|
|
December 19, 2005
Dan Froomkin on Attitude in White House Briefing"A better question, really, is would the column take the same approach with another president -- either Democratic or Republican -- who was more forthcoming?" Plus, Michael Powell, the Post's New York bureau chief, writes in: "Let’s tamp down the triumphalism."There were some arguments at PressThink about whether it’s more accurate to classify Dan Froomkin of White House Briefing as a liberal columnist, who opposes Bush from the Left, which is one view, or an accountability journalist who criticizes the President for a glaring lack of transparency— another view. Others were responding for Dan. I thought he should speak to it himself. He does that here. — JR Dan Froomkin on Attitude in White House Briefing Jay asked me yesterday — back when it was a little more relevant — to weigh in on whether or not I am an ideologue. I apologize for not responding with blogger speed. But as it happens, Jay has already expressed my position on this issue more skillfully than I could. For instance, there was his post on washingtonpost.com’s Achenblog, in which he wrote: First, Froomkin has an argument. His (in my paraphrase) is: You actually don’t think I’m liberal; what you mean is that I am anti-Bush. But you’re wrong. I am not anti-Bush, but I do have a kind of agenda as a writer and observer, and it often places me in conflict with this White House. I am for “discourse accountability” in presidents. I try to insist that the president engage in real dialogue, and refrain from demagoguery. I think speeches should be fact-checked, and statements intensely scrutinized. When presidents refuse to answer their critics they do democracy a disservice. When they refuse even to be questioned they pretend they’re kings and this we cannot allow. Froomkin further says: I have an agenda, but not an ideology in the conventional sense. I stand up for these things but I do not take political stands the way a Richard Cohen or George Will might. You can argue with my agenda, but why are you calling me a liberal when I would apply the same standards to a president named Kerry, Clinton, Biden or Obama? (I believe he would, too.) Amen, Jay (and the many, many readers who said similar things.) (And about the whole imperial presidency meme, see today’s column.) So I’ll just add a few thoughts. I think one reason some people see the column as having a political bias may be a misreading of my enthusiasm. The fact is that, like most good reporters, I am delighted when I get wind of what I consider a great story – and I am outraged when I see the public’s right to know being stymied. Reporters have traditionally been encouraged to suppress that sort of passion or outrage in their work product. But I have long felt that the Internet audience demands voice. Nobody wants to read a bored blogger. So I wear my passion on my sleeve. But it’s journalistic passion, not partisan passion. And what disturbs me is the suggestion that enthusiastically scrutinizing a Republican president is somehow de facto biased and liberal – and therefore inadvisable for a reporter in a mainstream newsroom. I think that’s toxic for the industry, and for democracy. Incidentally, I think this also speaks to a larger issue going forward. As more reporters start blogging (and they should) they’ll either write boring blogs that fail-– or they’ll write with a bit of attitude and succeed by connecting with readers. What will happen then? Here’s one scenario: Newsroom leaders will become less fixated on detachment and balance—two attributes that I think are hurting us more than helping us these days—and will instead focus on the values at the core of our industry, such as fairness and accuracy. Finally: There’s been much speculation over whether my column would take the same approach with a Democrat in the White House. My answer is that the same passion for answers and accountability would inform the column no matter who is president. But a better question, really, is would the column take the same approach with another president — either Democratic or Republican — who was more forthcoming? And the answer is: I don’t know. It’s possible that in some ways the current incarnation of White House Briefing is a uniquely appropriate response to a unique presidency with a unique lack of transparency. UPDATE: Dec. 20. I received this letter from Michael Powell, the New York bureau chief of the Washington Post, who wanted to commment on recent events and add some points he felt were being overlooked. Michael Powell: “Print reporting is a ‘cool’ medium; blogistan is often as hot as Hades.” I’ve been following the latest battle between blogistan and the print world and I had a few thoughts. I am a fan of Dan Froomkin and Jeff Morley, among other bloggers on our website. I admire the loose-limbed free associative quality of their writing, which to my mind stands in contrast to the mannered bloggers on the New York Times website. A few of my esteemed (and I’m not being facetious in my use of that adjective) colleagues have dismissed Froomkin and Morley as clip jobbers. That’s unfair and a bit foolish. They are terrific bloggers, who read widely and compare and contrast and draw connections—often obvious—that reporters sometimes shy from for fear of appearing less than objective. (Aspiring to objectivity as opposed to, say, fairness, always has struck me as a desultory intellectual cul de sac.) Most recently Froomkin noted the Big Dawg journalists traipsed out to Maryland to listen to President Bush give a thoroughly scripted talk on his views on health care. Meanwhile several reporters from smaller regional newspapers stayed behind and covered a Presidential sponsored health care conference, where the reception given to Bush’s plans was considerably cooler. Bravo. That’s a nice catch and there’s no need for the Big Dawg reporters to act thin-skinned about it. Sometimes you zig and someone else zags and gets a more interesting story. There is a natural tendency to define political coverage as whatever the Great Man says and does and that’s too reductive. If Froomkin and his blogging brotherhood flip the script on that narrative, so much the better. Our readers are better informed. That said, I can see the argument for tweaking Froomkin’s labelling. When Froomkin’s column first appeared, I assumed we had added a reporter to our corps in the White House (I would note in my clueless self defense that I am based in New York City and so lag on my awareness of newsroom hires). I was intrigued too by your column analyzing the “two” Washington Posts, the corporeal edition and the on-line product. Yours was the first argument I’d heard that made a strong case for what often seems to be an incomplete marriage. Most newsroom reporters and editors are very much invested in the success of our Website, and even enthusiastic about our future in the Web ether. We talk often of making better use of audio and phots and layout, and so expanding the boundaries of our print existence. But this enthusiasm comes tempered by a wariness, and it would be terrific if the Web triumphalists, who seem never to have experienced a moment’s doubt, could acknowledge that this just might, possibly, be honestly felt. As political editor John Harris notes, there’s a long and proud tradition of the journalist as independent and removed observer. It’s this reporting tradition that’s allowed the likes of Anthony Shadid to write pitch-perfect pieces in the middle of the bombing of Baghdad and Peter Baker to file dispatches while under enemy fire in Afghanistan. To borrow terms from another media, print reporting is a “cool” medium; blogistan is often as hot as Hades. There are perfectly good and honest reasons that some of our best reporters are wary of turning into some version of the mindless babblers who hold forth on television (and, in fairness, on a few blogs) and so they put their toes one at a time into the Web waters. Perhaps, as you argue, separation of the corporeal paper and its Web off-spring spurs innovation; you make an intriguing case. And there are good arguments for retaining the creative and editorial tension. But many of us suspect that the Post maintains a separate web operation for another more prosaic reason. Our dot.com operation is a non-union shop, while the The Washington Post, to the enduring credit of the Guild, is a union shop. I love the creativity of our Web colleagues, and I would not stifle that. But I want them to partake of the same salaries and benefits and protections offered by the mother ship. No doubt Web gurus will dismiss this as dinosaur talk. But all writers have a real stake in the ability of labor unions to penetrate web operations. One final point: To compare the Web readership with the suscriber/newstand base of the Washington Post is still to talk of apples and oranges. I love that our Web presence has expanded our readership, and many times e-mailing readers have caused me to re-think a piece, or forced me to consider a new avenue of inquiry. But, again, let’s tamp down the triumphalism. There are many many readers, including a fair number in their 30s and 40s, who spend precious little time in blogistan. Their primary and intimate relationship is with the corporeal Post. Michael Powell’s bio: New Yorker born and raised. Worked at New York Newsday for eight years. At the Post since 1996, where he’s covered Marion Barry, national politics for Style, New York City for the national section. E-mail. After Matter: Notes, reactions & links… Jane Hamsher reacts to this post (and Michael Powell) with Notes From the Crankosphere. (Dec. 22) The reason the WaPo editors and writers pooh-pooh the blogosphere’s concerns over GOP attempts to manipulate their content is not so much that they don’t see it as a problem as it is beside the point as far as they are concerned. What they are actually distressed about is real estate. Prime online marquee Beverly Hills pricetag terra firma. And they are furious at the WPNI — at war, as it has been described— because they have no control over it. Brad DeLong does A Platonic Dialogue on Journalistic Fairness. (Dec. 21) Excerpt: Capitalisticus: But his only asset is his credibility as an objective news reporter. He put that at risk… Jeff Jarvis comments on this post: “What they’re getting to now is a dissection of the most dangerous assumption being made — most surprisingly in the Washington Post newsroom — that if you criticize someone in power on one side, you must be on the other side, if the White House complains about you, then you must be liberal. Or to put it more simply: You’re either for them or against them.” He’s saying journalists picked up a bad habit of assuming: to have opinions is to show bias. Jim Brady, executive editor of the Post website writes a long and link-filled explanation at post.blog: The Washington Post & washingtonpost.com. He runs down the list of projects where the two are working well together, and ends with: I hope the point is made: washingtonpost.com could never be what it is today without the partnership we have with The Washington Post. One difference of opinion should not be viewed as a threat to that. Well I don’t think it’s viewed that way, Jim. Some see large meaning in the difference of opinion. That’s different from “threat.” There’s some action in the comments at Brady’s post, too. The Harvard Crimson reports on a dinner with Bob Woodward. Asked at the Harvard dinner whether the American media had adequately questioned the White House on its intelligence before the war, Woodward replied, “Did we drop the ball? Did we fail? And I would say yes.” Earlier Jane Hamsher…(Dec. 20) She has a question about the Froomkin business: where was the Democratic Party? Brad Delong gets letters from journalists: In email the lurkers—highly, highly respected journalist lurkers, both inside and outside the Washington Post newsroom—tend to agree with Dan, and also are irate because they typically believe that this passion for accountability and answers has been by and large absent from the print Washington Post’s coverage of George W. Bush. He quotes some of what the e-mails are saying. Anonymous Liberal, a week ago, Because so few journalists are willing to call a spade a spade, Froomkin’s willingness to do so (and the fact that he’s covering a Republican White House) makes him appear very liberal. If you read through Froomkin’s columns, however, you notice that he almost never strays from his core mission of assessing the transparency and public accountability of the White House. He doesn’t opine about policy matters; he simply gages, as best he can, the degree to which the White Houses is leveling with the American people and engaging its critics. But also see Christopher Fotos at PostWatch: Dan Froomkin, The Accidental Liberal, and Josh Trevino, Leader of the Hack and The hack.
