|
|
February 16, 2006
Dick Cheney Did Not Make a Mistake By Not Telling the Press He Shot a Guy"The public visibility of the presidency itself is under revision. More of it lies in shadow all the time. Non-communication has become the standard procedure, not a breakdown in practice but the essence of it... With these changes, executive power has grown more illegible under Bush."Among the angry, amused and jaded reactions to Dick Cheney’s methods for informing the nation about his hunting accident, the views of Marlin Fitzwater were of special interest to me. Fitzwater—former press secretary to both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, a loyal Republican—knows how things used to work. He was livid. “It is all Cheney,” he told Editor & Publisher. “He is the key that has to start all this.” Fitzwater explained what is supposed to happen. The Vice President’s press secretary acts as a kind of journalist within the Cheney camp. “What he should have done was call his press secretary and tell her what happened and she then would have gotten a hold of the doctor and asked him what happened. Then interview [ranch owner] Katharine Armstrong to get her side of events and then put out a statement to inform the public. Well, it’s not beyond me. The way I look at it, Cheney took the opportunity to show the White House press corps that it is not the natural conduit to the nation-at-large; and it has no special place in the information chain. Cheney does not grant legitimacy to the large news organizations with brand names who think of themselves as proxies for the public and its right to know. Nor does he think the press should know where he is, what he’s doing, or who he’s doing it with. Fitzwater said he was “appalled by the whole handling of this,” which is refreshing. But he seems to think the Vice President erred somehow. I’m not sure that’s right. Howard Kurtz said it too. “Seriously: What were they thinking?” The vice president of the United States shoots a man—accidentally, to be sure, this was no Aaron Burr situation—and White House officials wait a whole day and don’t tell the press? Did they think it wouldn’t get out? No one would care? It would remain secret as a matter of national security? “This is going to ricochet for days,” Kurtz said on Tuesday. The title of his column that day: Monumental Misfire. I’m not sure that’s right, either. How does it hurt Bush if for three days this week reporters are pummeling Scott McClellan over the details of when they were informed about Cheney’s hunting accident? That’s three days this week they won’t be pummeling Scott McClellan over the details of this article from Foreign Affairs by Paul R. Pillar, the ex-CIA man who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year. Here’s what the article says: “During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq… the Bush administration disregarded the community’s expertise, politicized the intelligence process, and selected unrepresentative raw intelligence to make its public case.” Pillar was there; if anyone would know he would. The handling of the news that Cheney shot someone is consistent with many things we know about the Vice President— and about the Bush Administration’s policies toward the press. Though I admire his professionalism, I wish Fitzwater were a little less appalled and a little more attuned to the new set of rules put in place by the Bush White House, especially the rules for Dick Cheney. The public visibility of the presidency itself is under revision, Marvin. More of it lies in shadow all the time. Non-communication has become the standard procedure, not a breakdown in practice but the essence of it. What Dan Froomkin calls the Bush Bubble is designed to keep more of the world out. Cheney himself is almost a shadow figure in the executive branch. His whereabouts are often not known. With these changes, executive power has grown more illegible under Bush the Younger— a sign of the times in Washington. This week David Sanger of the New York Times described “Mr. Cheney’s habit of living in his own world in the Bush White House — surrounded by his own staff, relying on his own instincts, saying as little as possible.” And at the same time expanding the reach of his office. “In the past five years, Mr. Cheney has grown accustomed to having a power center of his own, with his own miniature version of a national security council staff,” writes Sanger. “President Bush has allowed Cheney to become perhaps the most powerful vice president in history and has provided him with unparalleled autonomy,” say Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker in the Washington Post. Meanwhile, the reclamation of powers lost to the executive branch after Vietnam and Watergate goes on; Cheney is known to be the driver. When this project reaches the press it turns into what I have called rollback— “Back ‘em up, starve ‘em down, and drive up their negatives.” Cheney’s methods after the hunting accident were classics in rollback thinking. Listen to Fitzwater explain what should have happened, pre-rollback: “If [Cheney’s] press secretary had any sense about it at all, she would have gotten the story together and put it out. Calling AP, UPI, and all of the press services. That would have gotten the story out and it would have been the right thing to do, recognizing his responsibility to the people as a nationally elected official, to tell the country what happened.” But Cheney figures he told the country “what happened.” What he did not do is tell the national press, which he does not trust to inform the country anyway. Making sense yet? Ranch owner Katharine Armstrong is someone he trusts. He treated the shooting as a private matter between private persons on private land that should be disclosed at the property owner’s discretion to the townsfolk (who understand hunting accidents, and who know the Armstrongs) via their local newspaper, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. “I thought that made good sense because you can get as accurate a story as possible from somebody who knew and understood hunting,” he told Britt Hume of Fox News. From the Caller-Times it got to the Web, then the AP and CNN. And there you are: The American people were informed of the basic facts (though not at the speed journalists want) and Cheney did not have to meet questions from the press, an institution without power or standing in his world. “I thought that was the right call,” Cheney said yesterday on Fox. “I still do.” He also said the furor among reporters is just jealousy at being scooped by the Caller-Times. (See this reply to that.) Press thinkers, Dick Cheney did not make a mistake. He followed procedure— his procedure. As Bill Plante, White House reporter for CBS News said at Public Eye, “No other vice president in the White Houses I’ve covered has had the ability to write his own rules the way this one has. He operates in his own sphere, with the apparent acceptance of the president.” Cheney has long held the view that the powers of the presidency were dangerously eroded in the 1970s and 80s. The executive “lost” perogatives it needed to gain back for the global struggle with Islamic terror. “Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam both during the 70’s served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area,” he said in December. Some of that space was lost to the news media, and its demand to be informed about all aspects of the presidency, plus its sense of entitlement to the star interlocutor’s role. Cheney opposes all that, whereas Fitzwater accepted most of it. That’s why Fitz is appalled and Cheney is rather pleased with himself. I thought I would be featuring at PressThink this week a long and (I thought) very interesting Q and A with John Harris, the political editor of the Washington Post. It was completed over the weekend, but at the last minute Harris pulled the plug and decided against publishing the interview, which we had worked on for several weeks. (I’d tell you the reason, but I don’t know the reason.) Unfortunately, I cannot bring you his replies, but I can show you one of the questions I asked Harris. It was my attempt to lay out what has happened to the press under Bush, and Cheney. This, I think, is the proper background for events after Saturday’s shooting… You wrote a book about Clinton, and you have covered junior Bush, and so you are more than qualified to dispute my thesis in this next question, which is a little long (but then this is PressThink.) I found something disingenuous about the performance of the White House press this week. Like when David Gregory of NBC News asked McClellan, “Does the President think it’s appropriate for the Vice President to essentially make decisions at odds with the public disclosure process of this White House?” This was an attempt to exploit the tensions between McClellan’s office and Cheney’s office after McClellan said he would have handled the news differently. Tensions in the White House staff are fun to cover, but when that story dies down in a day or two journalists will be back where they were— pretending that we’re still in a recognizable universe, where to meet the press is to face the nation, and the White House sooner or later has to disclose. After Matter: Notes, reactions & links… Hilarious. This post made it into one of Bill O’Reilly’s rants. Apparently, I am just some “far left” blogger to him peddling “an idiot conspiracy theory.” Sad because I feel I have written some nuanced things about O’Reilly. Brit Hume of Fox also got into the act, paraphrasing this post on his show, Special Report, and telling people I wrote it. Hume also misquoted it by leaving out the word “not” in “… not the natural conduit to the nation-at-large.” Too funny. AP: Story of Cheney shooting doesn’t remain the same. Take a look at what Metafilter did with this post. A Presidency in Shadow. Newspaper journalist, PressThink reader and comment wizard Daniel Conover goes for the fences in Journalism from a software perspective. It’s about how facts once established might stay established, and lots else. Good Cheney analysis by Garance Franke-Ruta at Tapped: The vice president has not held a press conference in three-and-a-half years and did not have press staff with him at the Armstrong Ranch; the idea that he would have, on his own, drafted and released a press statement or called a reporter about what happened is preposterous. He is a man who is used to having other people do things for him, and the question on Saturday night was, as he said on Fox, “Well, who is going to do that?” Thomas Sowell at Real Clear Politics: NBC White House correspondent David Gregory was shouting at White House press secretary Scott McClellan, as if Mr. Gregory’s Constitutional rights were being violated. It was a classic example of a special interest demanding special privileges — as if they were rights. Stephen Sprueill at National Review compares Sowell’s post to this one. “What I didn’t get from reading Jay’s post, however, is how he thinks the press should change…” Not entirely sure at the moment. I will say this: Mark Glaser and I discuss CBS, Wisconsin Newspaper Let Audience Vote at Mark’s new blog for PBS: Media Shift. Transcript: Cheney on FOX News. See Howard Kurtz about meeting the press vs. going on Fox. And Ron Brynaert on the quality of Brit Hume’s question-asking. I had a bit of the feeling that the press corps was upset because, to some extent, it was about them — they didn’t like the idea that we called the Corpus Christi Caller-Times instead of The New York Times. But it strikes me that the Corpus Christi Caller-Times is just as valid a news outlet as The New York Times is, especially for covering a major story in south Texas. Key phrase of his… “as valid a news outlet as…” Rich Lowry follows-up in National Review. The Imperial Press: Sanctimony and frenzy. …They had to wait until Sunday afternoon, and that ignited their rage. Worse, the story broke in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. Wrong Times. The Corpus Christi paper doesn’t belong to The Club and doesn’t, like the other Times, employ a host of reporters reflexively hostile to the Bush administration and obsessed with the latest Beltway minutia. Which leads to new frontiers in press management. “Takes five minutes.” Time’s Mike Allen on how alerting the press works. “A Bush communications official picks up the phone anywhere in the world and says to the White House operator, ‘I need to make a wire call.’ A few minutes later, the operator calls back with Associated Press, Reuters and Bloomberg reporters on the line, ready to flash the news around the world.” Kevin Drum, the Political Animal, on Cheney’s “okay, I’ll explain— once!” interview with Brit Hume: Cheney acknowledged that the White House wanted him to issue a statement Saturday night, but he refused. “That was my call, all the way,” he said. Translation: he doesn’t take guidance from the White House. They take guidance from him. Hotline, Media To Ramp Up Efforts To Track Cheney. But Brian Montopoli at Public Eye is skeptical. David Gregory of NBC News at the Daily Nightly: My view is, as elected officials with unparalleled influence over the lives of the American people, the President and Vice President owe the public information about their activities. I see myself as a proxy for the public that has raised questions about what happened and why the Vice President did not immediately disclose it. Mark Tapscott in reacting to this post writes: “The MSM is no longer the mainstream or national.” That’s how Cheney thinks too. Tapscott says the national press is more “regional” than it thinks. Here’s something to chew on, Mark. The Bush team cares less for weakening the national media than it does for weakening the notion of the national fact. When you really want to know, go Joe. Gandelman, that is. He rounds up opinion on Cheney and whether he damaged himself. Blogometer (here and here) also does range-of-views well. Paul Janensch has a wonderful list of unanswered questions. Of special note was this: The first rule of public relations is that when something bad happens, release all relevant facts and do it fast, or it will keep making news. Didn’t his staff know that? Paul: consider the possibility that public relations in “disclose” mode is not the policy anymore. New rules for a new game. The Economist said it in March, 2005: If there is nothing special about the press, then there is nothing special about what it does. News can be anything—including dressed-up government video footage. And anyone can provide it, including the White House, which, through local networks, can become a news distributor in its own right… And there are new rules emerging for this new balance of power. I’ve been trying to trace them in a series of posts over three years. In the Press Room of the White House that is Post Press (Feb. 25, 2005) From Rollback (PressThink, July 16, 2005): “This White House doesn’t settle for managing the news—what used to be called “feeding the beast”—because it has a larger aim: to roll back the press as a player within the executive branch, to make it less important in running the White House and governing the country, but also less of a wild card in fighting enemies of the state in the permanent war on terror.”
