enough for me. Thread closed. My advice: Go home to your wives and children, and breathe some truth.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at August 22, 2005 3:22 PM | Permalink