Posted by Jay Rosen at December 19, 2005 5:11 PM
Comments
And the answer is: I don’t know. It’s possible that in some ways the current incarnation of White House Briefing is a uniquely appropriate response to a unique presidency with a unique lack of transparency. Dan, how do you respond to those on the right who claim that "all Presidents are in a bubble, Clinton was in a bubble, etc...." As more reporters start blogging (and they should) they’ll either write boring blogs that fail-– or they’ll write with a bit of attitude and succeed by connecting with readers. The two Oregonian reporters assigned to the City Hall beat recently started blogging, and while it's too soon to tell what it ultimately will become, they've both been rather arch in their comments about the scene, clearly in ways that generally don't make it into print unless you get someone else with the same opinion to give you a quote. What they don't know (because it ended up not being used) is that when I was asked by the paper to offer up two of my favorite local blogs, I picked that City Hall blog as one of them. Which prompted the editor of the commentary section (as familiar as anyone else with my disdain for the crappy relationship between Advance newspapers and Advance websites) to quip in response, "Wow, you picked an O blog. I'm shocked!" Posted by: The One True b!X at December 19, 2005 6:13 PM | Permalink It's a pity the "highly, highly respected journalist lurkers" care more about their crummy jobs than about "accountability and answers". What's a non-journalist to think? That invitations to A-list parties is more important than informing the public? That "unnamed sources" should have more credibility than "the named"? Is there a reason we should take the "highly, highly respected journalist lurkers" seriously? Do tell. Posted by: Agnes English at December 19, 2005 6:31 PM | Permalink Agnes, I agree. I was disappoined that DeLong's correspondents did not come out and say what they think, with their names attached. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 19, 2005 7:18 PM | Permalink Thanks for the links, Jay. As I said in an email to our host, crazy Christmas week activities will probably prevent me from doing justice to this round of L'affaire Froomkin, and my Accidental Liberal post will have to do most of the heavy lifting. I can't resist providing another example of Froomkin's liberal mindset, however: his comments in a Dec. 13 column, Bush Takes Questions: "Q Mr. President, I would like to know why it is that you and others in your administration keep linking 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq when no respected journalist or Middle Eastern expert confirmed that such a link existed. "THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. 9/11 changed my look on foreign policy. I mean, it said that oceans no longer protect us, that we can't take threats for granted; that if we see a threat, we've got to deal with it. It doesn't have to be militarily, necessarily, but we got to deal with it. We can't -- can't just hope for the best anymore. "And so the first decision I made, as you know, was to -- was to deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan because they were harboring terrorists. This is where the terrorists planned and plotted. And the second decision -- which was a very difficult decision for me, by the way, and it's one that I -- I didn't take lightly -- was that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He is a declared enemy of the United States; he had used weapons of mass destruction; the entire world thought he had weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations had declared in more than 10 -- I can't remember the exact number of resolutions -- that disclose, or disarm, or face serious consequences. I mean, there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, you're a threat. And the 9/11 attacks extenuated that threat, as far as I -- concerned. "And so we gave Saddam Hussein the chance to disclose or disarm, and he refused. And I made a tough decision. And knowing what I know today, I'd make the decision again. Removing Saddam Hussein makes this world a better place and America a safer country." That's the end of the Q&A excerpt, and Froomkin comments: As blogger Brendan Nyhan points out, Bush probably didn't mean to say that the "9/11 attacks extenuated that threat." Extenuate means "weaken." He probably meant exacerbate. Regardless, it was the first time I can recall Bush explaining so directly why he connects the two. If Froomkin didn't hear this explanation before, it's only because he wasn't listening. Bush has repeatedly explained this connection, and ignoring its existence is one of the common conceits of the left. Bush explained it to the U.N. in his speech of Sept. 12, 2002: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and brought grief to many citizens of our world. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear.... We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.... Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.... He explained it in his ultimatum to Saddam 48 hours before the invasion: The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth. Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.... He explained it to the Australian parliament on Oct. 22, 2003: The terrorists hope to gain chemical, biological or nuclear weapons -- the means to match their hatred. So we're confronting outlaw regimes that aid terrorists, that pursue weapons of mass destruction, and that defy the demands of the world. America, Australia, and other nations acted in Iraq to remove a grave and gathering danger, instead of wishing and waiting while tragedy drew closer.... And on and on and on. This is not a novel discovery, this is one of the main foundations of the war, as Bush has explained on numerous occasions. It's also habitually ignored by the left which, as implied in the question quoted by Froomkin, has often attacked Bush for something he never claimed: Saddam was behind 911. It is liberals, not conservatives, who either affect to have not heard this argument, or really haven't. But I'm sure that's just another coincidence. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 19, 2005 7:54 PM | Permalink Ok, delete this, it's off-topic. But I cannot refrain. Is anyone else troubled by the illogic of constantly bringing up that ultimatum? You do realize what the ultimatum was about, yes? It was about telling Saddam he had 48 hours to leave the country, since he would not disarm. You can see the flaw, now: He could not disarm WMD which he did not in reality have. Regardless of whether you believe the WMD argument was an outright lie by the Bush admin, or an intelligence failure, there's only one thing to say in hindsight, now that everyone -- including the Bushies -- admit there was no WMD, and that's this: "And so, in reality, Saddam didn't choose war. Saddam, it turns out, was telling us the truth when he said there were no WMD. So, um, sorry... our bad!" Posted by: The One True b!X at December 19, 2005 8:17 PM | Permalink Why do pusillanimous journalists behave pusillanimously by refusing to attach their names to the statements and opinions they think are important for you to know? Gee, when you say it that way .... If you are informed by your fears, this is how you behave. We need a new birth of courage among journalists, a return to the old principle that you confront power with truth. "Do not take counsel of your fear." Stonewall Jackson. Think he'd have been as successful if he'd taken counsel of his fears? Do you think anyone succeeds who acts from fear? Timidity is the bane of reporting the truth. The real corrosive power of timidity goes back to the very start of the weapons of mass destruction reporting, when every media outlet (to my knowledge) capable of actually covering that instead relied on a "he said, she said" approach, merely asserting what UN inspectors said and what our leaders were claiming. This is journalism? No, it's a formula for being irrelevant. People expect us to sort it out and come up with information explaining why two sets of officials disagree about the status of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It didn't happen, and now our job is explaining why we didn't do our job. Jeez it just gives you heartburn to even think about this crap. Bill Watson Posted by: Bill Watson at December 19, 2005 8:24 PM | Permalink Mr. Froomkin said: We know this is a dodge. Froomkin is a liberal who is predisposed to automatically assume that a Republican is not forthcoming, while a Democratic president would be entitled to some presumption of innocence from him. Posted by: Gary C at December 19, 2005 8:42 PM | Permalink Froomkin is ... predisposed to automatically assume that a Republican is not forthcoming, while a Democratic president would be entitled to some presumption of innocence from him. Gary: How interesting. And how exactly is it that you know that Froomkin "is predisposed to automatically assume that a Republican is not forthcoming" -- or that he would entitle a Democratic president with "some presumption of innocence" ? Certainly not from the evidence available. So, from what, precisely ? Could you give us any hints ? Assertion is not enough. Some of us want evidence. Links would help too. Or, as ten thousand editors have told ten thousand reporters, "Don't tell me; show me." Posted by: Steve Lovelady at December 19, 2005 9:06 PM | Permalink What did people think of this? "It’s possible that in some ways the current incarnation of White House Briefing is a uniquely appropriate response to a unique presidency with a unique lack of transparency." Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 19, 2005 10:40 PM | Permalink I suspect that by characterizing the tilt of his column thus far toward the President as "unique", Froomkin is cleverly positioning himself for an out when he doesn't crucify some future liberal Democrat president in the same way, nor to the same degree, that he does his nemesis Bush. Posted by: Trained Auditor at December 19, 2005 11:10 PM | Permalink Mama meme. You guys write as if you are unaware that Bush took Froomkin's medicine and saw his poll numbers rise. He broke the bubble. He decided against his I-cannot-be-questioned self. He sorta kinda got around to admitting things didn't go well in Iraq. He drew his rhetoric closer to what even supporters knew was the reality on the ground. He started giving interviews. Small adjustments, but big shifts from the direction he had been going in-- toward greater isolation. Most everything Froomkin was tracking built up until someone got through to Bush about at least some of it. In a way, Froomkin was trying to help Bush be a better president. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 19, 2005 11:27 PM | Permalink Jay, the subject of Froomkin's partisanship has long since been covered here, in extended correspondence with the man himself. Suffice it to say that his behavior during the 2004 campaign makes his pretense of skepticism per se now wholly disingenuous. Posted by: Joshua Trevino at December 19, 2005 11:56 PM | Permalink In a way, Froomkin was trying to help Bush be a better president. Well. Certainly Froomkin thinks so. Posted by: Joshua Trevino at December 19, 2005 11:58 PM | Permalink Jay, I'm always skeptical of any description about how unique or most or first something or other is. It usually indicates a short memory, which makes possible the feeling of how very special we are. On Bended Knee, Mark Hertsgaard, Farar, Straus & Giroux, 1988. Library Journal: During the Reagan years, the White House Press Corps has "functioned less as an independent than as a palace court press," according to Hertsgaard. Basing his arguments on hundreds of interviews with important administration leaders and reporters, Hertsgaard convincingly portrays the White House press as noncritical and sycophantic. As members of the same power elite that they write about, White House reporters more often than not agree with the President's policies. In addition, they have been reluctant to strongly criticize Reagan for fear of being cut off from the flow of information and of losing their privileged status. Publisher's Weekly: Based on some 175 interviews with top administration officials, senior journalists and news executives, plus analyses of newspaper articles and television stories, Hertsgaard ( Nuclear Inc. ) argues that the Reagan White House not only tamed the media but transformed it into "a willing mouthpiece of the government" in its coverage of issues ranging from economic policy to arms control. In addition to providing examples of the media's "accommodating passivity" on major issues, he contends that the Reagan propaganda apparatus... zzzzzz. There's a crowd where if you're not personally serving articles of impeachment, you're a sycophant. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 20, 2005 12:02 AM | Permalink This crowd has assuredly been out in force during the Froomkin affair. Posted by: Joshua Trevino at December 20, 2005 12:05 AM | Permalink They definitely don't sound grateful for the Froomkin medicine-- do they, Steve? So... what did people think of this idea? "It’s possible that in some ways the current incarnation of White House Briefing is a uniquely appropriate response to a unique presidency with a unique lack of transparency." Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 20, 2005 1:04 AM | Permalink > a uniquely appropriate response to a unique presidency with a unique lack of transparency My first thought: all that uniqueness makes for a uniquely untestable proposition. Second thought: while we can't test it, Bush could, by developing more transparency.