Posted by Jay Rosen at February 16, 2006 10:07 AM
Comments
I agree that the White House press corps has overreacted to certain aspects of the Cheney incident (although if I were in that room, listening to Scott McLellan's absurdities, I'd be tempted to overreact myself), but there have also been definite missteps by Cheney and the White House that are of legitimate concern. He is, after all, a public figure -- and if he didn't want that kind of attention, he shouldn't have run for high office. A few issues, in no particular order: Posted by: John Walters at February 16, 2006 10:25 AM | Permalink The implicit presumption you make is that there really is nothing to hide about the shooting. But what if there were? Posted by: A. reader at February 16, 2006 10:27 AM | Permalink I'm curious, Prof. Rosen, about the ground rules for your interview with John Harris. It appears you gave him the final decision over whether the interview would be published. Do you teach your students that the subject of an interview has control over whether it is published? I work as a journalist and if I'm interviewing someone on the record, we finish up and the person says, "By the way, all of that is off the record," I reply, "No, it isn't." Then I publish it, or use the material from it. If the person doesn't like it, well, that's tough. Whether a discussion is on or off the record is decided beforehand. If Harris agreed to do an on-the-record interview and then withdrew his permission after the interview was done, you are under no obligation to follow his wishes. Indeed, you're a chump if you do so, and a poor example to your students. If you agreed to give Harris control over whether the interview would be published, that, again, is a poor example to your students, and a waste of your time. Frankly, I'm not interested in reading someone's questions; I want to read the answers. Posted by: Dexter Westbrook at February 16, 2006 11:02 AM | Permalink Dexter: I think of an e-mail interview unfolding over weeks, which is what this was, as a different form. It has strengths and weaknesses. The weaknesses are a lack of spontaneity; there's no such thing as catching a person in an unguarded moment, for example. The strengths are that the subject truly owns his words, and takes greater responsibility for making them say what he believes. I define a PressThink Q and A as a jointly-written text. Harris and I were the co-authors of it, not adversaries. I told Harris ahead of time that he would have a chance to see the Q and A in finished form and approve it, which is the way I do all these e-mail Q and A's. When he withdrew his permission I had no choice. By my own rules, I had to scuttle the interview. Re: "Frankly, I'm not interested in reading someone's questions; I want to read the answers." I agree completely. It was an extremely frustrating--not to mention inexplicable--outcome. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 16, 2006 11:22 AM | Permalink John Harris obviously thinks he's Dick Cheney. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at February 16, 2006 11:26 AM | Permalink It might be that the White House press corps is in Washington. Here in the hinterlands, hunters shoot each other all the time. I mean, you wanna wander around in the woods or the brush with people with rifles, you've got to consider you might be shot at. Sounds like Cheney and his hunting partners were not as sharp as they should have been in terms of working together out there. Suppose Cheney had been golfing at a private club, and hit the guy in the head with the ball on a long fairway shot, and the guy went to the hospital with a concussion? When should the White House press corps have been notified about that? What if this was in Florida, and he had the club manager call the Palm Beach Post about the incident? I guess the thing is, here in the hinterlands, we heard about it. It's hilarious, the veep shot an old man friend with bird shot. We don't care who told who when. And the press corps, in the few clips we see, look silly. Maybe what this says is that the "press corps" is no longer effective in its role. Maybe the reporters ought to find better ways to work...maybe stop roaming in a big pack, for one thing. That's a *question* to John Harris, from a proposed Q & A? It reads like a lecture, or an essay. I am not surprised Mr. Harris has declined to serve as a character (or prop) in one of your essays on the press--why not just write the essay and leave him out of it? Posted by: Cthomas at February 16, 2006 11:48 AM | Permalink Clearly the press must re-think its relationship to the White House. Editors should realize there's no reason to go on with the charade of communication when there is none and act accordingly. Do not assign reporters to White House press office. Do not cover the Scottie Show on TV. Assume that the White House will not comment on any of the government's actions and simply proceed to report and analyze them. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at February 16, 2006 11:56 AM | Permalink why not just write the essay and leave him out of it? Because he is entitled to reply at equal length, and in just as much detail. Just because you don't recognize the form of my co-authored Q and A's as being "like" other interviews doesn't mean they lack sense. They're just different animals, with advantages and disadvantages. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 16, 2006 11:56 AM | Permalink I believe the WH has finally figured out that the press will say what it wants to say. That may be putting a particular spin on a straight news report, or ignoring something that doesn't fit their view, or hype something that does but isn't all that important, or make stuff up. That wouldn't be so important if it weren't for the possibility that some news consumers still believe the press is giving them the straight dope, because the press says it is. So, as has been mentioned years ago, this administration is trying to go around the press, or at least the WH press corps, to communicate directly with the citizenry. Old news. BTW, not knowing where Cheney is: Shouldn't we be pleased? Considering that the heroes of Flight 93 may have prevented a decapitating strike on our government, it would be prudent to have the big shooters (sorry) dispersed. I have heard, no confirmation, that the cabinet is NEVER all in DC at the same time and that goes back to the earliest days of nuclear bombs. For an example, one guy I knew who was an Infantry platoon leader in Viet Nam said it was three months before he had a face-to-face conversation with any other platoon leader. All commo was done by radio or messengers. His company commander simply would not allow two of his subordinates to be within twenty feet of each other when in the field. I'm sure that Cheney's lack of public presence has other motivations, as well as benefits, but the dispersion of the leadership figures has to be one of them. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 16, 2006 12:13 PM | Permalink "So, as has been mentioned years ago, this administration is trying to go around the press, or at least the WH press corps, to communicate directly with the citizenry." by not communicating with the citizenry at all. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at February 16, 2006 12:26 PM | Permalink I love these "rollback" essays, because Jay highlights a lot of truth in them when he describes what's happening. But consider other motives the Bush Administration may have for this "rollback" (even better: "de-legitimization"), besides those Jay presented above: "What Dan Froomkin calls the Bush Bubble is designed to keep more of the world out." I think the Bush team's efforts to expose the press' illegitimacy, and treat it accordingly, is less a retreat from reality, and more a "a superior recognition of reality" Jay nails it here: "What he did not do is tell the national press, which he does not trust to inform the country anyway." [emphasis added] One may disagree whether the Administration's approach is justified, but you might consider it understandable given the conservatives' (like the Bush team) assessment of our dominant liberal media. Like it or lump it, this is what conservatives believe (I think with good reason); regardless, this is how conservatives can be expected to operate, as long as the benefit outweighs the cost (at which time the strategery will adapt). P.S. John Walters: Given the foregoing, you can't expect that Dick Cheney would choose to be interviewed by the likes of Dan Rather, David Gregory or Helen Thomas... Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 16, 2006 1:06 PM | Permalink The "dominant liberal media" meme is hawked as relentlessly as "9/11! 9/11! 9/11!" That doesn't make it true. But of course for BushCo, Truth doesn't matter. "Given the foregoing, you can't expect that Dick Cheney would choose to be interviewed by the likes of Dan Rather, David Gregory or Helen Thomas." What about Barbara Walters or Oprah? Posted by: David Ehrenstein at February 16, 2006 1:26 PM | Permalink Here's what the media should report, left or right. Dick Cheney is a liar and should resign for the good of the country. He was drunk when he shot his friend in the heart from 30-feet away, not 30 yards. You can''t get that tight a pattern with a shotgun from 30-yards. And anybody who knows anything about quail hunting knows you always, always take along a flask of good whiskey. Just ask Tom Wolfe. Is Jimmy Breslin still alive? Maybe it's time to write another book about another gang who can't shoot straight. Posted by: Glynn Wilson at February 16, 2006 1:52 PM | Permalink "John Harris obviously thinks he's Dick Cheney." David Ehrenstein makes an excellent point. I don't know if this applies specifically to John Harris, but it does seem to apply to much of the corporate press (Howell & Brady are a recent example). While the WH has changed the game on the press, and refuses to recognize the legitimacy of their questions (even when caught in a blatant untruth as Jay Rosen writes above) - so too do the press refuse to recognize the legitmacy of OUR questions (even when caught in a blatant untruth). Instead their effort seems to center on de-legitimizing US - we're uncivil, we use bad words and so forth. I don't know if the press has changed the rules of their game with the public - or if the game is being unmasked by the new technologies (including of course media critics with blogs). But, I don't like the rules of the game the press is playing with me. Indeed, I wonder if changing the rules of one game (the press vis-a-vis the public) would help the corporate press force a change the rules in the other game (the press vis-a-vis the WH). Thanks Jay and David for your insights. Posted by: selise at February 16, 2006 1:59 PM | Permalink 2. Why was Cheney not interviewed by law enforcement officials until Sunday morning? This is what interests me the most. Why did the Secret Service take it upon themselves to shoo away local deputies from making a proper investigation? The Secret Service protects the literal rear-ends of protectees, not their political rear-ends. So why has no one called the Secret Service? Sometimes the greatest PR trick of all is remaining invisible. Posted by: Alice Marshall at February 16, 2006 2:32 PM | Permalink Jay is right, of course, though the press' own cowardice in covering this administration has made the job of de-legitimizing it that much easier. This strategy was telegraphed in the interview published in the NY Times in 2004, when a "senior advisor" to Shrub (who I'd bet money was Karl Rove) said to reporter Ron Suskind (and the press as a whole): ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' And while we're lavishing contempt on the press for its general spinelessness and desire to suck up to power, let's save at least a couple tablespoons' worth for those who mindlessly repeat the White House talking points on WMD, the Iraq war, Katrina, Medicare, the deficit, energy policy and the myriad other failures of the Bush regime. Pathetic, people. Truly pathetic. Posted by: Bill at February 16, 2006 2:40 PM | Permalink That Cheney is one cool cucumber to make this meta-statement about the White House's relationship with the White House press corps right after shooting a guy (in the face - TM The Daily Show). The non-meta-story here is (1) why wait until the next day to go public and (2) what's the deal with the report to the police - were they turned away, or what? I think any person who has had a drink and operated a car can easily imagine the circumstances in which he would not want to speak with police or reporters until the next day. (Please note, the preceding sentence was not a statement of fact or presumption of anything.) The meta-story is valid, but there is also a much more basic, police blotter story to be told here. Posted by: Lame Man at February 16, 2006 2:41 PM | Permalink It was a legitimate news story stuffed by the hardliners running the country. Nothing new there, just business as usual. Is it right? I think we'd like leaders to be more honest. They could be if they so desired but this bunch clearly doesn't. The people got what they paid for in my view. Posted by: George Boyle at February 16, 2006 3:45 PM | Permalink The meta story is the story of why it is possible to bury the police blotter story without real repercussion. Both are relevant, at different levels, and for different reasons. The police blotter story is valid, because it remains a distinct possibility that the Vice President did something not worthy of his office -- or perhaps negligent or even illegal. The meta-story is that on this level, as well as on the national policy-making level, it remains a distinct possibility that the Vice President (and the President) has made a habit of doing something not worthy of his office -- or perhaps negligent or even illegal ... and that because of the Administration's purposeful emasculation of the press, it is no longer possible for the public to determine whether or not that is so. That is why I said back in the Blue Plate Special post that this story is synechdoche for the larger story -- the part representing itself, as well as the whole. Gary Wasserman expands this ito the foreign policy arena in looking at the war on leaks: One argument for why autocratic regimes such as pre-World War II Germany and Japan have engaged in risky foreign adventures is that these narrow elites are not subject to the kind of outside review by knowledgeable people that exists in democracies. The run-up to the Iraq war has raised questions about whether America's marketplace of ideas in foreign policy is still viable. Did the Bush administration's success in gaining public approval for its invasion of Iraq have something to do with its ability to control secret information in a way that muted doubts about inflated claims of Iraqi threats?[emphasis added] In other words, by limiting itself to engaging the public only in venues "at a time and place of our own choosing", as the Administration is wont to say, they shield their policies from scrutiny. You have to wonder why the Administration shies away from scrutiny. I think it's sound logic to say if you're hiding something, then you probably have something to hide. This points to a government that is so unsure of its own policies that it is afraid to subject them to scrutiny; or that is so certain that its policies will be unpalatable to the public that they must be hidden. Democracy's greatest strength is sunlight -- you expose your ideas and policies to the scrutiny of everyone else in this "marketplace of ideas." Like poor products -- or inefficient features -- the weak parts are scrutinized out of the market. That this systematically and purposefully does not happen anymore in Bush's America goes a long way toward explaining the abundance of apparent policy disasters we've witnessed over the last five years. The infuriating part is, yes, there they go creating the next reality, and here we are studying the last one. It's the hallmark of people who were raised to leave messes for others to clean up rather than taking responsibility for cleaning them up themselves.
Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 16, 2006 3:55 PM | Permalink Excellent. Finally, someone gets at the significance residing in this otherwise absurd non-story. However, Pressthink's hostility to Bush and its continuing belief, apparently, that the media's commanding heights do have a valuable role to play somewhat spoil it. I for one am very happy to think this effort to sidetrack and dispose of the mainstream media is happening. I hope Cheney and Bush pull it off. Since their administration will end, however, the ultimate outcome is unclear. The key point, however, is that their efforts coincide with (and make perfect sense because of) a deterioration in the media's talent, value and legitimacy anyway (and its corresponding increasing and extreme partisanship and ideological fanaticism). That is why its marginalization is much to be welcomed and most definitely not to be feared. Democracy and truth will be enhanced, not diminished, if the frivolous lunatics on display this past week fade away. News media is expanding exponentially, and we cannot know what further steps in its evolution await us. What is clear is that we are watching the gyrations of a dying dinosaur. I only fear that this beast's residual power is still much greater than one would hope. Posted by: Jonathan Burack at February 16, 2006 4:04 PM | Permalink "He treated the shooting as a private matter between private persons on private land that should be disclosed at the property owner’s discretion to the townsfolk (who understand hunting accidents, and who know the Armstrongs) via their local newspaper,...." Jay, I don't know how it works where you live, but if I shot a guy in Michigan, I'd d*mn well better talk to the police when they show up. Posted by: Barry at February 16, 2006 4:13 PM | Permalink "You have to wonder why the Administration shies away from scrutiny. I think it's sound logic to say if you're hiding something, then you probably have something to hide." Posted by: johne at February 16, 2006 4:40 PM | Permalink To Barry, The police were informed as were the medical people, the only ones who needed to be. They are not the ones complaining. Their case is closed. The big bruhaha was never about that anyway. It was about the prissy little White House press corp's insistance that the Constitution provides that "the press shall be informed of everything a president does, immediately, or in a period not to exceed 12 hours under any circumstances, whenever said press deems it necessary, period." Not MY Constitution, however. Posted by: Jonathan Burack at February 16, 2006 5:39 PM | Permalink The Texas hunting story is indeed a synechdoche for the larger story, which is what makes it so irresistable to the press. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 16, 2006 5:45 PM | Permalink Fascinating article. Do you think you could condense it into a few of paragraphs while getting the main point across? That is not an insult. I want to get the premise out there for debate and I am afraid people will be too lazy to read the whole article as currently written. By the way, congrats on the record for the world's longest question (to Harris). I know you can't print his answer, but let me guess...he replied "what was the question again?" Great article. Seriously. P.S. I don't think that, nor do I want, the media to be the fourth estate. At least not the big media...too much editorializing and not enough reporting. We citizens are not as stupid as they think. The WH is not beating them, they are beating themselves. Posted by: Lou Grant at February 16, 2006 6:00 PM | Permalink It has been a very long time since the liberal media that dominate the White House press corps let the truth get in the way of their reporting. This non-story is further proof of their fatal mixture of arrogance and incompetence. Posted by: James Nevler at February 16, 2006 6:24 PM | Permalink Steve L. -- If a bubble is a place in which facts need not intrude, then you are the one in the bubble. Your claim about Cheney going to bed without calling the police is a slanderous lie, and shows why he is right not to trust your former colleagues in the MSM. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 16, 2006 6:29 PM | Permalink I think that this might be of interest to people here. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 16, 2006 6:37 PM | Permalink Jay, I don't know how it works where you live, but if I shot a guy in Michigan, I'd d*mn well better talk to the police when they show up. That may be the case in Michigan, but in Texas, there is no legal requirement to report a shooting on private property unless it ends in death. And Cheney reported it within ten minutes of the shooting, anyway. Posted by: John Cole at February 16, 2006 6:38 PM | Permalink I think it would be good for you to read Thomas Sowell's piece today, Spoiled Brat Media LINK . I believe it very clearly reflects the attitude of a great many people in this country. As to the future, I can foresee a time in the not-too-distant future when there won't be a White House press corps, at least not in the White House. Posted by: Mike Doughty at February 16, 2006 6:49 PM | Permalink I think that the VP has been engaging in the old game of "rope-a-dope" with the media. While creating a brou-ha-ha over the delays in announcing the incident, the inconsistent stories etc. etc. the press is spending much of its time focussing on the aftermath of the incident, and ignoring the continuing administration attempts to duck accountability for driving a coach and horses through FISA. Posted by: Graham Shevlin at February 16, 2006 6:49 PM | Permalink Jay, there's a funny piece by Ron Fournier out today, in which he says Republicans say they are pleasantly surprised that the intense media coverage of the hunting accident has shifted attention from the case of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff. Libby is accused of misleading investigators about who leaked the identify of a CIA official. ... That's the scandal to watch, Republicans said. The hunting accident "really has gotten Scooter Libby out of the press," said Deb Gullett, a GOP activist from Phoenix, who is chief of staff to the city's mayor. "But it will come back."The story also quotes Congressman Tom Cole as saying that press coverage of the shooting has improved Cheney's image. You just can't make up a world in which reporters are gratefully ridiculed for massive coverage of a shotgunning by the vice president, or one in which the public perception of the veep is allegedly improved by the incident. Posted by: weldon berger at February 16, 2006 7:00 PM | Permalink Few can see their own faults. The press talks of a "bubble" mentality - then spends most of the time loudly complaining that the newmakers did not TELL them about, well, news happening. As a consumer of news and articles, et al, I find the "outrage" of the press very similar to the outrage of realtors when faced with competition - "Why that is nothing but a commission avoidance scheme!!" Well DUH! Who made it the 11th commandent that you HAVE to pay a realtor to buy real property? The same for news. The idea used to be you received a superior product - fact based, etc. After Dan Rather and his fake but accurate documents - too bad you destroyed your own credibility. Posted by: Californio at February 16, 2006 7:23 PM | Permalink Thanks for the link to E&P, Neurocon. This hits the nail on the head. When asked about the White House press corps' continued grilling of Press Secretary Scott McClellan, the pair supported the ongoing interest, but disagreed with the harsh approach. "We need to ask every question we can think of," Powell noted. "But until someone has proven themselves untrustworthy, I don't think we need to act like pit bulls. That makes us look bad." This is exactly why the Bush Administration goes to local outlets. They already have proven themselves untrustworthy in dealing with the national press. These folks at the local paper trust Cheney, because they've never been on the White House beat. Perhaps you haven't been watching, but that's where you're told that Rove and Libby had nothing to do with the leak of Plame's ID, when they did, or that Whittington is fine, when he's just had a heartattack, or that the Use of Force resolution supports subverting FISA when it doesn't, or that Congress was briefed about the NSA wiretapping program when, in fact, they weren't. That's why, for the local papers, it is part of the larger story of local hunting accidents, and for national papers, it is part of the bigger story of fundamentally dishonest government. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 16, 2006 7:37 PM | Permalink It is worth reading what hunters have to day about this- Upland bird hunters everywhere knew exactly what had happened when word spread this past weekend that Vice President Dick Cheney shot a quail-hunting companion in South Texas, but some media reports made it sound as if the victim were to blame. Posted by: Alice Marshall at February 16, 2006 7:40 PM | Permalink Californio brings up a good point---that is, there is very little news gathering in the WH press corpse. The national press expected to be told what happened, there was no thought of actually FINDING OUT what happened. And where the hell was our brave watchdog press that day? Obviously not at the gates of the Armstrong Ranch where they might have actually SEEN an ambulance leave the property, and done the required followup. Oh no, the pampered poodles(TM) of the national press demand you hand feed them the news, or you are a BAD, BAD person, and "questions" will be raised, as the consequence for not spilling your guts to Our Brave Watchdogs. Dick Cheney is right in that the national press will never beat the local press on any story that is out of the NE corridor. They don't have the contacts or the knowledge. Posted by: rgrafton at February 16, 2006 7:55 PM | Permalink Gosh, someone has gone and made the super-important white house reporters angry again! They are out-raged! Do you hear me? They are out-out-out-raged! So we must tend to them because they are more important than anyone else! Oh my, they are so very, very angry! Oh goodness, what shall we do? Well, here's an idea, let's make the vice pres prove that he was not drunk! We imagine that he must have been dead drunk so now he is obligated to prove that it ain't so! We want proof! Yes, we demand proof and we demand it right now! Proof! Proof! Right now! And if we don't get it, we will do two things. First, we will write articles saying that he could have or should have or must have been drunk (this is known is professional circles as the Dan Rather Standard). Second, we will be even angrier that we are now! We will be out-raged! Do you hear me? I am out-raged! That means that I am the center of everything and you must listen to me and do what I say because I am out-out-out-raged! Dario Posted by: Dario Siteros at February 16, 2006 8:02 PM | Permalink Steve L. -- Neuro-conservative: Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 16, 2006 8:08 PM | Permalink