Was it the journalists who were courageous, or their editors? Posted by: Anna Haynes at December 20, 2005 2:54 AM | Permalink Just added as an update to the post. I received this letter from Michael Powell, the New York bureau chief of the Washington Post, who wanted to commment on recent events and add some points he felt were being overlooked. (Excerpts from the full text above.) Michael Powell: "Print reporting is a 'cool' medium; blogistan is often as hot as Hades." I am a fan of Dan Froomkin and Jeff Morley, among other bloggers on our website. I admire the loose-limbed free associative quality of their writing, which to my mind stands in contrast to the mannered bloggers on the New York Times website. He spoke in his own name! So... what do people think of Powell's reflections? Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 20, 2005 10:35 AM | Permalink I think you might get more response if you engaged in the thread you're trying to create -- specifically with regard to the points put directly to you -- beyond merely throwing out demands for reactions to statements you agree with. Posted by: Joshua Trevino at December 20, 2005 1:00 PM | Permalink Sorry, Josh. Your "engagement" in his post consists of saying that Froomkin's lefty partisanship--the matter in dispute--has long since been proven. What's to discuss? You don't respond to anything he said here, or even mention that you read it. You show no awarness of distinctions he's attempting to draw. You add nothing, except to say it's all been said before. Oh, and that we're all Froomkin syncophants. You call that "participation?" I don't. It's just more drive-by partisanship. It happens a lot, and the best recourse is ignore it. But... I added that link you gave us--the one that settles the matter--to my post, so thanks for that. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 20, 2005 2:21 PM | Permalink Small adjustments, but big shifts from the direction he had been going in-- toward greater isolation. Most everything Froomkin was tracking built up until someone got through to Bush about at least some of it. Jay, you also played a prominent role in people's understanding of the "bubble" -- so you deserve some credit for the "new and improved" Bush Presidency as well. ******************** He spoke in his own name! So... what do people think of Powell's reflections? I think Joel Achenbach should sue for theft of intellectual property, since he said this first (as far as I know) ********************* Polls, and Press bias, and the Post....two comments from today's online chat with Richard Morin: We did pause before going over this weekend, which is when America--including at least one pollster--did much of its holiday shopping. But the value of going into the field after the Iraq election outweighed these concerns. This strongly suggests that the Posts polls are not an accurate reflection of actual public opinion, but simply reflect a reaction to "undigested" news. It also obviously suggests that the Post was looking for good poll numbers from Bush. The poll was taken at a point where we knew literally nothing about the results of the Iraqi elections -- all we knew was that lots of people voted. Pollkatz has some interesting numbers about poll frequency and Bush's ratings. He states... Poll Frequency and Bush Approval: they move together. That is to say, when Bush's approval numbers are rising, more polls are taken. Surprise! ...and another comment from Morin That said. we do not ask about impeachment because it is not a serious option or a topic of considered discussion--witness the fact that no member of congressional Democratic leadership or any of the serious Democratic presidential candidates in '08 are calling for Bush's impeachment. Unfortunately, no member of the Democratic Congressional leadership or any of the serious Democratic Presidential candidates" was calling for "immediate withdrawal" in March 2005, when the Post started asking that question. Indeed, none of those people have ever called for "immediate withdrawal" (with its clear 'cut and run' implications -- Murtha's proposal, which some Democratic leaders support, is a for a phased six-month withdrawal as soon as "practicable" while maintaining an "over the horizon" presence in the region. Indeed, the Post is quite comfortable relying on what "some people say" (specifically, "18. Some people say the Bush administration should set a deadline forwithdrawing U.S. military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further casualties. Others say knowing when the U.S. would pull out would only encourage the anti-government insurgents..) Now I can identify who is "saying" the latter stuff....but who among the Democratic leadership was demanding a firm "deadline" for withdrawal of the troops back in August, when the Post started asking this question? (The Dems were demanding that Bush set a timeline, and offering suggested metrics for measuring progress in Iraq.) In other words, Morin's answer is inconsistent with the way that Post polls actually work. They don't rely on the proposals of leading Democrats to formulate the questions -- indeed, they tend to rely on "straw man" alternatives to Bush's policies to "test" public approval of those policies. But with Bush's "strongly disapprove" numbers in the 40 percent range, and the "Democratic grassroots" talking about "impeachment" (and hey, we're "some people" too!) its a natural question to ask -- unless you have an agenda that includes not maintaining the myth that impeachment is an "unthinkable" and/or "radically outside the mainstream" idea. Bottom line here is that Morin's answer appears to reflect the intentional pro-White House bias that Len Downie, and especially John Harris, have exhibited throughout the Froomkin affair. What is interesting (and dangerous) is that whatever a journalist does is that it looked at within a political perpective. My comment on the bias wars taking place above. What would be very interesting would be how the public is reacting to the NYT method of combining the print and WEB commentators and the WP method of separating them. I am really asking from a marketing and penetration perspective. I am interested from a corporate reporting viewpoint. We have various customers who would very much like the printed copy of reporting (much like a newspaper delivered to your door) and others who would just as well like an email that something is wrong and need to look in detail at a particular problem. Jay, you also played a prominent role in people's understanding of the "bubble" -- so you deserve some credit for the "new and improved" Bush Presidency as well. You're kidding, right? You forgot the smiley :) Slate's John Dickerson writes about the Froomkin medicine, without mentioning Dan: Bush's Long March to Candor. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 20, 2005 4:11 PM | Permalink Joshua Trevino I guess if Jay can provoke and tease on other blogs maybe I can response (Jay I apologize in advance). But I followed you link to where you say the whole issue of Frookin's partisan's leanings were "long since covered." So by "covered" you mean the same thing as "proven?" Here's the thing, I'm not sure what you think the back'n'forth e-mails with Frookin exactly show? I see a particularly long post by YOU where you say "well here in this column you used biased languaged, and here in this column you used biased language and here in this column your choice of words was particularly disturbing." But in each instance, you describe the column, mostly give the dates...and that's it. You don't actually quote much of the text that's supposed to be biased or when you do, it just like, one or two words. How is that evidence? You can't say to someone "Well on your Oct 14, post you were biased" or "Well on your Oct 14 post you used the word 'pumpkin' which clearly MEANT you were biased against Bush." That's not evidence. That's you saying the same thing as "I think on Oct 14 you were being bias." "I think" isn't evidence. Certainly not the kind of ironclad stuff you seem to believe. Hey I spend hours last week talking on televisionwithoutpity about whether Randall's decision on The Apprentice not to hire Rebecca was the "right" choice. But its all just a matter of interpretation. Its not like my "I think" is more "right" than someone else. I just read the situation differently than you. Ever hear the saying that 99 people watching a car accident will have 99 opinions of what just happened? Textual evaluations are like that. I should know, I try to do them for a living. Posted by: catrina at December 20, 2005 5:01 PM | Permalink Bob Barr is a liberal now: he's criticizing the NSA surveillance. That must make Froomkin whatever's to the left of a communist. We are at war with Oceania. We have always been at war with Oceania. Report thought crimes. No doubt Richard Morin will be on impeachment like OJ's glove now that John Conyers has introduced a resolution calling for the censure of Bush and Cheney and the creation of a select committee to investigate whether there are grounds for impeachment. Looking forward to it. "Loose limbed" is an odd description. "Free associative" is another, given that both Froomkin and Morley do an astonishing amount of reading and dot-connecting, including dots that are often off the institutional press radar. That's not free association; they go look for stuff and write about it when they find it. They sometimes break news, too, Morley most recently with his discovery that the state department's foreign news summary site has gone dark. It's nice that Powell is appreciative, but there's a sense of "Gosh, I wish I could get away with being that care free and flightly instead of being stuck with this highly accountable drudgery." Or maybe I'm just cranky this year. Jay, you mentioned John Dickerson. Last week he managed to write an entire column on Viveca Novak without mentioning her abrupt arrival at the bottom of the slippery slope, or whether, as she said, Rove's role as Cooper's source was circulating around the Time newsroom. Since Dickerson was working at the magazine when she was obligingly passing that info along to Ruskin, and had cowritten a Plame story with her (which he did mention), cluing the peasantry in on the deal would have been a nice gesture. Bush is an extreme example of what he is, but he isn't unique. If Nixon had the opportunity to start a war instead of inheriting one and had the breadth of technology available to Bush, he would've been right in there. Certainly he's the template for the post-war imperial presidency; the White House has generally adopted Nixon's view, which wasn't a casual one, that "it isn't illegal if the president does it." And his passion for secrecy is every bit the equal of the current administration's, although he hadn't hit on the ploy of just declining any substantive interaction with reporters. He actually enjoyed mixing it up, right until the bitter end. And Ziegler would have been intensely jealous of McClellan. No: Froomkin's approach only seems shiny because it's a rare day when White House reporters have both the opportunity and the overview necessary to put together a good talk therapy session. Judging from his uncharacteristic volubility regarding the NSA thing, Bush has a lot he'd like to get off his chest if someone finds and asks the right questions. And speaking of the New York Times, isn't the third Siegal Committee report due? The one that says a newspaper continually burned by a particular administration shouldn't sit on an important story just because said administration assures them it's all covertly aboveboard? They should dialogue about that, and produce a valuable post-mortem explaining to readers how that stuff works. Again. And why the publisher and executive editor were in the thick of killing news. Again. And still have jobs. Again. Mr. Calame? More Froomkins. Less Mike Allens and Bill Kellers. Josh, keep up the good work. There's manna in this for believers, in the end. Posted by: weldon berger at December 20, 2005 5:50 PM | Permalink "They definitely don't sound grateful for the Froomkin medicine-- do they, Steve?" No, they don't, Jay. But, then, why is that a surprise ? When are you ever going to learn ? Reductionists always reduce. It's always a Left-Right question, you see. It's never a truth-untruth question. Except for confusing cases like the NY Times holding the domestic spying story for a year -- RIGHT ! -- but then printing it in the end -- LEFT! That one is confounding enough to give an idealogue a headache. Ah, well, not to worry. Surely the next issue to rise up on the horizon will be more amenable to stuffing into the handy left-right Bias-O-Meter. I sure hope so. These headaches are a bitch. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at December 20, 2005 6:21 PM | Permalink Mr. Berger, You are being cranky. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar and sometimes a compliment is a compliment. Free associative and loose-limbed are complimentary adjectives, particularly as I note in the same paragraph that they make the connections that a lot of us don't. I love writing that moves, and thinkers that range freely. Thatz all I'm sayin' here. Best Posted by: Michael Powell at December 20, 2005 7:51 PM | Permalink Michael ... okay. I was unfair in taking out on you my frustrations with people who are noticeably not you, and I apologize to you for doing so. Cheers, Posted by: weldon berger at December 20, 2005 10:16 PM | Permalink Michael: Thanks for writing in and stopping in. Weldon, thanks for the answer. Michael, I did a post with Thomas Edsall (audio interview, with a summary in text) of the Post's political staff and it was partly about political bloggers (whom Edsall said he read twice a day.) In there he said, "We in journalism— there’s an orthodoxy to our thinking. You can come up with an idea and you know it’s sort of verbotten." Bloggers, he suggested, were breaking that up. They were eluding the orthodoxy of the press, and exposing it for the humanly flawed, conformist and limited system it always was. That's not triumphalism, is it? That's Thomas Edsall talking. If it's got some sound analysis, then the difference isn't cool vs. hot, or partisan vs. non, or even professonal (standards) vs. amateur (passions), but an orthodoxy in professional journalism and a challenge to it that professional journalism could neither veto nor control. Froomkin is very much of this; he recognized it, and took it "inside" the Post. Buy it? Here is an example. Richard Morin in an online chat--all credit to him for taking questions--is asked why the Post doesn't poll on impeachment. He disagrees strongly with those who say, "why not ask the question of the American people?" by saying: when someone in Congress starts talking impeachment, maybe we will. Right now it's not a serious option. To me this is a fairly clear statement by Morin. Post says our standard is when the cause makes it to Congress, we poll. But as Jane Hamsher points out, Morin gets madder and madder as he gets (and gets) the impeachment question. He smells an organized group. I understand his answer about Congress (although that wasn't the standard for Clinton and asking about impeachment, Hamsher says) but why does the question make him mad? Is "when things get to Congress, we poll" the only rule that makes any damn sense? No way, and it's not even the only rule the Post has followed. Why act like it's an obvious standard when it's not? Morin is mad because he has to discuss it-- explain it. Repeat it! His sense of orthodoxy is offended. Do you think newsroom orthodoxy is holding up these days, falling apart, transforming before our eyes, or is there no such thing? Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 21, 2005 12:13 AM | Permalink Possible future topic for PressThink column? Bob Woodward divulges to invitation only dinner at Harvard that he knows Bob Novak's original Plame source and believes s/he does not work in the White House. You heard it at Harvard first (if you were invited). The Washington Post scooped on executive editor Bob Woodward making news by the Harvard Crimson? Courtesy of Susan G Posted by: Mark Anderson at December 21, 2005 2:17 AM | Permalink Do you think newsroom orthodoxy is holding up these days, falling apart, transforming before our eyes, or is there no such thing? I think that as Hamsher's example clearly proves, newsroom "orthodoxy" doesn't really exist. The so-called "standards" of restraint that Morin is talking about is pretty clearly seat-of-the-pants, make-it-up as you go along. They don't ask a polling question until someone in Congress is talking about it? That's a standard? Please.
Posted by: Phredd at December 21, 2005 7:48 AM | Permalink Fotos' attempt to scorn Froomkin's remark about Bush linking Saddam to AlQaida in a novel way gives three examples of alleged non-novelty dating from when Bush used to claim credible intelligence for the link. Unlike Fotos, Froomkin has noticed that Bush no longer dares to air that dodgy intelligence (which is up there with his aluminum reactor tubes and Niger yellowcake) and is now groping for a non-evidential way to make the linkage. Posted by: AlanDownunder at December 21, 2005 8:06 AM | Permalink "the same passion for answers and accountability would inform the column no matter who is president." I don't see any tough questions of the Dems right now. Steve L has a fine quote: "Don't tell me; show me." Too bad he fails to follow his own advice in defense of Froomkin (by showing Froomkin work highly critical of Dem non-accountability). (Marc Cooper, a Bush-hater who also dislikes Kerry and many Dems seems a reasonable skeptic.)
In the opposite way, the media being Dem Party pansies, and never asking attack-dog tough questions (what are the details of what you would do?) of the Dems, is putting the Dems in a cloud of media induced false-security. Americans often support a fighting underdog -- with Bush claiming to be an underdog fighting the media defeatists, the media's unfair hostility seems more likely to help him.
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at December 21, 2005 9:46 AM | Permalink How does impeachment polling fall into Froomkin's laser focus and Accountability Journalism? How does Dan defend against straying into "anti-Bush" terrority, justify ignoring counter evidence or not fact-checking what he quotes? Posted by: Sisyphus at December 21, 2005 10:21 AM | Permalink A central issue in the conflict at the Post between John Harris, the national editor who works at the white house, and Dan Froomkin the blogger was that Harris views Froomkin as "liberal" while Froomkin sees himself as pursuing transparency and accountability. Froomkin says that Harris is wrong to equate posting negative commentary about administration dishonesty with taking a liberal position. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 21, 2005 10:27 AM | Permalink Jay, The triumphalism thing kinda bugs you, no?Blogistan in its own way is as touchy and oh-so-sensitive as, well, political reporters at major newspapers. I am, truly, a fan of blogs, and read at least a half dozen each day. I will admit, though, that I tend to seek value-added. I don't read Slate/The American Prospect/Daily Kos/National Review/Hugh Hewitt as often as I read Juan Cole/Delong/Angry Bear/Panda's Thumb/Bill Dembski/The Guardian/a NY Mets blog or three (okay, maybe I procrastinate a lot more than I thought--I read a dozen blogs a day). I want the value added of real and specific knowledge, along with, yes, 'tude and politics. The point I tried to make, and perhaps not clearly enough, is that doubt and caution sometimes serve reporters well. And SOME, not ALL, blogs put a great premium on the visceral and the heated. That can get old. That said, Edsall is right. Any mono-culture, including big newsrooms, tends towards a group think. In the case of national politics, the unquestioned assumptions can pile up. That's why it's so valuable, for instance, to have political writers coming out of Style--they can be more "irresponsible", in the very best sense of that word. It's also why the blogs are a great counter to the political pages (After the last election, for instance, they raised lots of good questions about the election results in some states, even if the worst suspicions didn't pan out). That said, the Daily Kos and Panda's Thumb, and their respective chat boards, are intense examples of group-think. Smart group think, but group think nonetheless. I'm not a big fan of polling every issue. Our poll on Alito struck me as silly today--I can't really imagine more than .13 percent of America knows beans about him. An impeachment poll doesn't run my motor. Best Michael Posted by: Michael Powell at December 21, 2005 11:32 AM | Permalink Thanks for all this Jay and others. I always feel like I've earned a J.D. from NYU when I read one of your blog posts. -- Halley Posted by: Halley Suitt at December 21, 2005 11:47 AM | Permalink Tom Grey: The excuse for Froomkin's silence about Democrat accountability is his coincidentally chosen focus, at this time, on the current Republican president. Thus, "White House Briefing." If 2008 brings a Democrat administration while Republicans hold Congress, I predict Froomkin will refocus his attention away from the White House. We can then look forward to a "Capital Hill Briefing", perhaps. Purely motivated by a desire for accountability where Froomkin sees the need, of course. Posted by: Trained Auditor at December 21, 2005 2:23 PM | Permalink Michael: Thanks for checking in. Charges of triumphalism don't bug me. I might dispute some, and agree wholeheartedly with others. Charges of triumphalism presented without names, url's, links, quotes and voices do bug me, yes. It's not that I doubt "bloggers will triumph because they are the mighty, the righteous and the just" is an attitude out there. It's out there, and gets expressed. But such excess is not very interesting to discuss in the abstract. Link to and argue with a triumphalist: very good. Telling the blogosphere to cool it with with its trimphalism has less meaning to me. Here's Jane Hamsher with a statement in the Froomkin matter that some might call a bit triumphalist: "What the WaPo writers are viewing through their Technorati tags is only a tiny crumb of a rage that threatens to sweep them into irrelevance." Pretty dramatic, someone could say overly dramatic. Now if you argued with Jane's post-specific triumphalism, instead of with a timeless category that can't defend itself, you would engage with her whole post, which is more than just trumpeting bloggers rage, even though it may have that in it too. It seems to me this is the way things are going. Doubt and caution serve independent journalists well, we agree. To lose that would destroy their craft. True also of independent bloggers, independent citizens, independent firefighters, and independent state legislators. I'm pretty sure you missed my point about impeachment polling. I'm not advocating for it (although I would be curious to see the numbers.) Impeachment questions don't jazz you? Fine with me. I was pointing out that Morin's explanation does not have the authority he thinks it does, and he's getting angry because in fact he doesn't know how to argue his case. Might seem like a small thing to some. Halley: Thanks for those words. Here at PressThink we constantly live on the edge of over-doing it:) Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 21, 2005 2:29 PM | Permalink On the triumphalism stuff, I dunno, that feels like intellectual dodge. If you want a footnoted essay, that's cool and you should specify that.(And I suppose we could demand Hamsher provide vast chapter and verse than a web chat. But frankly that'd make for a pretty boring and didactic back and forth. I get her point ... ) I was careful to note that I wasn't broad-brushing and I provided examples of blogs that provided vitamin enhanced content--and those to my mind that don't. As for the impeachment question, let me begin with a caveat. I don't care for polling and I believe that we greatly overuse it. We ask people about all manner of subjects about which they might know very little, if at all. If, however, we are going to use polling to measure every murmer and burp in the news, then we certainly open ourselves up to the perfectly fair question: As for Rich Morin's snappishness, y'know, you'd best put that question to him. It's certainly not unheard of to get bombarded with emails in a mini-campaign in those on-line chats. That can get maddening if you're trying to have a chat that touches on a wide topic range. (Imagine, if you would, that you are in an hour long chat and 118 political reporters message about "web triumphalism"--drive you mad, it would) But again, best put that to Rich. Posted by: michael powell at December 21, 2005 3:58 PM | Permalink Editor and Publisher has a fascinating article on the role of reader attitudes toward newspaper reporting in the Dover, Pennsylvania school board debate over intelligent design. Newspapers Played Key Role in Intelligent Design Debate Just as with the Jay Ackroyd commentary Jay cites above concerning scapegoating media as political strategy, reader reception that pre-judged newspaper reporting and facts was at the center of this legal struggle in the culture war as well as the directly political aspect of the culture wars Ackroyd remarks. The anti-fourth estate radicals have really fallen hard here. Any chance we'll see consequences in justifiably reduced credibility of the press rejectionism faction? Anti-rejectionist triumphalism ala Buckhead vs. Dan Rather would require we begin to write the obituary of the lying liars who damn the ground journalists walk on. Would that it were that simple. Would that the mainstream media gave it remotely comparable attention. How about a Time "Man of the Year" cover for the editor of the York Daily? Posted by: Mark Anderson at December 21, 2005 4:12 PM | Permalink The coverage by the York papers was smart, gutsy journalism. They did long pieces on the science and the politics, and didn't back down when they were religion-and-culture baited. And they broke a lot of stories in a town where some of the school board members were very actively hostile to the press. And quite arguably their journalism made a difference in the most profound way: It changed an election. At at time when so many papers seem scared of their own shadow, the York papers have a lot of reason to stand proud. Posted by: michael powell at December 21, 2005 4:30 PM | Permalink "Scapegoating media as political strategy" is a given these days. If you doubt it, read any Press Think thread. A lot of the time -- on levels national, regional and local -- it works. Sometimes it doesn't. That's something the Dover, Pa., school board, along with Mssrs. Cheney and Bush, have yet to learn. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at December 21, 2005 5:34 PM | Permalink It's nice to see the old media triumphalists win one. Posted by: Sisyphus at December 21, 2005 5:45 PM | Permalink Sisyphus, Good line. No triumphs, just a long uncertain slog with lots of lessons still to be learned. Posted by: michael powell at December 21, 2005 7:03 PM | Permalink The reason I reject triumphalism, of the web or MSM variety, is that we so clearly need each other. Brad Delong's splendidly ornery riffs on politics and economics work if he can rely on the MSM to occasionally do our job and find out what's really going on with economic data, or CIA prisons in Europe and presidential violations of wire-tapping laws and the like. And Juan Cole has often noted his debt to newspaper reporters, Arab and American, as he so cogently critiquing what's going on in Iraq. On the udder hand, Delong splits our heads open for sloppily accepting Bush administration spin and Cole doesn't hesistate to illuminate our occasional descents into press puffery. My point, a modest one, is that blogistan needs the MSM and we need blogistan. But while we can move closer and closer together, I doubt that the values of one will ever fully resemble those of the other. There's a constant intellectual tension. Which, to circle back, it's why I like Froomkin. Any reporter reading him with that proverbial ounce of self awareness knows that some of the skewers cut deep and true. Posted by: Michael Powell at December 21, 2005 7:17 PM | Permalink "I don't see any tough questions of the Dems right now." -- Tom Grey That's true; the tough questions tend to be asked of those overwhelmingly in power and trying to extend that power, not those ineffectually trying to grasp a lower rung of the ladder. Four years from now, ask George Bush about that. He will tell you the same thing that Bill Clinton would tell you today, if anyone asked him. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at December 21, 2005 9:38 PM | Permalink "Which, to circle back, it's why I like Froomkin. Any reporter reading him with that proverbial ounce of self awareness knows that some of the skewers cut deep and true." -- Michael Powell Well put, Michael. It's refreshing to come upon a reporter who realizes that. It's especially refreshing to come upon a reporter who takes account of it in his own work. Which, come to think of it, is what started this whole kerfluffle. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at December 21, 2005 9:47 PM | Permalink A footnoted essay? Vast chapter and verse? How depressing. We better leave that subject, as we're further away from mutual comprehension with each round. "Let's tamp down the triumphalism." Amen. I agree with this part, "While we can move closer and closer together, I doubt that the values of one will ever fully resemble those of the other. There's a constant intellectual tension." There's also disagreement on how best to phrase that tension. And on that subject: an e-mail colloquy between Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times and John Hinderaker at Power Line. ("Mr. Lichtblau, in your reporting in the Times you appear to have tried to create the impression that the NSA's overseas intercept program is, or may be, illegal.") Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 21, 2005 10:35 PM | Permalink Jay, "Charges of triumphalism don't bug me. I might dispute some, and agree wholeheartedly with others. Charges of triumphalism presented without names, url's, links, quotes and voices do bug me, yes." Not to beat a dead horse, because I don't feel we're really that far apart, but speakng of mutual comprehension, this was your last message. More details? Urls? Quotes? Hence my question, slightly sarcastic I admit, about footnotes. You'd asked for a quick letter/essay to keep a dialogue going. If we can't agree that some webheads are triumphalist and don't like to be questioned, and that some print reporters are haughty and don't like to be questioned, then you're right, what we have here is a failure to communicate. (I'd argue that print reporters are a bit too nervous about the future of the business to be triumphalist just now ... ) As for how to phrase that tension, well ... See here's where old fashioned journalism serves best. Give me a call and we can talk back and forth. It's too easy to talk by and misunderstand one another electronically. Best Michael Posted by: michael powell at December 21, 2005 11:53 PM | Permalink I’ve been provoked to come out from behind my shadow, though I’m not ready to post in my name. No tenure. In response to Steve Lovelady who mocked a split vision of society with his “handy left-right Bias-O-Meter:” Mr. L, I’ve noticed, particularly in discussions of American religion, that academics tend to discount a split vision of culture. Instead, they search for “the missing middle” and scoff at the notion of “a culture war.” Bracketing, for a moment, whether such a war exists, I do find it interesting that you so easily join the dominant chorus of voices in academe … and journalism (?). Perhaps a vision of society as either split like a dumbbell, or smooth like a bell curve, is a defining characteristic of a pov, worldview, bias or whatever you want to call the foundational, substrata of thought and vision that informs how we see the world. What Michael Powell calls “group think” may only be the tendency for similarly-grounded people to congregate in certain professions, including journalism. And among the foundational ideas that journalists appear to share is that of a non-bifurcated society. This may partially explain why Jay Rosen is so sensitive about the WH “strategy” of accusing the press of being biased or partisan when administration policy is criticized. To Mr. R, there is a large middle ground of biased, but still fair, journalists. This is a mainstream academic assumption. Outside academe, however, many people think in dualistic terms. Nuance, for many non-academic/journalistic sorts, is a sign of weakness, not intelligence. To them, bias comes in two colors – red and blue -- not Technicolor. The pov of the Wash Post reporters may be less nuanced than Mr. R may prefer, but I rather doubt they’ve given up their vision of a bell-curved culture. Also, I rather doubt that the vision of a split society is merely a media strategy on the part of Bush’s team. Seeing society as rent into two factions is foundational to the worldview of most Republicans. Thus, Bush’s view of the media emerges from his pov, not from a cleverly conceived media strategy. Now, regarding polls and approval ratings, which Ami believes stroll together – this is utter bunk, (I admit that I had to go back to my graphs to prove this.) The opposite is closer to the truth, that is, the frequency of polls accelerates when Bush approval goes down. I looked at data for the last six months, a time when Bush’s poll numbers fluctuated. Of the five polling firms below, two showed a tendency to poll soon after a decline in Bush’s approval and three had insufficient number of upticking polls to make a conclusion. Interestingly, the ABC/Washington Post poll only showed downticks. (I’d love it if a real pollster crunched these numbers for us … please!) Forgive the long stuff that follows, please, and look at presidential approval numbers: Rasmussan polls presidential approval daily. No bias here. CNN and Gallup (sometimes together) presidential approval polls – After a decline, 6.1 days until the next poll. After a rise in rating, 7.1 days until the next poll.