I think you're on to something about the change in the rules of the game. But of course, that is one of the key rationales for the Bush presidency, trying to transform American domestic and foreign policy and the premises that have become conventional wisdom. You see this an indication of the administration's interest in subordinating truth to further its power. There is no doubt this administration is experimenting with new venues to get its message out. But as you suggest, the administration asks: What makes preening reports so special and answers, nothing. This and every other administration would like and tries to get a free ride for their message. They are aided by the fact that Serious, substantive questions are in a minority in any briefly or press conference. Perhaps not surprisingly, the most informative news events are one on one interviews, where the prepared reporter with an open mind and open ended questions can learn a great deal about presidential thinking and administrative policy. Posted by: Stanley Renshon at February 16, 2006 8:23 PM | Permalink Californio brings up a good point---that is, there is very little news gathering in the WH press corpse. The national press expected to be told what happened, there was no thought of actually FINDING OUT what happened. what news did the Corpus Christy paper gather? Posted by: bush's jaw at February 16, 2006 8:35 PM | Permalink The first thing I want from the press is to know if, how, when and by whom a sheriff's officer was or was not turned away from the Armstrong ranch gate on Saturday evening when breath tests could have been administered and collusive testimony would have been less possible. This is what I would have wanted in 1966, 1986 or now. I suspect we'd have found out sooner in 1966 than 1986 and sonner in 1986 than now. There used to be reporters - now there are syndications, sycophants and, small but growing mercy, people reacting with blogs. I don't give a stuff about grist delivery arrangements for the Washington mill. Posted by: AlanDownunder at February 16, 2006 8:38 PM | Permalink Lovelady, this is the kind of bubble we're supposed to be indignant about? Local law enforcement was called at or around 5:30 pm local time the day of the accident. The Vice President didn't call the local sherrif's switchboard personnally; his security detail did. Law enforcement mutually arranged to speak the next morning with Cheney. Geez, I suppose if Cheney doesn't personally clean the toilets, then he's in a bubble. Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 16, 2006 8:47 PM | Permalink The old understanding, which lasted from Kennedy to Gore, was that the White House has a right to get its message out, and the press has a right to probe and question, It's interesting that you mention Kennedy here. While I agree that on the one hand the Bush admin is pushing back against the press in (perhaps) an unprecendented way, the press has pushed its way into new territory in covering the White House. I wasn't around then, but I've never seen transcripts of the WH press corps pushing for information about the president's relationship with Marilyn Monroe and the mysterious other women he surrounded himself with, or throwing a fit at a gaggle because they hadn't been told of Kennedy's daily cortisone dosage. As was proper, in my opinion. Posted by: MayBee at February 16, 2006 8:49 PM | Permalink a president getting a BJ is a public matter? Posted by: bush's jaw at February 16, 2006 9:15 PM | Permalink Trained Auditor: I'll repeat it again. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 16, 2006 9:33 PM | Permalink Hey, bush's jaw- if Fitz can prove that Cheney shot Vince Foster, that would be justice. :) Posted by: MayBee at February 16, 2006 9:38 PM | Permalink The hissy fit by the angrily trembling reporters in the White House press corps is really a separate issue from all the rest of this. Indignation that one is not spoon fed news is really unseemly. That, however, is a separate issue from whether the vice president May I suggest that these are all questions that need to be directed to the investigating officers in the jurisdiction, not to the White House? And that calling those folks up and asking questions is something anyone can do, including bloggers? I'm reading the Reuters report in which the local law enforcement folks are saying it was just an accident and, again, it's a compliant reporter being spoon fed farina and doing a good job as a stenographer. No indication that any questions were asked that would bear on the issues above. Are there no reporters assigned to this who know how to ask for the evidence upon which the sheriff's conclusions were based? Do they just assume they won't get answers, so they don't ask? For all I know that sheriff can't wait to explain how his guys worked this incident. Keeping in mind, of course, that the thing may simply have been an accident as the sheriff says, and the only thing that needs to really happen is for Lynn Cheney to take away the veep's guns and give him something safer to play with. Posted by: Bill Watson at February 16, 2006 9:52 PM | Permalink Hi Jay. Good piece. and then Cheney headed to Turin. Posted by: Scott Butki at February 16, 2006 11:19 PM | Permalink It doesn't get much better than this. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 16, 2006 11:58 PM | Permalink This article is a perfect example of why the American public is laughing heartily at the so-called fourth estate. What else can you do but laugh at someone who frames a simple question in fourteen paragraphs and thinks that it's completely normal to do so? Contemporary "professional" journalists have raised self-parody to a high art form. Posted by: Vagabond at February 17, 2006 12:49 AM | Permalink Very interesting comments. The VP says during an interview that the natonal press is PO'd that they didn't get the first word, and now that has become THE STORY. Doesn't anyone see how the WH has manipulated the events to make the press look bad, changing the focus and tenor of the entire incident. This is psych 101. And still, no one really knows what happened that afternoon, while millions of bytes and tons of paper will be wasted on secondary BS. There are important questions that need to be answered, and the first of those is why the media has allowed themselves to be so easily bushwacked. Go out, get the story, and let the WH react instead Posted by: synecdoche at February 17, 2006 5:31 AM | Permalink
....the 'White House Press Corps' has been a sad joke upon on the public for decades. Unmanned video cameras could easily accomplish 95% of their "news product". American taxpayers already pay hundreds of million$ for official public-relations/public-information agencies in every corner of the Federal government. The purpose of these unnecessary agencies is to make their boss look good ... by trumpeting favorable information and minimizing unfavorable information. What then would be the objective of private news organizations covering the government ?? If citizens can rely on the vast government public-information/public-relations apparatus for relevant information -- then private-news-organizations are redundant. If citizens can NOT rely on this vast government apparatus -- then THAT is the prime daily news item for private news reporting. The White House Press Corps should uncover & report truth. It would be a welcome change. ---------------- Posted by: RobertsCK at February 17, 2006 6:50 AM | Permalink Vagabond asks.... "What else can you do but laugh at someone who frames a simple question in fourteen paragraphs and thinks that it's completely normal to do so?" It is not simply the length of the framing that matters. Usually, that length is needed for the reporter to set up the mark (disguised as a person from whom one seeks information). Only when the question is set up properly, can it be posed such that ANY answer will indict the mark. This "have you stopped beating your wife lately" framing almost completely dominates the White House press corp. Questions designed to embarrass crowd out almost entirely honest quests for information. I realize people here think the pols at the briefings do not supply honest information anyway. However, I think the failure to find out anything is above all the adversarial posturing of a press that has already abandoned any interest in getting information. A proof of this has also been alluded to in this Cheney episode. I think many of the specifics of the shooting incident that people here want explained are petty and trivial. Yet I do think if the press actually thought the incident itself mattered (it doesn't and they don't) they could have sought to dig up answers to such quesions themselves. It is not laziness only that explains their total disinterest in doing so. Posted by: Jonathan Burack at February 17, 2006 9:24 AM | Permalink I would suggest, in turn, that the press' self-reverential petulance on Cheney's manner of communicating this event to the public, and especially the Washington press' fanatical search for something nefarious about this Administration in the story's details, is a synecdoche* for our dominant media's behavior on larger stories. * But at least I learned a new word! Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 17, 2006 10:14 AM | Permalink "Synechdoche" (it's not even in MS Word's spell-checker...) Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 17, 2006 10:17 AM | Permalink Seems to me the press had no difficulty learning about the secret CIA flights over Europe. And the Abu Ghraib abuses. And the secret holding facilities in Eastern European countries. And the NSA "domestic spying" international enemy surveillance program. All of which have variously either put American intelligence officers at risk of being killed, broken our promises to our allies to keep secrets, or put Americans at home at risk of large scale terrorist attacks. They didn't neet official press releases to find out that stuff. So what's with the outrage? You're investigative journalists, so GO INVESTIGATE. Oh, and I would have thought that the Associated Press would have picked up on this when the story was written down in Corpus Christi, because that paper is a member of AP. If it HAD been picked up, we would have heard about this at least 12 hours earlier. But the press is so accustomed to being spoon-fed, they aren't even paying ATTENTION anymore. Posted by: dave at February 17, 2006 10:23 AM | Permalink i'm not the only person to look up synecdoche ? ;-0 it's Sisyphean Posted by: untrained auditor at February 17, 2006 10:37 AM | Permalink Yes, the White House and Cheney have changed the rules on communicating with ordinary Americans through the traditional news media. They are rules that would be typical of an ordinary neo-fascist regime. I'm sure Putin appreciates them. Posted by: Joe at February 17, 2006 10:53 AM | Permalink One view of truth, R.I.P. Posted by: Terry Heaton at February 17, 2006 11:13 AM | Permalink "Rollback" makes into a news report from the Knight-Ridder Washington bureau. More than ever, the Bush White House ignores traditional news media and presents its message through friendly alternatives, such as talk-show hosts Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Okay, the guy did interview me, but still... Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 17, 2006 11:57 AM | Permalink There's nothing funnier than an angry Leftist mindlessly spouting Leftstream media talking points and then complaining that the media isn't biased in his favor. Posted by: andrew at February 17, 2006 12:14 PM | Permalink Yes, there is. It's a Bushist trying to decide whether to applaud the ruthless reasoning behind Rollback... or deny that the Bush team could be so ruthless because, well, it don't sound too good... or declare the Bushies innocent of ruthlessness because journalists are so biased they deserve what happens to them! Choices, choices. It's funny. Anyway, this isn't about the press or "Leftists," fundamentally. It's about freedom from fact as a perogative of power. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 17, 2006 12:45 PM | Permalink It's pretty much beyond arguing that relations between press and the White House have shifted. But I believe this more a story about a shift in relations between press and readers / viewers. The delay in reporting the incident spanned a time when most of the public was out on Saturday night, in bed, or at church. What were we supposed to do with the information that Cheney had been involved in a hunting accident? Why are we supposed to care that he took three days to explain himself? If there's no ready answer to these questions, then the press corps' tantrum was self-referential: It had nothing to do with end users. Posted by: Jay Lewis at February 17, 2006 12:48 PM | Permalink the issue is not whether the public was busy on Saturday to receive the news. the issue is that the news should be disclosed on Saturday and be available for readers and viewers. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 17, 2006 1:01 PM | Permalink Here's why it's relevant to the end user: If the incident were reported to the wires on Saturday, when it happened, it would have been the top story on every front page of every Sunday paper in the nation.
Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 17, 2006 1:16 PM | Permalink Jay's on to something, because the following choices are equally funny as those he highlighted: It's a [Bushist] sufferer of Bush Derangement Syndrome trying to decide whether to [applaud] concede secret admiration of the ruthless reasoning behind Rollback... or [deny] assert that the Bush team could be so ruthless because, well, it [don't sound too good] is consistent with their evil ways... or declare the Bushies [innocent] guilty of ruthlessness because journalists are so [biased] truthy they deserve [what happens to them!] better! Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 17, 2006 1:26 PM | Permalink "Yes, there is. It's a Bushist trying to decide whether to applaud the ruthless reasoning behind Rollback... or deny that the Bush team could be so ruthless because, well, it don't sound too good... or declare the Bushies innocent of ruthlessness because journalists are so biased they deserve what happens to them!" I'm not sure what's ruthless about it. The Leftwing media, in this instance the White House Press Corps, doesn't even pretend to care anymore about being even handed, so why should Republicans treat them with any respect? Because they don't want to break imaginary "rules" about how the media should be handled? That's laughable. And it's even more funny to watch the Left on the one hand deny the obvious left wing bias of the media, but then complain that a Republican White House is bypassing the media. Well, the only people who are upset by this are on the Left because they know that the WH Press Corps is on their side. There's no other reason for you Leftists to be upset about it. The MSM losing power and influence is always bad for the Left and never bad for the Right. Interesting how it works out that way, huh?
Posted by: andrew at February 17, 2006 2:04 PM | Permalink Totally interesting. Some fear freedom from fact, others not so much. And some have a theory about why it's necessary these days. All are worth considering. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 17, 2006 2:09 PM | Permalink Jay: Your assertions about "Freedom from Fact" are unconvincing. Pillar's point of view is that of a CIA insider upset that decision-making is not a collaborative process with hundreds of conflicting points-of-view held by and within the differently-abled bureaucracy. No decision making can occur in such an environment, and that someone took the time to dig into the conflicting mass when there was already consensus on the background facts speaks well of the attempt to listen. The other "facts:" Cheney's conflict with a taped assertion - suffers from the relevancy test. This is not a general assertion that all that is said is fact, merely that there does not appear to be a decided attempt to depart from facts other than normal politically motivated assertions of reality. You may not agree with the portrayed reality, but other than fairly infrequent mistakes, there does not appear to be concerted attempts to alter facts. I guess that is also something you might not agree with. On the Thread subject: Rollback of the WH Press Corp, a fine term of art, is, you assert, a deliberate decision on behalf of at least some of the administration. There are certainly those among the right that would cheer the stiff-arming of the WH PC. Additionally, there are those among the normal listening public that find the WH PC less than useful and find no particular objection to them being scooped by the small town Texas paper. Getting news through more than one filter, especially a somewhat ossified filter is one useful way of determining for ourselves the truth of a matter. The lock on news coming from the WH through a group who have long since succumbed to group-think can at best give only a modicum of the view inside of that cave. An occasional view from outside the cave is welcome and refreshing, even if not as sophisticated. The conjoining of interests between the Press Corp (and greater press supporters) and the Left on this particular (lack of) issue can only be discerned by those that realize that interests of the two groups are not the same (exactly.) I, for one, applaud the press part of the current row. I believe that it highlights the detachment between the press and the public. This tension needs to be seen and understood before change can have meaning. It will serve as an accelerant to whatever comes next.
Posted by: John Lynch at February 17, 2006 2:14 PM | Permalink "There does not appear to be a decided attempt to depart from facts other than normal politically motivated assertions of reality." that would go under deny that the Bush team could be so ruthless because, well, it don't sound too good... Deft dismissal of Pillar, though. Efficient data validity denial. "CIA Turf War, NEXT!" Here's what John Lynch wants you to dismiss as "enemies"-of-the-Prez, inter-office feud material. Foreign Affairs Magazine, March/April 2006, Intelligence, Policy, and the War in Iraq by Paul R. Pillar. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 17, 2006 2:22 PM | Permalink Jay, I have no problem saying parts of the administration can be, and is, ruthless in bypassing the WH PC and actually don't think it sounds either ruthless or "not good." Thank you, I think, for the praise of my efficiency; however I have read with interest the (Pillar) material, coming out as it has over the past week. It conflicts with other material, also apparently credible, such as three congressional investigations, British investigations, and other CIA officers, both ex- and current. I find it another voice, but not a definitive one. I'm sorry if a one paragraph statement about the material comes across as a trite dismissal. Posted by: John Lynch at February 17, 2006 2:39 PM | Permalink Sorry I must have misunderstood. I took Pillar's point of view is that of a CIA insider upset that decision-making is not a collaborative process with hundreds of conflicting points-of-view held by and within the differently-abled bureaucracy. as dismissal, since that is not a point-of-view anyone could rely on in this day and age, especially when it comes to threat assessment. We understand why you're upset, Paul, because you want a thousand flowers to bloom, and that's nice in a "I'd-like-to-teach-the-world-to-sing" way, but we have a war against Islamic Terror to win here. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 17, 2006 2:52 PM | Permalink Whoops, Jay, it looks like you're conflating Lynch's denial that the Bush team seeks "freedom from fact" with his discussion of "Rollback". That conflation appears to stem from an assumption that "Rollback" equals (or is intended to promulgate) "freedom from fact". I think you'll admit that is not established; though it makes a great alternative to discussing whether, instead, rollback equals getting facts to the public with less dominant media distortion. Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 17, 2006 2:58 PM | Permalink It is no conflation. It is an argument. You can call it unproven, and I would agree. Nonetheless, it's been gaining, a little, lately. In my view "Rollback" is a rational policy. It has an objective. There are other Bush policies simultaneously developed that have the same objective. That objective I try to capture with the phrase freedom from fact, which is part of a gigantic expansion of executive power underway right now. True conservatives (the few left) are worried that Bush is a closet statist who believes in ever bigger government. Freedom from fact is part of that spreading bigness. The government not only sidelines the press, it takes over information provision, and the whole business of establishing "what happened." Imagine it: You need Atta in Prague you can have Atta in Prague. Whether he was there or not is a ultimately a negligible factor in your powers of assertion and documentation. What government wouldn't want that power? Cheney's government does. Bush's government does. Do conservatives or Bush loyalists want this? Frankly, some do. They think it's part of information warfare, which we cannot neglect. A tiny number are frightened by it. And most are in the phase where none of this is happening. I don't think they've figured out yet whether they want a government with freedom from fact, so they keep the focus on the scoundrel press and how deserving it is of dumping. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 17, 2006 3:09 PM | Permalink Jay, If I understand the premise of your argument, the RollBack is in order to achieve freedom from fact. This I would have to dispute. There are too many sources of fact, too many reports, too many leaks, too many diverse voices for there to be a conspiracy (uncovered) concealing meaningful facts. This is not to say that there aren't some voices more powerful than others that want us, the public, to look at their facts; and their interpretation of those facts as the one and only truth(iness.) I'll buy the WH and WHPC Rollback theory; but not the connection to a conspiracy to hide facts. I ascribe the motivation for Rollback to entirely different reasons; some of which have been debated on this forum exhaustively. Posted by: John Lynch at February 17, 2006 3:24 PM | Permalink There are too many sources of fact, too many reports, too many leaks, too many diverse voices for there to be a conspiracy (uncovered) concealing meaningful facts. That's all very nice, if you live in a world where all those sources are not rolled up into one lumpen mass called "the liberal media" and summarily dismissed as biased distortions. For every fact, there is now an opposing and equally valid Party version. That's relative truth, and as a governing tactic, it's frightening. The "conspiracy" here is not to conceal facts, but to convince the target audience that facts are not trustworthy unless they come from the Party, the White House, or a selected conservative media outlet. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 17, 2006 3:35 PM | Permalink Conspiracy? Nice one, John. The whole point purpose and premise of Pillar's article is to show how policy-makers can triumph over the evidence without a conspiracy, if they are willful enough. The signals are subtler; they add up and cook the books. No conspiracy needed. That's what he is writing about. Read it again. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 17, 2006 3:36 PM | Permalink "The "conspiracy" here is not to conceal facts, but to convince the target audience that facts are not trustworthy unless they come from the Party, the White House, or a selected conservative media outlet." In other words, we should all be quiet and believe whatever the Democratic Party and selected liberal media outlets tell us. Anything else is a threat to democracy, right?