7/11 42 FOX only two rises, so too infrequent to draw conclusion 6/14 48 ABC News/Wash Post – only shows declines! 6/2 48 CBS/NYT 19 days after rise … 13 days after fall. 6/10 42
Posted by: hyperhystorian at December 21, 2005 11:57 PM | Permalink I'm glad you cited that Licthblau/Hinderaker exchange, Jay, because it reminds me of a typical Froomkin technique that illustrates his political bias--his selective quotations from the left. In a column where he discusses impeachment,he showcases Bush critics who affect that the illegality of the NSA anti-terror wiretaps is, to use an old expression, a slam-dunk. There is no lack of debate about this on the web, with plenty of legal experts out there, including a former Clinton official, supporting Bush's prerogative. But Froomkin dare not give them voice. Still, I am sure this is just another another coincidence. Accountability truth teller and all that. And Froomkin is back to his old ways on giving unsolicited advice to Washington Post staff writers about deportment. Last time the White House beat reporters weren't holding Bush accountable; now he's setting boundaries for their polling reporter: Washington Post pollster Richard Morin said in a Live Online discussion yesterday: "We do not ask about impeachment because it is not a serious option or a topic of considered discussion -- witness the fact that no member of congressional Democratic leadership or any of the serious Democratic presidential candidates in '08 are calling for Bush's impeachment. When it is or they are, we will ask about it in our polls." Morin complained that he and other pollsters have been the "target of a campaign organized by a Democratic Web site demanding that we ask a question about impeaching Bush in our polls." And Morin got angry at all the people posting to his Live Online yesterday asking him why he won't ask about impeachment. But there's no reason to get mad. And there's nothing wrong with asking the question. Our third-grade teachers were wrong, by the way--there is such a thing as a stupid question. But I'm more interested in Froomkin's desire and unusual ability as a post.com writer to school the Post's staff, something that I think was vastly under-discussed in this kerfluffle. And it only occured to me just now how asymmetrical this is. There's no reason or opportunity in the normal course of business for Peter Baker or those guys to write about Froomkin. Nor for Morin. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 22, 2005 12:20 AM | Permalink Makes sense, Michael. I think we can agree that some webheads are triumphalist and don't like to be questioned, and that some print reporters are haughty and don't like to be questioned. Sure. You're right that a simple letter-to-blog does not require chapter and verse. I said in Bloggers vs. Journalists is Over (January '05) that it was silly to speak of one "type" triumphing over the other; they were going to become interdependent. They were going to share media space. They were going to need each other. Thus: "Bloggers vs. professional journalists is over. But there's power in the revolution Pro-Am." But also: "I think there's always going to be tension between bloggers and Big Journalism. It's in the DNA." I can hardly disagree when you voice similar sentiments, coming from your own experience and inquiry. And thanks for participating in comments, too. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 22, 2005 12:38 AM | Permalink Christopher Fotos: "And it only occured to me just now how asymmetrical this is." Asymmetrical: good word. Using symmetrical means on an asymmetrical world ultimately imperils your credibility. Howard Fineman:, Dec. 21, MSNBC: For months now, I have been getting e-mails demanding that my various employers (Newsweek, NBC News and MSNBC.com) include in their poll questionnaires the issue of whether Bush should be impeached. They used to demand this on the strength of the WMD issue, on the theory that the president had “lied us into war.” Now the Bush foes will base their case on his having signed off on the NSA’s warrant-less wiretaps. He and Cheney will argue his inherent powers and will cite Supreme Court cases and the resolution that authorized him to make war on the Taliban and al-Qaida. They will respond by calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already hauled forth no less an authority than John Dean to testify to the president’s dictatorial perfidy. The “I-word” is out there, and, I predict, you are going to hear more of it next year — much more. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 22, 2005 12:44 AM | Permalink hyper-"historian" a six month sample when all the polls have shown Bush's ratings trending downward is less than convincing. I suggest that you review the data from "Professor Pollkatz" to which I linked which covers a far greater time-period, rather than present a clearly biased sample as you have done. ******** Media Matters has a rather amazing bit on the Post poll -- and how CNN featured the Post poll while ignoring its own more favorable poll... There is no lack of debate about this on the web, with plenty of legal experts out there, including a former Clinton official, supporting Bush's prerogative. Which is why the "dumbbell" analogy may be so appropriate. The fact that there is a vast right-wing noise machine ready and willing to defend virtually anything that Bush does (lying about war, torture, detention without charges, spying on US citizens without a warrant) is not indicative of the validity of their defense of Bush (which always comes down to "the President is above the law"), but merely demonstrates that there will always be people who don't think, but merely react when Bush is criticized. "We want to spy on so many American citizens that it would be too difficult to get warrants for each one" is not a legal argument. And the whole purpose of the Constitution (and the FISA law) was to prevent the kind of assumption of absolute authority by a President that Bush is attempting. The only real question is whether the wingnuts would be claiming this was legal if Clinton had tried it -- and we already know the answer to that one.... A-"me" My apologies for the "clearly biased" poll readings. I took only the past six months of poll readings because of time constraints. The data came from the original poll sources, not a secondary or derivative source. Since I do not know what several years of data would look like -- and you obviously do? -- I'll defer to your judgment. Intuitively, though, I doubt a longer stretch of time would produce different results. Pollkatz is interesting -- I agree. There is far more depth and discussion about recent issues in polling, however, in Mark Blumenthal's mysterypollster.typepad.com and Charles Franklin's politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com. Posted by: hyperhystorian at December 22, 2005 10:34 AM | Permalink Hyper... I cited Pollkatz because of Morin's tacit admission that the Post timed the poll for a period where Bush would be getting "good news" about "Sunni turnout", but before the actual results and implications of the Iraqi election would be known. The fact is that high Sunni turnout was expected by virtually everyone -- the Sunni leadership had encouraged people to vote, and the indigenous insurgency had signalled that it would not attempt disruptions on election day. The fact that forming a government in the aftermath of the elections would be extremely difficult and could lead to greater problems (because the Iraqi constitution requires a 2/3 parliamentary majority to form a government) was given little (if any) coverage at all that day. (and speaking of election coverage, the major media buried what was an even more significant story about foreign elections -- the election of a socialist who supports the right of coca-growers and is considered pro-Chavez and anti-Bush as the new President of Bolivia. This was "bad news" for Bush -- but it was treated as a non-story.) You know, this Froomkin thread is interesting enough (he said, cleverly changing the subject), but I'm more than a bit surprised that the conversation here hasn't turned toward the warrantless domestic eavesdropping story and the NYT's 14-month "hold" on it. If there was ever a story-behind-the-story that needed to be made transparent, it's this one, but here's Keller on Dec. 20: “I’m not going to talk about the back story to the story.” And is everybody, uh, you know, OK with that? Posted by: Daniel Conover at December 22, 2005 11:46 AM | Permalink Dan, I thought Kurtz had a good roundup of opinion on it today. Posted by: Sisyphus at December 22, 2005 12:12 PM | Permalink ami, Yes, it was the case that polling was done after the recent Iraqi election. And, yes, it is true that most pundits believed the Iraqi elections would be successful. So, in this instance, Bush appears to have benefited from the timing of the poll. Still ... I intuit -- but have NO hard evidence to support this assertion -- that polling is often done when presidential approval is declining, but not for malicious reasons. Polling is done after any major news event, scandalous or positive. Since what is deemed newsworthy is often "negative," polling frequently occurs after events that lower presidential approval numbers. In the case of the Iraqi election, Bush's approval rating obviously rose, but was this election the real, or merely proximate, cause? I'd wager a guess that Bush's approval number has much to do with macroeconomic conditions (good general economy), microeconomic improvement (lowering of petro prices) as well as a generic feeling that international affairs are heading in the right direction. He's also been responding to some of his critics recently and ordinary voters may be reacting positively to this response. These factors, and many others, have to be taken into account. Gotta take kids to dentist. No blogging until tomorrow. Posted by: hyperhystorian at December 22, 2005 12:31 PM | Permalink Dan: I'm trying to write a post on it. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 22, 2005 12:41 PM | Permalink Tim: Thanks for the Kurtz link (hadn't seen it), but as you probably noticed, most of the opinion was political. My comment: A good reporter knows that what gets said in public about what actually got said in private typically bears only the most remote resemblence to the truth. We try to get at this in our reporting on government -- or we should -- because people have a legitimate interest in how "their" institutions work. News organizations should apply this standard to themselves on matters of legitimate public interest, because if we don't come clean we won't just detract from our story -- we'll become the story. We want more sunshine in government -- so why do we want to keep the curtains drawn in the newsroom... or the publisher's office? Posted by: Daniel Conover at December 22, 2005 1:01 PM | Permalink Conover, you are an oasis in a desert of partisan crapola. Posted by: Agnes English at December 22, 2005 2:50 PM | Permalink thanks, mom. Posted by: Daniel Conover at December 22, 2005 3:25 PM | Permalink These factors, and many others, have to be taken into account. absolutely. That's why I think that polls should be taken periodically (and news orgs should spread out their periods to avoid the results being manipulated by the White House), rather than be driven by news events. In a lot of ways, I think that polling is often driven by a desire for validation on the part of news organizations -- there was a spate of polls after the Katrina debacle, in which the press (justifiably) reported events in a way that made Bush look bad. Unsurprisingly, the polls "affirmed" the reporting --- Bush came off bad. The Post poll was an example of the opposite form of "events driven" polling -- the "story" was the "success" of the Iraqi elections, and the Post wanted to affirm the idea that they were presenting that the story was "good news". Rasmussen's seven-day rolling poll is my favorite poll -- despite its apparent "pro-Bush" sampling bias--because its done every day and shows how opinion is "trending". The fact that there is a vast right-wing noise machine ready and willing to defend virtually anything that Bush does (lying about war, torture, detention without charges, spying on US citizens without a warrant) is not indicative of the validity of their defense of Bush (which always comes down to "the President is above the law"), but merely demonstrates that there will always be people who don't think, but merely react when Bush is criticized. Ami, is John Schmidt, associate attorney general under President Clinton during 1994-97, part of the vast right-wing noise machine? Cass Sunstein? (Hint: No.) Today, Froomkin's coverage of the issue is another tap-dance about impeachment. No showcasing of some of the diversity of Bush's defenders. No reference to the actual arguments being advanced in Bush's favor, which are not mere invective but based on a reading of the law. Are they persuasive? This is a new area for me, and I honestly don't know at this point. But they exist, and they have been promoted at least as long ago as the Clinton Administration. This is the kind of thing one might expect would interest your everday accountability-journalism truth-teller. Dan Froomkin, the Accidental Liberal, marches on. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 22, 2005 5:08 PM | Permalink Hyper: "Since what is deemed newsworthy is often "negative," polling frequently occurs after events that lower presidential approval numbers." Not quite; a good example that questions your assertion would be the 9/11 incident: Negative news event leading to a surge in Presigential approval ratings. On a separate subject, I would ask fotos to articulate how s/he thinks we should view clear presidential illegal actions (if we are to believe press accounts and the President's own words). Are we to view this as a monarchy where the word of the President is the ex-post definition of lawful conduct, and the only public accountability that of a four-yearly election, subject perhaps to the whim of the President? Posted by: villageidiot at December 22, 2005 8:59 PM | Permalink "It’s possible that in some ways the current incarnation of White House Briefing is a uniquely appropriate response to a unique presidency with a unique lack of transparency." I think that is the crux of the biscuit here. The idea that the Bush Administration is an aberration from the normal functioning of the Presidency is not one advanced only by left-biased thinkers like, well, Democratic former President Jimmy Carter. Most conservatives I know have lost all faith in Mr. Bush -- and many now argue that he is not a real conservative, or even a real Republican. Many liberals I know gave President Bush the benefit of the doubt -- first after the election of 2000, and again, a second chance, after September 11 -- until his actions warranted that they could no longer. Perhaps it is so that past Presidencies have been similarly opaque (certainly the Nixon Administration was, but that is not exactly good company to be in in this arena). But it is clear that this Administration has been moving to accumulate and expand executive power; to increase enormously the level of secrecy surrounding the workings of the White House (this began well before 9/11, with Cheney's "energy task force"); and to implement a foreign policy that literally calls for unipolar global domination. Among other things. Arguments that Froomkin did not "go after" Kerry are specious, so long as Kerry was not the denizen of the White House. And arguments that Froomkin does not now go after the Democrats bear the same distinction. Froomkin is tilting at power -- and the Democrats have none. Absolutely, right-biased bloggers (like the above Mr. Fotos) equate "critical of Bush" with "anti-Bush" with "liberal" -- without distinction. This is the problem with the "Bush-hater" meme. It immediately invalidates any criticism of the President as an irrational emotional response -- hatred. Of course, that's how it's designed to work. But you don't have to be a "liberal" or a "Bush-hater" anymore to know which way the wind is blowing. The mood of Congressional Republicans (particularly in the Senate) are reflecting that they are having some doubts about the horse to which they have hitched their collective wagons. In fact, the first time I heard "impeachment" mentioned in the press this week, it was a quote (on NPR, "All Things Considered") from Bruce Fein, a Deputy Attorney General from the Reagan Administration: “I was someone who defended strong presidential powers. We do need a strong presidency. But we don’t want a presidency that elevates itself into kingship, even stronger than that of George III. And I have opined that if the president does not renounce this rather preposterous claim of inherent authority to run roughshod over every provision of the Constitution under the banner of fighting a war, Congress needs to consider an express statute reining him in, or even impeaching him.” Just another disgruntled former Reagan Administration official/Kerry campaign operative, I presume. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at December 22, 2005 9:16 PM | Permalink I've addressed, in quite a few links generously pointed to by Jay, how Froomkin's liberal outlook is reflected in his column, so I won't repeat myself. I found this letter (pdf) from the National Security Agency an easier line of argument to follow than the more detailed Powerline/John Hinderaker item I linked above. One key to the NSA's case is the incidence of warrantless interceptions of communications between the enemy and domestic points in World War 2, and how this was justified under the law. One reason we have hysterical Democratic reactions (Fein is often fun, but let's be honest about most opposition) is the Short Memory Syndrome. Just like with Froomkin's styling of his uniquely wonderful column being uniquely appropriate for this uniquely untransparent presidency. Mainstream media serves no one, including Froomkin, by writing as if history started when Bush was elected. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 22, 2005 10:39 PM | Permalink A hypothetical situation: Mr. Bush suspends the regular electoral cycle in the name of pursuing the war on terrorism (maybe he wakes up one day believing that God wills him to carry on the mission; the wimpy Democrats cannot be trusted to smoke out the terrorists with the same zeal!) and decides that the 'plenary' powers that are vested in the Commander-in-Chief during times of war justify this decision. Would this be acceptable to foto? If so, then Mr. Bush can technically turn this into a perpetual war scenario and anoint himself as the de-facto Commander-in-Chief. What is wrong with this scenario? If on the other hand, this strikes us citizens as unacceptable, then what is so liberal about taking on the administration on the issue? Posted by: villageidiot at December 22, 2005 10:46 PM | Permalink Foto: Would the fact that Congress passed a law subsequent to WW2 expressly forbidding the conduct in question make any difference to your assertion? So if a court now finds that the said conduct is illegal (after due consideration of the NSA memo that is cited) you would be pursuaded to change your mind? (about both M/S Bush and Froomkin) Posted by: villageidiot at December 22, 2005 10:57 PM | Permalink Fotos... With all due respect, Schmidt is laughable. He cites various precedents regarding warrantless searches of foreign targets -- while virtually ignoring the statutory and constitutional precedents forbidding warrantless searches of domestic targets. (You should actually read the Keith decision he cites initially to see how he deliberately twists the meaning of that opinion -- the Keith decision was decided against warrantless wiretaps that had been conducted against an actual bomber. To suggest that this case can be used to support the contention that Bush can engage in warrantless wiretaps against American citizens is simply ridiculous.) Here is the actual findings of SCOTUS in the cited case...(the attorney general had argued that Section 2511(3) authorized warrantless searches -- the court found otherwise....) Held: Sunstein's piece is equivocal, and rests upon the already discredited theory that the authorization of the use of force in Afghanistan constituted Congressional authorization to ignore all statutory and Constitutional precedents regarding warrantless searches. villageidiot, considering you don't even succeed in spelling my last name correctly, I don't believe you intend a serious dialogue so I won't digress too much by answering these mostly fanciful questions. I'm still thinking through exactly what seems true about these actions, but I'm more competent to assess how it's being covered, by Froomkin but also the mainstream media, the latter recently judged by Froomkin's fans to be a tool of the Bush Admnistration. I came across this interview between arch-Republican Hugh Hewitt and liberal Cass Sunstein, who thinks Bush has a strong if not perfect case: HH: Professor Sunstein, have you ever been contacted by mainstream media about this controversy? CS: A lot. Yeah. HH: And have you spent a lot of time trying to walk the reporters through the basics? CS: Yes. HH: Who's contacted you, for example? The New York Times? CS: Well, I wouldn't want to name specific ones. It's a little bit of confidentiality there, but some well known ones. Let's just say that. HH: Let me ask. Have you been quoted in any papers that you've seen? CS: I don't think so. HH: Do you consider the quality of the media coverage here to be good, bad, or in between? CS: Pretty bad, and I think the reason is we're seeing a kind of libertarian panic a little bit, where what seems at first glance...this might be proved wrong...but where what seems at first glance a pretty modest program is being described as a kind of universal wiretapping, and also being described as depending on a wild claim of presidential authority, which the president, to his credit, has not made any such wild claim. The claims are actually fairly modest, and not unconventional. So the problem with what we've seen from the media is treating this as much more peculiar, and much larger than it actually is. As I recall, by the way, I was quoted in the Los Angeles Times, and they did say that in at least one person's view, the authorization to use military force probably was adequate here. HH: Do you think the media simply does not understand? Or are they being purposefully ill-informed in your view? CS: You know what I think it is? It's kind of an echo of Watergate. So when the word wiretapping comes out, a lot of people get really nervous and think this is a rerun of Watergate. I also think there are two different ideas going on here. One is skepticism on the part of many members of the media about judgments by President Bush that threaten, in their view, civil liberties. So it's like they see President Bush and civil liberties, and they get a little more reflexively skeptical than maybe the individual issue warrants. So there's that. Plus, there's, I think, a kind of bipartisan...in the American culture, including the media, streak that is very nervous about intruding on telephone calls and e-mails. And that, in many ways, is healthy. But it can create a misunderstanding of a particular situation.... Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 22, 2005 11:51 PM | Permalink ami, I think that if you examine all of it, you will find that Sunstein's case rests on more than you assert. Also, there's a difference between "already discredited" and "I think he's wrong." But really I'm more at home talking about the coverage. One can take issue with any argument, but at least let me know there is one. It's not like Schmidts and Sunsteins are wearing tinfoil hats. And it's not as if President Clinton didn't have a zest for warrantless searches either. Watching Democrats ignore that history is one thing; watching accountability-truth-telling journalists ignore it is another. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 23, 2005 12:04 AM | Permalink The letter Christopher Fotos offers as a simplified argument in support of the president's spying program on U.S. citizens is not from the NSA. It's a legal argument provided by one of the president's lawyers, this one in the office of legislative affairs. Fine. That's what lawyers do. There will be a number of those, pro and con, I'm sure. But it hardly serves as proof positive of anything. I'm not sure I agree that it's a simpler argument to follow than Hinderaker's There's nothing simpler than Hinderaker's formulations: Whatever Bush and/or the Republicans do is correct. But Fotos' arguments about liberals begs a very big question: Not all the criticism of Bush's domestic intercepts come from Democrats/Liberals. More than a few conservatives are troubled by the president's incursion into the Constitution. Have they magically become liberals? At what point, Christopher, does the Constitution trump a liberal/conservative breakdown of politics? Posted by: David McLemore at December 23, 2005 12:27 AM | Permalink Oh, come on, we can do better than "Clinton did it too!" can't we? Even Fotos would acknowedge, after a few seconds on Google, that Clinton didn't order searches of U.S. citizens. He did sign an order that authorized the attorney general to approve warrantless physical searches of premises, property and such "exclusively by or under the control of foreign power." Do you really equate that with electronic intercepts of U.S. citizens? Posted by: Dave McLemore at December 23, 2005 12:39 AM | Permalink ami, I think that if you examine all of it, you will find that Sunstein's case rests on more than you assert. and I think if you will read sunstein's comments to HH, you will note that she does rest her case on the Afghanistan resolution.... "As I recall, by the way, I was quoted in the Los Angeles Times, and they did say that in at least one person's view, the authorization to use military force probably was adequate here." the key phrase in that authorization is "necessary and appropriate use of force." Warrantless electronic searches are not considered "use of force" in its ordinary meaning, and the word "appropriate" certainly includes "within the limits of the Constitutional and statutory laws." Congress could simply not have intended to literally eliminate the President's responsibility to abide by, and enforce, all constitutional and statutory provisions in their entirety when passing that authorization --- and that is what is required to think that Sunstein's position makes any sense. The NSA is NOT part of the military, btw, and thus the "commander in chief" nonsense is not applicable.
The letter Christopher Fotos offers as a simplified argument in support of the president's spying program on U.S. citizens is not from the NSA. It's a legal argument provided by one of the president's lawyers, this one in the office of legislative affairs. Thank you, I was just coming back to correct that error on my part. Sorry for the confusion I generated. "One of the president's lawyers" doesn't quite do it, though; better to say, and I should have, it's from the Justice Department, specifically assistant attorney general William Moschella. Sunstein gives it maybe a B+: HH: Did you find it persuasive? CS: I thought it was good. It was a solid job. I thought there were a couple of things that, you know, these are the president's lawyers, and they're not going to be neutral. I think it was definitely more on than off. The analysis of the Fourth Amendment issue was brisk and conclusory. All that was said was that the Fourth Amendment requires reasonableness, and this is reasonable. Chief Justice Roberts would demand something a little bit better than that, as would any good judge. The analysis of the case you mentioned, that is the United States against United States District Court was...I guess the lawyers were just tendentious. But I don't think it was...I think it was a good, solid analysis. Better than what we've seen, let's just say, from Congress so far. I raise Clinton's enthusiasm for warrantless searches not to say it's okay because he did it--I raise it to note that neither Democrats nor, more importantly for this discussion, mainstream media, seem to recall it. If they did, it would undercut their attempt to portray this as the worstest thing ever. ami: I cannot believe you seriously mean to assert that the NSA is somehow out of bounds for an operation like this when directed by the commander in chief. As for the rest of it, I dunno, pal, Sunstein doesn't exactly strike me as a dilletante here. The argument seems pretty well grounded. I think one part of the argument you are either avoiding or disagreeing with is what may be attached to war-making powers. Sunstein makes a good argument that intercepting enemy communications is clearly an intrinsic part of fighting wars. In that case, enemies don't get a free pass when they communicate with people in America. Talk about asymmetrical. Clearly we'll disagree about this. Clearly I shouldn't have to hunt down a blog or a radio show transcript to learn about it. Lastly, Dave refers to warrantless electronic intercepts of U.S. citizens. I hope that you are not relying on much of the mainstream media coverage, which more often than not describes the Bush/NSA action in those terms. What's often underplayed is that these are intercepts between U.S. citizens & residents and foreign enemies. Like I say, the enemy doesn't get a freebie when communicating with Americans. More on Clinton here; I have to turn in. Posted by: Christopher Fotos at December 23, 2005 1:28 AM | Permalink ami: The NSA is NOT part of the military, btw, and thus the "commander in chief" nonsense is not applicable. Wanna bet? Posted by: Sisyphus at December 23, 2005 1:35 AM | Permalink Christopher, honest to God, I didn't suspect for a moment you were holding Clinton to support warrantless searches. Perhaps the reason the media didn't reach back into those days of yore was because the didn't see the equivalence between Clinton giving the AG approval to conduct searches of U.S. property of foreign powers with the interception of citizen conversations without warrant. Once again, I ask, do you? I realize that the president has said his actions were necessary to tap into Americans in contact with the enemy, but do you really believe that 4,000 U.S. citizens have made contact with al-Qaeda terrorists? It will indeed be interesting to see how the White House defines this contact. As for Mr. Moschella, you say assistant attorney general and i say president's attorney. I certainly doubt Mr.Moscella's going to argue any legal point other than that endorsed by the White House. Posted by: Dave McLemore at December 23, 2005 2:37 AM | Permalink As the late, great A.J. Liebling pointed out, "Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one." Blogging and online journalism has given new meaning to this ... Washington Post chairman Don Graham said, 'I have come to believe that we will be able to tell you about certain subjects better on the Internet than we will be able to in print ...' Cultural differences between the two newsrooms Trust me, if Froomkin just called himself Dan Freakin' Froomkin and put his column right next to George Will's, everything would be okay Dissent or Tool of the Bush Admnistration? CODA: Next year will be bigger than ever. Take it easy, run a risk, have fun, go for it, Jay! Posted by: jozef Imrich at December 23, 2005 5:02 AM | Permalink In that case, enemies don't get a free pass when they communicate with people in America. Talk about asymmetrical. lets see if you can understand the key distinction here.... If we are intercepting the communications of a foreign target, we can do so without a warrant. But this program targets American citizens, not foreigners, and intercepts their communications without a warrant. Furthermore, it appears that the reason these Americans are being targeted is not because they are actually communicating with suspected terrorists --- if there was evidence of such communication, a FISA warrant would not be a problem. We're not sure WHY Americans are being targeted --- maybe its because someone a suspected terrorist talked to also talked to an American, or maybe its because the American talked to someone who talked to someone else who talked to still another person who talked to a suspected terrorist. Or maybe its even more insidious --- that the American targets are selected through "data mining" ---- in other words, hundreds of millions of Americans are having their communications "electronically" examined (without warrant) and those whose communications meet a specific profile are "targeted" for more intensive surveillance without a warrant. Fotos and Sisyphus, The facts simply do not matter to Jay and his posse of Bush-hating Froomkinoids. Posted by: Gary at December 23, 2005 9:37 AM | Permalink The phrase that stuck with me was "libertarian panic." That's a great phrase -- but also, like so many great phrases, lacking. I'm not in a panic. I'm not running around screetching about how this single secret program is going to bring down the Republic. I haven't seen anyone here who is in anything resembling a "panic." To label those who dissent as hysterics is to belittle their concerns, so it's an effective technique -- with the added benefit of allowing one to shift from discussing the subject to discussing the reactions of one's opponents. My concern is broader, because this program fits into a broader pattern. Greater secrecy. "Bungled" intelligence. Sixteen words. The Patriot Act. Gitmo. Abu Ghraib. Joseph Padilla. Habeas corpus. Payroll punditry. "Media operations." Secret overseas prisons. Judith Miller. Valerie Plame. Decertification. And, now, this double-secret-probation warrantless eavesdropping program. No doubt White House supporters can produce their own connect-the-dots response and try to shift the discussion (Look! A puppy!), but aren't we grown ups here? We are overdue a serious discussion of civil liberties and civic values in this country. Because I believe that, I am eagerly awaiting the straw that breaks the camel's back and brings more conservatives into the discussion -- because they're the ones that matter right now. I think that trend has begun, but that's about all I feel confident enough to say. Will this be the story that tips the balance? Hell, I don't know. That's above my pay grade. But I can say this: The media has been brought so low that we've spent more time talking about The War on Christmas than we have on the larger subject of civil liberties. You may disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, if America is supposed to be about ideals and we say that those ideals don't matter, then all that's left is geography. Posted by: Daniel Conover at December 23, 2005 9:56 AM | Permalink Dan C.: We are overdue a serious discussion of civil liberties and civic values in this country. The debate that should occur is about the constitutional separation of war powers, national security and civil liberties. It's an old debate without a correct answer, but instead an "uncomfortable" balance. Do you see balance being sought here? What surprises me is that Jay has abandoned his principle that good journalism is "helping the public life of this nation work well." He has abandoned the question of Press Politics. I'll throw out 4 possible outcomes that spring to mind concerning this debate: 1. The public will lose interest over the holidays. The Senate will hold hearings, speeches will be made, and the broohaha will blow over. 2. The FISC will be disbanded. 3. The FISA will be amended. 4. Bush will be impeached. Want to discuss the likelihood/merits of those ... or others? Posted by: Sisyphus at December 23, 2005 10:22 AM | Permalink Want to discuss the likelihood/merits of those ... or others? yes but (and I'm as guilty as anyone of this, if not the most guilty) this blog is not the appropriate forum for that particular discussion.... I ain't abandoned nuthin'. I don't like seeing Froomkin's perspective misdescribed, especially when some in the Bush Administration are finally staring to agree with it, and discovering that the President can stand to be questioned now and again. I think it's amusing that some of the President's defenders here don't even recognize the change, perhaps because it would force them to recognize the previous policy, from which the White House has lately departed. That policy was: Bush is too weak to be questioned, reality imposes no "hard" limits on what the White House can deny, the fiction of infallability must be preserved because to do otherwise shows weakness. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 23, 2005 11:18 AM | Permalink "villageidiot, considering you don't even succeed in spelling my last name correctly, I don't believe you intend a serious dialogue so I won't digress too much by answering these mostly fanciful questions." Fotos: I have now made amends by spelling your name correctly. I will also place on record my apologies for misspelling your name. Now, that should give you a chance to answer my "fanciful questions". If they are fanciful, as you say, it should be pretty easy to take a stand (contingent upon the situation articulated in the question coming to pass). Like somebody else pointed out in this thread, the key issue now is to see if people of a conservative/libertarian bent are beginning to withdraw support for Mr. Bush. My question goes to the heart of this premise: Is there anything (even an extreme example) that can cause this change of heart (my sense is that this is more emotional than intellectual), or do you come from the set for whom Mr. Bush can do no wrong? Don't answer if you dont care to, but I wanted to make sure that you don't have the misspelt name as a reason to be evasive. Posted by: villageidiot at December 23, 2005 11:29 AM | Permalink Right. So: how can working journalists -- using the tools at their disposal right now -- frame the discussion of civil liberties and civic virtues (and war powers, if one concedes that are, in fact, at war) so that the focus stays on the subject? Somebody brought up symmetrical and asymmetrical forces in this thread, and I thought that was a key concept. Why is it we can't have these public discussions? Why is it so much easier to talk about non-issues? I suspect the answer lies somewhere in that concept. Posted by: Daniel Conover at December 23, 2005 11:29 AM | Permalink there is still much we don't know about the NSA story. it's too early to say that Bush didn't break any laws or if this is an impeachable offense. wait until we see who was spied upon. i have a suspension that there will be political target unrelated to terrorism. ami, in the nitpick department, sunstein is a guy. Posted by: bush's jaw at December 23, 2005 3:02 PM | Permalink From the Oakland Tribune: In America today, Big Brother is watching. All of the Fotos's and Sisyphus's ought to note that the sort of "open debate" going on in this thread is explicity what the president is, by his own words, implacably against. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at December 23, 2005 3:10 PM | Permalink Right. So: how can working journalists -- using the tools at their disposal right now -- frame the discussion of civil liberties and civic virtues (and war powers, if one concedes that are, in fact, at war) so that the focus stays on the subject? obviously, any discussion of domestic spying has to prominently feature the reason we have a law such as FISA -- the long record of abuse of intelligence gathering in the name of "national security". When people understand what is at stake (how high level officials like Hoover, Johnson, and Nixon consistently abused their authority by using the intelligence community to spy on their political enemies) and then compare to the Bush administration's record of abuse of the intelligence community ("fixing the facts" to support the policy of invasion of Iraq, outing a CIA agent for political revenge, getting NSA intercepts in an attempt to find dirt on political enemies), the true nature of the threat that this program represents will become clear. The question here is does the press have the guts to make these connections? > "Is there anything (even an extreme example) that can cause this change of heart..." When I ask this question, the answer is "of course"; but if I then ask "what?", I get no answer. When your purpose is to defend your leader, any hypothetical question is a potential landmine. Posted by: Anna Haynes at December 23, 2005 3:34 PM | Permalink Here is what Pratkanis and Aronson, in Age of Propaganda (Revised Ed., Owl Books, 2001), have to say about how the Germans treated the press in WWII: "In the United States, Hitler and Goebbels hired public relations firms in an attempt to secure favorable press coverage of the regime. In Germany, the Nazis controlled journalists and filmmakers through a mixture of punishments and rewards ... The Nazi regime made certain that it was the primary source of news and easily accessible to certain journalists. This treatment was extended to include foreign correspondents, thus putting U.S. reporters in a quandary: Report news unfavorable to Nazi Germany (such as the treatment of the Jews) and be expelled or sanitize the news and be able to continue reporting." (319) "A common tactic was to attack the press (especially the foreign press) as liars and atrocity-mongers, thus leading German citizens to believe that any report unfavorable to the regime was biased." (320) You should read the rest of the chapter ... Posted by: Richard B. Simon at December 23, 2005 3:58 PM | Permalink With the mention of Hitler by Richard B. Simon, this thread has officially jumped the shark. Posted by: Ed Wood at December 23, 2005 4:39 PM | Permalink Threads don't jump sharks, people do. New Washington Monthly profile of Kos of Daily Kos: The site, which has existed for only around three and a half years, now has 3.7 million readers each week. That's more than the top 10 opinion magazines—of both left and right—combined, more readers than any political publication has had, ever, in the history of the world. Not bad for a crankosphere. Much more. Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 23, 2005 4:43 PM | Permalink
In the United States, the Administration controlled journalists through a mixture of punishments and rewards. The Administration made certain that it was the primary source of news and easily accessible to certain journalists. This treatment put White House correspondents in a quandary: Report news unfavorable to the Bush Administration and be expelled or sanitize the news and be able to continue reporting. A common tactic was to attack the press (especially the foreign press) as liars and propagandists, thus leading American citizens to believe that any report unfavorable to the Administration was biased. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at December 23, 2005 5:11 PM | Permalink jay, kos deserves kudos, but does 3.7M readers = page hits? how are readers defined? i was in the investment business in the late 90s (left journalism to join the internet boom) a lot of companies touted eyeballs, page hits etc. new metrics. until you turn those metrics into results, i'm not those 3.7 million readers mean. for companies, the most important result was profits. for a blog, i guess we have to define results.
Posted by: bush's jaw at December 23, 2005 5:50 PM | Permalink Dan C: So: how can working journalists -- using the tools at their disposal right now -- frame the discussion of civil liberties and civic virtues (and war powers, if one concedes that [we] are, in fact, at war) so that the focus stays on the subject? I think frame is on the right track. Context might even be better. What would you say is the propositional content of the news about Bush, the NSA and FISA/FISC? What is the current context? Can we look to the comments here to derive it? Is the current propositional content correct? Are there others? Is the context correct? Are there others? Have we taken the structural biases of news into account or have we colored the news with our own biases? I would argue that most of the commenters here that have reached conclusions know next to nothing about FISA, the FISC, the NSA or the executive order. Most couldn't discuss the history of FISA since 1978 without tripping over name-droppings of Nixon and Clinton. Most couldn't explain the impact of In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001. Would you say that we're being educated by the news on this topic, or incensed by it? Both? Do working journalists have the tools of history and critical thought? Posted by: Sisyphus at December 23, 2005 5:51 PM | Permalink That's what I mean by triumphalism bugging me. I call the Kos numbers, "not bad," and write all of two words about them, claiming nothing for them, other than "not bad," and now I have to calm myself down because I might be engaged in Kos triumphalism. So like the Jaw said, "Jay, don't get too excited with numbers." Okay, I won't. You're all excited that I might get seduced. I said 3.7 million readers isn't bad for a crankosphere. And it isn't. No, it doesn't mean hits, or page views, or visits total. It means unique visitors per week. Washington Post has 8.1 million. But don't get too excited! Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 23, 2005 6:28 PM | Permalink ok jay, i deserved that. Kos does have political influence. i click through the link, great profile. The WaPo still has circulation and advertising revenue. Posted by: bush's jaw at December 23, 2005 6:45 PM | Permalink New Washington Monthly profile of Kos of Daily Kos: did anyone else detect the stench of condescension in that piece? "blogs" may be a threat to the mainstream media, but they are an even bigger threat to publications like Washington Monthly and the rest of the DC dead tread periodical bloviators. Most of these periodicals have embraced the internet -- but when one compares the work of bloggers like Digby and Billmon to the bloviations of people like Yglesias, well, its just no contest. (TPM Cafe appears to be the unnatural spawn of liberal blogging, liberal DC think tanks, and "liberal" periodicals. Most days, its practically unreadable --- and if I see one more TPM front-page about how the Democratic Party needs to come up with an agenda -- just as long as it Schmidts, or Matt's, or whoever's agenda -- I may wind up on crutches after having put my foot through the monitor. :) ) Jay, well put. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at December 23, 2005 7:07 PM | Permalink *And if the Kos's of this world ever figure out how to monetize the number of unique visitors* that was my earlier point, more so than telling jay to calm down. many sites have page hits and unique visitors during the Internet mania. but that didn't turn into anything. steve, i'm assuming you are the same editor that worked with Gene Roberts at the Philly Inquirer. I wonder how a Roberts paper would have covered W's White House. Posted by: bush's jaw at December 23, 2005 7:12 PM | Permalink "Steve, i'm assuming you are the same editor that worked with Gene Roberts at the Philly Inquirer. I wonder how a Roberts paper would have covered W's White House." Yes, I am. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at December 23, 2005 7:38 PM | Permalink bartlett and steele would be busy with this administration. my last journo gig was at the n&o. before i got there, we did a great series on the pork industry. many of our reporters end up at the Wapo including one of the reporters on this series Richard Ben Cramer covered the MidEast piece talks years ago by talking to people in the streets and avoiding public officials. Why hasn't a major US newspaper done a Bartlett & Steele-like series on Iraq? (Did I miss it?). Are we not interested or is it too dangerous on the ground? Posted by: bush's jaw at December 23, 2005 7:51 PM | Permalink Barlett & Steele are now at Time magazine, and they've pried the lid off some good stuff -- the entire rotten corporate welfare system, the corruption of campaign financing, the appalling state of health care in the U.S., the bankrupt national pension system -- and they've picked up a couple of National Magazine Awards in the process. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at December 23, 2005 9:05 PM | Permalink i don't think the Right worries too much about bartlett & steele -- or even grieder for that matter -- because the bulk of the voters they're trying to reach don't go out of their way to read "America: What Went Wrong?" or "Fortress America." the Left, on the other hand, eats that stuff up with a spoon -- and then gets disgusted when "Joe Sixpack" won't do the homework. when rank-and-file reporters and editors try to do regular, day-in-day-out newspaper journalism on civic-minded subjects, we're writing one story for audiences with vastly different experiences. So when i ask what we can do to frame the story so we can stay on subject, it's not really about having gene roberts' brass balls (although that might help). If you don't like the elite media, you're going to see his insistence as arrogance, his sense of morality as bias, his willingness to use the power of the medium as unreflective pretention. how can we report and study and communicate about important stuff so that people will agree to see its significance? journalists -- good ones - ask this question every day. and this is the answer we will always get: "Who appointed you to determine what's significant?" we can't get to debating important matters because we can't even agree on what's important, or who gets to say what's important. anyway, it's a good question. i don't think we have a good answer. Do working journalists have the tools of history and critical thought? Some do. Some don't. But the thing about history is, it's too big to see, and it isn't a fixed point. The thing about critical thought is, it doesn't have one conclusion. And this is the reality of the job: Every day the story changes, bringing an entirely new set of facts on which you're asked to be an expert. Maybe a few of us reach that level of brilliance. Most of us don't. I think most of our work can be picked apart. We deal with this by carving out slices of expertise, just like most people do. But this is isolating, self-selecting. citizenship is supposed to be a multidisciplinary subject, not a shakedown. I think there are solutions to this -- I really do. I just don't see them clearly. Yet. Posted by: Daniel Conover at December 23, 2005 10:41 PM | Permalink Dan C: But the thing about history is, it's too big to see, and it isn't a fixed point. The thing about critical thought is, it doesn't have one conclusion. Does that mean we're ready to discuss symmetric and asymmetric journalism? Are we ready to apply it to the NY Times decision to hold the article for a year and not discuss it? Might we even entice Jay to explain trust in terms of a symmetric and asymmetric model as journalism struggles with an institutionalized expository epistemological system? Posted by: Sisyphus at December 23, 2005 11:59 PM | Permalink And this is the reality of the job: Every day the story changes, bringing an entirely new set of facts on which you're asked to be an expert. A point that bears repeating. Journalism, at least daily print journalism, doesn't have the luxury of the longterm. You report on events and report again as events and facts change. Again and again, on deadline. Maybe it's time we just get back to reporting the story and worry less whether we're considered liberal/conservative/arrogant/a team player or whether we'll get to voice our opinions on cable. Someone here recently suggested that journalists cease writing -30- at the end of their copy as a recognition of the arrogance of the media's belief it told the whole story. Or something (I'm too lazy to look it up.) Well, -30- never meant we'd reported the whole story. It was simply a sign to the guy in the print shop that you were through with that particular story. And we haven't really used -30- since newsrooms went to cold type and you told the computer you were finished by typing EOM (end of message). We've never believed we told the whole story. That's one of the glories and great frustrations of journalism. Reporting, like life, comes in drips and drabs and a partial vision of the truth. And the view is constantly changing.
Posted by: Dave McLemore at December 24, 2005 12:03 AM | Permalink Once again, I should have used preview. Here's wishing you all a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Joyful Kwanzaa and any other festive celebration that moves you. Posted by: Dave McLemore at December 24, 2005 12:09 AM | Permalink Kos does not get 3.7 unique visitors a week. He gets 3.7 unique hits (sort of). When a visitor returns to the site after 30 minutes session Site Meter records it as separate visits. Also from this Sitemeter link: Most hosted tracking systems use cookies or IP addresses (or both) to tell which page requests are coming from the same visitor. Some ISPs (Internet Service Providers) will change someone's IP address in the middle of a visit or even on each server page requested. On problem that all "log" based tracking systems have is they can't tell when a visitor's IP address changes in the middle of a visit. A change in the IP address will cause the log based tracker it think the page views from the new IP address are from another visitor and that'll cause it to overstate the number of visitors. AOL.COM is one of the big ISPs where their user's IP address address is constantly changing as they browse your site. Regardless of the exact amount, Kos' numbers are higher than WaPo's but the numbers are not an accurate gauge. Of course...I've said this before...at Dkos and at Eschaton...but - presumably - they'd rather not let their sponsors know the truth. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at December 24, 2005 12:56 AM | Permalink Jay, man, chill. (A joke ... ) The Kos numbers are very impressive. Obviously everyone has work to do on monetizing etc, but those are good numbers and I don't take Jay to be arguing that this prefigures the end of the world for MSM. As for the question that Steve poses, it seems to me that a world in which the WP, NYT, LAT are not able to kick out journalism is clearly and measurably a poorer place. Do we have many problems? Yep. Is this an interesting inflection point for mainstream journalists and the way we conceive of our role? Yep. Do we have to get web jiggy and learn to accept and even embrace new moves and new ways of thinking? Yep. But (and I could play out this game with the other MSM as well, but lemme stick with the newspaper I know) without the Post and its vast commitment of resources there is no Anthony Shadid, who reported with a singular clarity of vision during the American bombing of Baghdad, who was the first American reporter to flag the rise to power of Ah well. Not-so-triumphally yours, Posted by: Michael Powell at December 24, 2005 1:14 AM | Permalink Good piece, Don. Jay, I am curious as to your take on the New York Times webcam porn piece in which the reporter got involved with the story, too involved some say. I put my take on it – as well as a present to you – in a Christmas media column I Posted by: Scott Butki at December 24, 2005 2:53 AM | Permalink Michael, I kind of think that if there were no Washington Post incredible journalists like Dana Priest, Anthony Shadid and Walter Pincus would be doing it somewhere else. On the web...if they had to. I don't buy the idea that money is what fuels great journalism. I think I.F. Stone and countless bloggers are doing it (or did it in the late Izzy's case) every day. That said. I believe the MSM and blogosphere should, could and will co-exist. And WaPo's leading the way in terms of helping that happen.
Posted by: Ron Brynaert at December 24, 2005 3:18 AM | Permalink Of course...I've said this before...at Dkos and at Eschaton...but - presumably - they'd rather not let their sponsors know the truth. Actually kos discusses the numbers quoted in the article here: That's probably not accurate. The author was probably working off traffic stats which measure visits. But the same person can visit multiple times a week (not to mention per day). If I had to guess, I'd say the numbers are closer to 500K people who visit at least once a week. But that's at best an educated guess. Kos fact-checked the entire article which apparently was riddled with inaccuracies; many assertions were made up out of whole cloth. And kos doesn't even consider it a hit piece. I'd say that kos (and Atrios) are pretty up front about their hits vs. their unique visitors, as opposed to, say the Chicago Sun-Times, the Dallas Morning News, and Newsday, for example. Posted by: Phredd at December 24, 2005 7:06 AM | Permalink Ron, I don't doubt that many of us at the Washington Post and the New York Times would write or find other socially meaningful work if the Post didnt' exist (a lot of people would also end up in the law, or finance, or whatever). But resources and a sense of editorial mission matter. When events like 9-11, the Iraq War, Katrina, etc come along, truly the first reaction from the publishers on down at the Post and the NYT and LAT is to throw as many reporters in as many often creative ways as possible into a story, often with disregard for advertising revenue (news holes are opened up etc). Michael Posted by: Michael Powell at December 24, 2005 11:37 AM | Permalink New post alert: “I’m Not Going to Talk About the Back Story." "Bill Keller is a 'watch our pages' man. That is how he would prefer to answer your question about the Times, whether you are a reader in Chelsea, a reporter for Salon, or Charlie Rose. With him the stoic conceit continues, but under conditions of greater transparency it makes a lot less sense." Posted by: Jay Rosen at December 24, 2005 12:24 PM | Permalink Michael Powell: I would cite, for instance, Informed Consent ... That's the second time you've mentioned Cole. I read Cole as well, for the reasons you cite, but do you read Iraqi blogs as well? If so, which ones? If not, why not? Posted by: Sisyphus at December 24, 2005 1:12 PM | Permalink Sisyphus, I didn't know of Iraqi blogs, but I just checked it out. Looks fascinating and I'll sample some in the next few days. So many blogs, so little time. But thanks ... Posted by: michael powell at December 24, 2005 3:34 PM | Permalink Michael Powell: So many blogs, so little time. I understand. You might like reading 24 Steps to Liberty. Chris Allbritton will be returning to Iraq in mid-January as well. Iraq the Model and Iraqi Bloggers Central have analysis posts up on the election. Every blog has a jumping off point to other blogs from their blogroll. Posted by: Sisyphus at December 24, 2005 5:52 PM | Permalink Phredd, Drop me an email if you'd wish to further discuss Kos and Atrios...I probably shouldn't have said anything here in the first place...and I don't feel this is the proper forum to respond. And that goes for the other day as well (i believe it was you that responded to something else i wrote about Atrios) Michael, Yeah. I hear what you're saying...and agree to a point...but there are plenty of freelancers that get by with no cash...I just don't think how much money is spent really amounts to much. But...it's the institution itself that does sometimes produce great journalism....in terms of getting that double edged access and an established trust with the public. The institution does matter. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at December 24, 2005 10:46 PM | Permalink This is a good op-ed, Micheal: Slogging and Blogging Through Iraq Posted by: Sisyphus at December 25, 2005 1:58 AM | Permalink |
|
Print