Posted by: andrew at February 17, 2006 3:47 PM | Permalink Peggy Noonan, that member of the leeeberal media: The Dick Cheney shooting incident will, in a way, go away. And, in a way, not--ever. Some things stick. Gerry Ford had physically stumbled only once or twice in public when he became, officially, The Stumbler. Mr. Ford's stumbles seemed to underscore a certain lack of sure-footedness in his early policies and other decisions. The same with Jimmy Carter and the Killer Rabbit. At the time Mr. Carter told the story of a wild rabbit attacking his boat he had already come to be seen by half the country as weak and unlucky. Even bunnies took him on. But Noonan opines about what the WH is thinking, without saying -- the hate magnet becoming a liability? Posted by: bush's jaw at February 17, 2006 4:09 PM | Permalink The weakness, it seems, is we're trying to divine what the Bush Administration's objective is for making use of "Rollback"/De-legitimization. It seems that divination can place too much weight on one's opinion of whether the Bush team's intentions are good or bad. But do we have to deduce the Bush team's objectives here? “Too often they treat us with contempt,” Elisabeth Bumiller, one of three Times White House correspondents, says. “In comparison, the Reagan Administration coddled us. This crowd has a wall up. They never get off their talking points.” What Bumiller calls a “wall,” Mark McKinnon calls “a funnel for information.” [emphasis added] - From FORTRESS BUSH How the White House keeps the press under control, Ken Auletta, New Yorker, January 19, 2004. "The president has great goals for our country: a growing economy, strong homeland and national defense, tort and Social Security reform and affordable health care. But we need your help to get the president's message past the liberal media filter and directly to the American people," - Ken Mehlman, Republican National Committee Chairman, in a January 2005 fund-raising e-mail. Not freedom from fact, but freedom of fact (i.e. facts no longer subjected to a filter skewed left). Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 17, 2006 4:47 PM | Permalink and how was the unfiltered Social Security town halls? did that message get through? Posted by: bush's jaw at February 17, 2006 4:54 PM | Permalink The Social Security town halls became ineffective the more our media friends publicized them as mere communication technique; that became the story rather than the events' message. I think such town hall meetings will be less effective, in future, to the extent our dominant media decides to publicize those kinds of political sausage-making - - which are fair game to publicize, but only so long as the publicity is applied to both sides even-handedly. Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 17, 2006 5:16 PM | Permalink TA: Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 17, 2006 5:21 PM | Permalink Lovelady: I get your message. Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 17, 2006 5:25 PM | Permalink TA, you want it both ways. the Social Security reform message was unfiltered to the town halls, and the reform still failed. and you blame the failure on the media for reporting on the town halls as a technique? how about the SS reform failing on its own merits. partisans on both sides assign so much blame and credit to the media. the liberal MSM with its WH stenographers are not be trusted, yet all powerful and have been discredited. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 17, 2006 6:03 PM | Permalink It's been a hilarious week with the MSM foaming at the mouth over a non-story. It is not the Bush Administration's "rollback" of the media that is important; rather, it is the MSM's "rollback" of itself. If you want to be relevant, then be relevant. Posted by: Phil at February 17, 2006 6:44 PM | Permalink Oops! I thought this was PressThink---it appears this site is PartisanThink. Posted by: rgrafton at February 17, 2006 6:57 PM | Permalink I dunno, Phil. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 17, 2006 7:14 PM | Permalink This is sweet! SLovelady sez: "...(VP) clams up for four days...Seems to me it's also something a 'relevant' press just might want to cover." This begs the question: is the only 'relevant' press the East Coast Liberal Elite Press? So what is the Corpus Christi Caller-Times? Chopped liver? Hubris, thy name is MSM. Get a clue! Most of us will trust our local press over the national press any day. Live and DON'T learn. Posted by: rgrafton at February 17, 2006 7:30 PM | Permalink In Lovelady's universe, the VP could only expiate himself by personally calling 911, David Gregory, and the Pope, and even then only if he was calling to announce his resignation and immediate plans for ritual seppuku. Most normal people would accompany their friend to the hospital and make sure that the law enforcement officials at the scene (Secret Service in this case) were aware of what had happened and had contacted the local authorities. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 17, 2006 7:35 PM | Permalink I think that this thread has reached the crux of both the strengths and weakness of Jay's Rollback theory. As description, it is in critical respects spot-on. The comparison to Fitzwater is illuminating, and Cheney has not made a secret about his views of executive power, having seen them reach their nadir in the mid-70's. Jay then relies on the authority of a disgruntled former spook's muddled, self-serving CYA essay to declare the Admin as being free from facts. From a PressThink perspective, Jay's use of the word "fact" is even more highly loaded than his insinuation that Pillar has them and Bush/Cheney avoid them. As an example, Jay points to Atta/Prague story as a non-factual assertion of power. But how about these facts? Or these? The problem with our current situation is that intelligence matters are now at the core of our daily survival. These matters are necessarily secret to the public (sorry Mr. Risen, but I don't want to know whether we cracked the Enigma code), and are murky even to those in the know. This problem underlies many of the issues addressed recently by PressThink, including Plame, Miller, NSA, Risen/Keller, and Rollback. It appears that Jay sees this problematic in terms of "facts" vs "power." Jay seems to take for granted the prior precedence of facts, and uses to full effect the nefarious implications of the word "power" (especially when used in connection to Cheney). Yet even Pillar concedes that there was little disagreement on the "fact" of Saddam's WMD. Where CIA and WH disagreed was on outcomes of potential actions or inaction. These are questions of judgement and policy. Despite the protests of Pillar and his comrades, the American people elected George Bush and Richard Cheney to make those judgements and set those policies. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 17, 2006 8:53 PM | Permalink "In Lovelady's universe, the VP could only expiate himself by personally calling 911, David Gregory, and the Pope ..." Actually, Neuroticonservative, I'd settle for Cheney calling anyone ... 911 would be a good start ... or his wife ... better yet, Whittingham's wife ... or the White House ... or a hospital. I think Kevin Drum said it best, in deconstructing Cheney's reluctant session with Brit Hume: "First, Cheney acknowledged that the White House wanted him to issue a statement Saturday night, but he refused. 'That was my call, all the way,' he said. Translation: he doesn't take guidance from the White House. They take guidance from him." Exactly. If we have learned anything from this Keystone Cops routine, it is that when the chips are down, Cheney trumps Rove. (And many, many people had thought the opposite.) That was enlightening to watch. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 17, 2006 9:32 PM | Permalink Neuroticonservative! Good one, Steve! Have another scotch on me! Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 17, 2006 9:40 PM | Permalink David Gregory, White House correspondent for NBC News, tells us his press think: My view is, as elected officials with unparalleled influence over the lives of the American people, the President and Vice President owe the public information about their activities. I see myself as a proxy for the public that has raised questions about what happened and why the Vice President did not immediately disclose it. Neuro: I didn't describe the Administration as being free from facts. That's sloppy. I said that in its policies toward the press, its efforts at bringing professionals in the government to heel, its put downs and misuse of science, and its approach to the intelligency agencies--to name four areas--the goal has been to achieve a certain freedom from the constraints of fact. This I ses as inseperable from the boldness and visionary quality of the Bush presidency, and from the beliefs of the evangelicals who in their pact with Bush include him as one of them. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 17, 2006 10:38 PM | Permalink Excuse me, but I find fascinating, revealing and slightly comic this description of the system, "procedure," the way it's supposed to work for the press at the White House. From Kelly O'Donnell, White House Correspondent for NBC News: There is a long standing and well organized process by which this White House and previous administrations release information to the American people. The media are a conduit. Every day, at any hour of the day, a specific group of journalists is on duty to receive any news release, no matter how urgent or mundane. That group is compromised of representatives from different types of news organizations, newspapers, magazines, television networks and so forth. They form a "pool" and we rotate that duty. Most often those reporters are physically at the White House or near the President when he travels. The pool, by design, is immediately reachable. The White House and the media have an agreement to use this system. It's standard practice. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 17, 2006 11:01 PM | Permalink Actually, Neuroticonservative, I'd settle for Cheney calling anyone ... 911 would be a good start ... or his wife ... better yet, Whittingham's wife ... or the White House ... or a hospital. It's very interesting, in a conversation at least partially about filtering of facts, to see what Steve Lovelady does with the facts of this particular case. Posted by: MayBee at February 18, 2006 12:06 AM | Permalink David Gregory, quoted above: I view the White House press corps as a proxy for the public. Mr. Gregory, speaking as a member of the public: you're fired. Whether it was, or is, true or false, the "narrative" presented by Cheney and co. regarding the events of the Great Bird Hunt is cohesive and plausible to anyone who has ever been bird hunting, or who lives in Texas and has neighbors who regularly go bird hunting. The supposedly-substantive objections -- why didn't he report it to law enforcement? -- fall down in fundamental ways. The Secret Service is law enforcement. It was the very first Federal law enforcement agency, in fact. County Mounties are redundant, at best. Most of the rest of the objections fall down because they are plainly made by people who have no idea, no tiniest glimmer, of how a quail hunt is conducted or of the likely events and risks involved with one. If misbehavior occurred, the only people who are ever going to figure it out and present it in any believable fashion will have to be people who understand quail hunting. It's abundantly clear that nobody in the White House Press Corps qualifies, nor do at least most of the commenters here. As a forinstance: a commenter, above, noted that Cheney had originally blamed the victim, then recanted by taking responsibility. As a bald representation of events that's tolerably justifiable if the person so noting doesn't understand quail hunting.. The original statements were to the effect that Mr. Whittington violated a safety rule regarding where he would be, and that this was the proximate cause of the accident. This is not "blaming the victim" in the context of bird hunting; the person holding the gun has responsibility for what gets shot with it, and no hunter could plausibly deny that or expect to get away with the denial if he did. It is a perfectly plausible explanation of how the accident occurred, without containing one shred of blame for the person who got shot. So making that comment does not cause anyone knowledgeable to question Mr. Cheney's character; it instead constitutes a confession of cluelessness, and therefore valuelessness, on the part of the commenter. So if there is truth to be discovered, the White House Press Corps will not be the one to discover it; they haven't the equipment. That being the case, it's trivial to dismiss their insistence on being notified as childish petulance, because that's a large part of what's actually happening, and even if it were not, they clearly could not do anything about it if they were notified. The truth, if different from what's been presented, might possibly be discovered by a writer for Guns&Ammo or possibly Field&Stream -- and, on present evidence, Mr. Gregory and many of the commenters here would dismiss it with prejudice as not being a product of those reporters with credentials they respect, a qualification journalists from local or small organizations clearly do not have. This seems to me an instance of a larger trend, that of declaring that anyone knowledgeable about a subject is inherently subject to conflict of interest when the subject is addressed. The end result of that is having lawyers and accountants inspecting airplanes for safe condition, because the engineers have a conflict of interest. Ultimately, accepting the principle means that a journalist declares total impartiality by demonstrating total ignorance of the subject involved. As a Utopian principle it might be valid, but since the result is utterly implausible "news" the impartiality of the "reporter" is moot. So, yeah, George Bush (and, even more, Dick Cheney) would like to eliminate the national Press from the news-stream. They are in a fair way to succeed, largely because the national Press seems not merely willing, but anxious, to hand them their heads on demand. I'm a Bush supporter, at least in some respects, and even I don't find that a good thing, but it isn't going to change until some fundamental changes are made in the way the Press does business. Mr. Gregory, you're fired. My proxy is withdrawn. You aren't qualified to determine the truth or falsity of statments made on subjects you know nothing whatever about, and demonstrating that you know nothing about them is not a suitable way of demonstrating your good faith. Regards, Posted by: Ric Locke at February 18, 2006 12:17 AM | Permalink Jay -- While my use of the term "free from facts" was sloppy, your 10:38 statement appears consistent with the facts vs power prism which I ascribe to you. It seems as if you agree with the speaker of the now-famous quote to Suskind about the shapers vs the studiers of reality. You align four sets of professionals against the bold, religious visionaries. But the professionals hold no claim on special wisdom (and, in the case of the press, not even special knowledge), nor are evangelical Christians incapable of absorbing facts or acting rationally, regardless of how it may appear at Washington Square. The Executive must always take action in the absence of certainty (actually, we are all doomed to that condition). As I noted before, this is where judgement, integrity, and policy vision come in -- this is the ground on which Presidential elections are battled. Intellectuals and highly specialized professionals obtain no special privileges in these arenas, and many of the highest-IQ presidents (e.g., Wilson, Hoover, Carter, Nixon, Clinton) have shown themselves to have been deeply lacking in one or more of these qualities. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 18, 2006 12:37 AM | Permalink It seems that the White House Press was in a tizzy because they had to report a very unpleasant occurrence involving Mr. Cheney without any guidance from the White House about how the unpleasant occurrence should be handled. Thus they were almost forced to go out and ask questions, even followup questions, or look like they were left scratching their blow-dried heads. They went four whole days with no guidance about how to handle such a situation, and no anonymous sources were coming out, no faxed talking points forthcoming, to spin the situation. This annoyed them. Then the guy had a heart attack, and the White House Press was worried they might have to report something even more unpleasant. Fortunately, Mr. Cheney gave his interview, the shooting victim rightfully apologized to the Vice President for causing him such a fuss, and the White House Press is able to call the incident closed, to everyone's satisfaction. Whew, that was a close one. Posted by: Phredd at February 18, 2006 10:02 AM | Permalink Among "no special knowledge," "CYA" and "axe to grind" you have pretty much everyone covered, huh, neuro? Paul O'Neil, that would be no special knowledge, right? No, you idiot, he was a cabinet secretary who got fired! He's gotta be axe to grind, as in "disgrunted ex-employee," get it? Whos next? Richard Clarke... I'm guessing axe to grind? NO, don't you know who Clarke was, and what he did? That's a CYA all the way. Right, right. Paul Pillar... We just went through that, CYA also. Okay, looks like this one's a NASA scientist... No special knowledge, NEXT! Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 18, 2006 10:11 AM | Permalink Will Femia, at the "Clicked" column on MSNBC, led with PressThink Friday: Bloggers have been complaining about a complacent, press-release relaying press corps for years, so it's curious that some of those same bloggers would be upset that Cheney didn't play to that system to announce the details of his accident... By the way, the big liberal blogs all ignored this post. It was more popular on the right: Hugh Hewitt, Mark Tapscott, National Review, Ed Driscoll, Real Clear Politics, and the essential Balloon Juice. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 18, 2006 10:38 AM | Permalink High-trafficked Pressthink threads always have been one sided (not that there is anything wrong with that), a reflection of our highly partisan times. On Cheney, comments mostly from the right, angry and upset at the press. Ric Locke, the Secret Service is law enforcement on something like this? that's a new one. why doesn't the Secret Service put out a report on the peppering incident. why didn't we depend on the Secret Service on the Lewinki matter? MayBee, (jumping in here before Lovelady) are you satisfied with the fact that Cheney was able to defy the WH and did not put out a statement until Sunday. Are you OK with Cheney not talking to the Sheriff's Department until Sunday? Posted by: bush's jaw at February 18, 2006 11:08 AM | Permalink I think that a) Axe-Grinders, CYAers and folks with No Special Knowledge, are just as real as b) Whistle-Blowers and Straight-Shooters. The problem is how to tell the former from those who claim to be the latter, when it seems people in the business of informing us are at least sometimes ideologically sympathetic to one side? I guess that puts me in the camp of those who think it's important to find "agreed-upon facts — the commonly accepted information that is central to public debate.” We appear to get less of that from our dominant media on matters that can be used bludgeon this Administration. Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 18, 2006 11:30 AM | Permalink Jay -- Now that you've gotten that out of your system, would you care to respond to my point? I am accusing you of committing (a variant of) the naturalistic fallacy. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 18, 2006 12:19 PM | Permalink (Off-topic, Jay, one feature of a future incarnation of Press Think I'd like to see is an isolation tank for the bias war. Not to eliminate this discussion, which is enlightening, maddening, and fun -- but to maybe have a sub-thread for each hot topic post in which to continue the perpetual bias discussion. I'd also like to see a Guest Column by a real conservative journalist -- someone who both understands the gripes of thinking conservatives re: "liberal media" and who understands the rules of journalism and the historical role of the press in this country -- explaining exactly what "liberal", "liberal bias", and "liberal media" mean to conservatives. So much of the discussion is lost here between people who don't take the Bush Administration on good faith and people who don't take the press on good faith. I've seen the evidence against the Bush Administration, but I don't quite grok the evidence against "the press" -- and I have never understood how a news media controlled by mega corporations could be deemed irrepressibly liberal while liberals who rail against corporate control of the news media are deemed irrepressibly communist. I also don't understand how a press that holds Bush's feet to the fire, even after plenty of Republicans have begun to do the same, can be seen only as having a particular policy agenda and no legitimate purpose. I suppose the conservative answer here is that everything the press does comes with liberal spin -- and that, therefore, every discussion of Press Think by definition has liberal bias as a central focus (interesting how little bias war there was at the Postman post ... because it had little to do with the Bush White House). But I need to see that really explained by someone who is not merely railing against what is perceived as an anti-Bush interest group with microphones.) Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 18, 2006 12:25 PM | Permalink Richard, the wv-mining post took out the political/bias factor, but left the press-*strong dislike* factor. the problem is that one's political view is an integral part of one's perception of the press. it's hard for people to separate the two. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 18, 2006 12:52 PM | Permalink Neuro: "I am accusing you of committing (a variant of) the naturalistic fallacy." Huh? How's that again? All I could get from your post is: no matter who says it, it's not credible. Partisans aren't credible because they're partisan. Bureaucrats aren't credible because they're CYA bureaucrats. Scientists aren't credible-- what do they know? Ex-Bush servants aren't credible, they're ex. And so on. What's the point? I find nothing to respond to in this: "You align four sets of professionals against the bold, religious visionaries. But the professionals hold no claim on special wisdom (and, in the case of the press, not even special knowledge), nor are evangelical Christians incapable of absorbing facts or acting rationally, regardless of how it may appear at Washington Square." because all your nasty cheap paraphrases--assertions of what I said or believe--are incorrect. You aren't competent, in other words. Who said "evangelical Christians are incapable of absorbing facts?" I didn't. There isn't any argument here. There's just defense attorney work for the Bushies. What could be more tired than that? Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 18, 2006 1:11 PM | Permalink To RSimon: If you looking for information about how conservative journalists think about the press, I suggest you go to the CBS Public Eye "Outside Voices" post with Tim Graham here: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/02/17/publiceye/entry1325961.shtml As for your claim that there are only two camps here----those who don't trust GWB and those who don't trust the press, you must have missed the posts here concerning The Angry Firedoglake People vs. WaPo Smackdown---the FDLers don't take either GWB or the press in good faith! Posted by: rgrafton at February 18, 2006 1:33 PM | Permalink Simon: You might start with these journalists' explications of our dominant media's liberal bias and political correctness: Pattern of Deception, by Tim Graham If you're truly interested in a discussion of conservatives' perspective of our dominant media's leftward slant, by real journalists who also don't reflexively dismiss liberal bias evidence, then don't overlook the above. Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 18, 2006 1:36 PM | Permalink Geez Louise, Jay! (did I really just type that?) In your last several posts, you have made a series of appeals to authority -- of various professions and individuals. You have also appealed to the authority of "fact." That term remains somewhat undefined, but it appears to have something to do with knowledgeable professionals. Even in your ad hominem against me, you accuse me of incompetence, and of being a "nasty" ideologue lacking argument. From this evidence, I deduce that you are suggesting that there is some sort of determinable "is" (fact) that can/should dictate Executive action (ought). Moreover, you explicitly state that Bush acts in a different fashion, which is wrong insofar as it disdains "fact." He may be bold and visionary, you state, but you regard this as a religious-like conviction. This appeal to religion can only be seen as pejorative, given your previously-established preference for appeal to the authority of "fact." Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 18, 2006 1:43 PM | Permalink This is so true: "one's political view is an integral part of one's perception of the press." So that those of us in the independent center thought the press sucked just as much during the Clinton Administration as it does in the Bush Administration. Well, maybe the press sucks more now since we have the internet to fact-check their (press & politicians) @sses. Which makes me think of something---do people really think the press will be "better" if and when a Democrat is in the WH? Posted by: mary richards at February 18, 2006 2:09 PM | Permalink I'm just fascinated by Prof. Rosen's view that e-mail interviews are different from any other type of interview (see the description of his interview with John Harris near the top), and that he would agree to give the interview's subject, Harris, the final say over whether it was published. Talk about stenography! In Prof. Rosen's world, the subject of an interview writes his/her own answers, and decides when or if it's published. Even the satanic Bush administration doesn't expect this kind of treatment, I'm sure. Prof. Rosen, whoever is sitting in your journalism classes is wasting their time. Posted by: Dexter Westbrook at February 18, 2006 5:01 PM | Permalink Instead of looking in your rule book, and sneering at the violation you detected, why not take the empirical approach, Dex? PressThink's e-mail interview with Jim Brady. Hugh Hewitt's old fashioned interview with Jim Brady. Compare and contrast. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 18, 2006 6:10 PM | Permalink Neuro: Even in your ad hominem against me, you accuse me of incompetence I didn't say you were incompetent in some general way. I said you are incompetent at one one thing. Which is: you cannot accurately summarize or paraphrase a view you dispute. It appears to be beyond your abilities. You have to make it sound more categorical, more extreme, more crazy than it is. Just now, for example, you did it again. You said I accused you of being a "nasty" ideologue lacking in arguments. No. I said your nasty paraphrases were inaccurate. "Nasty" modified "paraphrases," not "you." In fact, the main reason your paraphrases are inaccurate is that they are so nasty. I didn't call you an ideologue, either. (See what I mean? Incompetent.) I said you reminded me of a defense attorney for Bush. Defense attorneys aren't ideologues; they're in charge of proving their guy is innocent no matter what happened. Ideology would actually get in the way of that. I provided in this post at least 8 links to material intended to support my claims about the Bush team's desire for freedom from factual constraint. If you want to know why I said what I said, click the links and read. One One more thing, Neuro: You never answered my question: Who said "evangelical Christians are incapable of absorbing facts?" I didn't. But that was your (incompetent) paraphrase. What I said was that the drive to achieve a certain freedom from the constraints of fact, a political project meant to expand executive power, is "inseperable" from--that means related to--the beliefs of the evangelicals who are hard core supporters of the President, and who count him as one of their own. That you would paraphrase this view as "evangelical Christians are incapable of absorbing facts" shows exactly what the problem is. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 18, 2006 6:40 PM | Permalink "The people yelling questions at Scott McClellan in the briefing room, like the reporters in the Washington bureaus who cover the president, are ... an unnecessary evil and a public bad— ex-influentials who can be disrespected without penalty." Yup. He is right about that. Deal with it. Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 18, 2006 6:56 PM | Permalink MayBee, (jumping in here before Lovelady) are you satisfied with the fact that Cheney was able to defy the WH and did not put out a statement until Sunday. Are you OK with Cheney not talking to the Sheriff's Department until Sunday? Should this be standard procedure for all hunting accidents? The shooter's representatives to alert local law enforcement, and law enforcement should agree to interview the shooter the following day? Bush's jaw, you are asking me if I was satisfied when my point was that Lovelady's version of events, while most likely factually correct (we have no idea if Dick Cheney called Lynne, for example), they don't provide an unfiltered story for the reader. As to whether this should be standard procedure after a hunting accident, all I can say is that I have no reason to believe it is not. The law enforcement officers never suspected a crime, but treated it as an accident. John Cole of the essential Balloon Juice posts further up in this thread more information about Texas law in such cases. I am satisfied that police use their judgement every day in determining the expediency with which an accident investigation must be dealt. But my own satisfaction is unimportant here. Did the authorities break a law in the way they handled this case? If not, the argument will be between partisans as to what it all means. And apparently, the 'facts' will be presented by partisans to try and eek out the meaning most satisfying to their view. Mr. Lovelady's post was an example of that, in my opinion. Posted by: MayBee at February 18, 2006 7:11 PM | Permalink Most of the rest of the objections fall down because they are plainly made by people who have no idea, no tiniest glimmer, of how a quail hunt is conducted or of the likely events and risks involved with one. If misbehavior occurred, the only people who are ever going to figure it out and present it in any believable fashion will have to be people who understand quail hunting. -- Ric Locke I'll buy that, Ric, and I confess, I don't qualify; the one and only time I have ever gone quail hunting was in 1963, at age 19, and I found it about as engaging as watching paint dry. "I have hunted upland birds for almost four decades, often as one in a group -- not for quail, but for grouse, woodcock and pheasants. The protocol is the same: When a bird is shot, the party does not hunt onward until someone -- a human or a dog -- recovers the bird, and all members are present and accounted for." Which leads me to believe that perhaps Mr. Whittingham's error was not in his choice of personal location at the time of the shotgun blast, but in his choice of hunting companion. Me, the only question I'm left with is why did the Times put this article on page six of the sports section instead of page one of the newspaper. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 18, 2006 8:09 PM | Permalink Jay, you've done the nigh impossible; you have at last created a thread where the wingers agree (though for entirely different reasons than your own) with your initial premise: "Dick Cheney Did Not Make a Mistake By Not Telling the Press He Shot a Guy" That's a pretty good hat trick. Like watching an expert detective draw out the usual suspects until they convict themselves. Kudos. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 18, 2006 8:23 PM | Permalink Man, karma's a bitch, ain't it? Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 18, 2006 8:44 PM | Permalink Slow down, Jay -- I too believe that you are misunderstanding and/or mischaracterizing where I am coming from. I am not trying to make you sound crazy or extreme; I am sincerely trying to understand the philosophical underpinnings of your argument. I still believe that I detect a philosophical elision from is to ought underlying your point -- this is not crazy or extreme, merely a fallacy (although this is certainly an arguable point). Problematically, you also seem to be employing a (related) rhetorical elision, in which you seem to want to deny that you are making an argument at all. You appear to be saying: "Pay no attention to me, for I am making no argument; I am merely pointing out a pattern of facts [see these links -- they speak for themselves!]." In both instances, I am objecting to your maneuver of appropriating the word "fact." Philosophically, you have left it undefined; rhetorically, it shuts down debate. Because you have left such a freighted term undefined, I have attempted to construct a philosophical position that would be consistent with your usage. What you take to be incompetent paraphrasing is neither; it is philosophical inference (perhaps totally off-base, but there you have it. Note also that that goes for the evangelical Christian comment as well). Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 18, 2006 9:02 PM | Permalink For the record, I don't think Cheney made a mistake by not telling the press- he made a calculated move. Nobody is pretending Cheney has an open and happily functional relationship with the national press. Trying to sidestep the national press' inevitable treatment of the accident was a deliberate choice. The fact that the incident held no vital national importance made the choice to delay reporting for 14-hours, and then to local media, a valid choice. Having said that, I think it would have been a better choice to notify the national press on Saturday evening. There is no denying there was always going to be great national interest in this truly bizarre incident. In that sense, I think he absolutely did make a mistake. Posted by: MayBee at February 18, 2006 9:07 PM | Permalink I would like to add that my evangelical comment was admittedly more polemical and political, and I would be happy to withdraw it if it is getting in the way of my larger argument. (At the same time, I do not concede your point re: inseparability; I just don't want to get bogged down on that until we have a little more clarity on the more basic point). Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 18, 2006 9:16 PM | Permalink ...perhaps Mr. Whittingham's error was not in his choice of personal location at the time of the shotgun blast, but in his choice of hunting companion. AFAIK it's "Whittington", but I agree with you. Furthermore, if public statements and behavior are any guide, Dick Cheney agrees with you. I accept the sobriquet: I'm a "winger". But my interest in this is not to defend Dick Cheney. Rag on him all you want to. He did a bad thing and deserves to catch flak for it; the only thing that saved it from being a terrible thing is luck. And absolutely none of that has anything to do with Press Think. Me, the only question I'm left with is why did the Times put this article on page six of the sports section instead of page one of the newspaper. Clearly you missed part of my post: "...many of the commenters here would dismiss it with prejudice as not being a product of those reporters with credentials they respect..." Charles Fergus isn't one of the White House Press Corps. He's not part of the in-group. He isn't qualified to opine on political matters. The fact that he knows what he's talking about is irrelevant -- so his article, which may or may not be important, is relegated to neverneverland, along with the high-school basketball scores and the racing results, while the High Priests of Journalism bloviate about nothing on the front page. Which is about Press Think, and confirms my prejudices. In spades, dealer vulnerable. Regards, Posted by: Ric Locke at February 18, 2006 9:17 PM | Permalink What do I mean by this bizarre and allegedly impenetrable phrase, "freedom from fact?" Here's an example, from one of the links I gave you. Robert Cox's The National Debate blog. On CNBC's Capital Report last Thursday has generated a good deal of controversy. When confronted by Borger with comments he had made on Meet The Press in 2001, Cheney denied saying it was "pretty well confirmed" that Mohamed Atta went to Prague in April 2001 and met with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia. Transcripts from Meet The Press show that Borger accurately quoted the Vice President. Some may find this incident trivial and essentially meaningless. I do not. And if I were a Cheney believer (in his power to do good) it would unsettle me. So I put it in the "small but telling" category. It tells us how far Cheney will go--far past the point of embarrassment--to preserve his freedom from fact. He didn't want it to be so, so it was not so. The fact that it was so was so... irrelevant. And he saw political sense in playing it that way. No big philosophical or post-modern point about the meaning of "fact," Neuro. In this case the fact I mean is that Dick Cheney once said on national TV it was "pretty well confirmed" that Mohamed Atta went to Prague in April 2001 and met with an Iraqi intelligence officer. He did say it. I remember watching it myself. For some reason, he wants history to have happened differently. Who can say in the end why a man wants something like that? Cheney claimed a right to deny the transcript, and the tape-- and he did just that. To me it is an accurate and reasonably precise thing to say, in that incident on CNBC, that Dick Cheney wanted freedom from a particular fact. Even more intriguing is that he felt entitled to it. And one step beyond that, where no one wants to go, including Republicans, probably including you, Neuro, as well as the Washington press... Dick Cheney has actually been experiencing a kind of radical and unccountable-to-anyone freedom to make up his own facts, or pressure others to do it for him, as well as playing by his own rules, owing to decisions by his boss to create a vice presidency that is essentially the "stealth" side of W. Bush. With that kind of permission come many consequences, Neuro. Obviously we are 98 percent in the dark about most of them. I'm telling you what I think one of the consequences is, and being of sound mind, and a quick study, you are free to reject my description as implausible or cracked. I'm telling you the people you support, who are in power, running the government, fighting terror around the globe and solving problems at home, have been screwing the epistemological pooch for some time now, and ordering up the constructions of the world they need for political purposes, purposes always declared in advance of close study, and never as a result of it. It's a dangerous way of operating, but it is also a political style with great advantages. The Bush government needs to be able to dictate what the facts on the ground are. And it goes out and does it. That is why you see conflicts with every profession and position in the verification chain. Not just in journalism. That is my whole point, lately. Let's enlarge the discussion to take in all the means by which modern governments try to get an accurate handle and independently verify the world. In each case we find "wars" with the Bush people. Think about it. Why is this happening? What sort of pattern is that? Those things interest me, so I keep writing about them. All in all, a pretty dark picture. Because I don't really understand it myself I keep trying to describe it. Must be 20 posts by now. To enlarge the picture even more, Daniel Conover's newest is to be read by anyone who has followed the comments portion of PressThink. Journalism from a software perspective. (In there he writes: "Rollback is the implementation of de-certification." Exactly. I never thought of it.) Finally, while every government around the world might want freedom from fact sometimes, it takes one with imagination to actually try it. You know the common phrase, I might use it myself, "I think you're taking liberty with the facts when you say..." Philosophical question-- not a knock on Bush, ok? Can you imagine a government founded on reckless extremes of that kind of liberty? Cheers.... Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 18, 2006 10:27 PM | Permalink Jay -- Thank you for your clarification; I found it helpful. I may not have time to respond fully tonight, but I am chewing it over. Thanks also for the link to Conover -- very provocative. I think his approach is utopian, but probably far less utopian than my appeal to a more cognitively engaged citizenry (see here.) Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 18, 2006 11:40 PM | Permalink What should an administration do when a "self proclaimed proxy"for the public is not, in reality, a proxy for the public. Should an administration continue the charade, just take its lumps, and not get its story out? Or should the administration get its story out by other means. If an administration tries to get its story out by other means, in a sense voting with its feet, and is successful, the "self proclaimed proxy" is identified as a pretender and loses credibility. This is not rollback. It is just the result of the general public's accurate appraisal of the MSM's current lack of credibility. Posted by: rich at February 18, 2006 11:46 PM | Permalink Jay, the problem is "one bad apple spoils the barrel." The Press's credo, short as it is, has two words too many -- and it has led them astray, because the surplus words have become the emphasis. Let us take one example from many, diverting ourselves for a moment from Dick Cheney's shooting skills. "George Bush killed Kyoto." That's a damnable, palpable, flat, stinking, baldfaced lie. It is quite true that George Bush pronounced last rites and gave it a decent burial, but the United States Senate killed Kyoto (and did so in a very revealing way, beyond the scope of my thesis at the moment) long before George Bush held any office of national influence. So when a clique of Greenies gets up and makes that pronouncement, the question has to be what else are they lying about? Sure enough, other things come to one's attention if one looks around. And when the Press sees only a challenge to "power" in the person(s) of George Bush and the members of his administration, and (in its chosen role as interpreters of events, rather than simple reporters of them) supports the attack without any analysis that might point up contrary opinions or data, the result is not that the Administration is damaged, it is that the Press's credibility is diminished. If they support that lie, what other lies do they support? After enough such episodes we arrive at the present-day situation. Your interpretation of it is plausible from the point of view of someone who begins as an opponent; from the point of view of a proponent, it can be stated as it isn't worth my while to tell the Press anything, and may be counterproductive from both my viewpoint and from that of the health of the Republic, because they'll just get it wrong anyway and make the situation worse. That is, after all,the experience, the "objective conditions". "Speak truth to power." All in all a good credo, but you always have to watch for human frailty. Including the last two words has led the Press into hubris -- the belief that if something is spoken to power, in opposition to that power, it is necessarily somehow true, and that they are uniquely qualified to point that out. They forgot, first, that the first two words are the strong point -- if truth is spoken it will get to power, and discomfit it appropriately without extra effort; and, second, that adopting that attitude is arrogating power to themselves and thereby making themselves subject to the same slogan. The White House Press Corps, like the Press in general, clearly believes that it has, or should have, power. It equally clearly doesn't care to have Truth spoken to it, especially in the contrarian terms it seems (from here) to regard as the only valid expression of the credo when it is applied to The Administration. My advice: concentrate on speaking truth as completely as possible. If the truth is discomfiting to Power, power will be discomfited. From a philosophical point of view, not directly on point: Unanimity of opposition may be suggestive, but it is not probative. The near-unanimous opinion of Americans a century and a half ago was that black people were inherently inferior, unsuitable either to participate directly in the politics of the Republic or, indeed, in society in general; one can easily find quotations from the likes of A. Lincoln to support that. That opinion was wrong, and only the very, very few voices contradicting it (and sneered at, or worse, as a result) were correct. This principle is one of the major reasons societies which are tolerant of views contrary to that of the majority are more successful than those which are not. When the majority is wrong, the minority who are correct are generally in for a tough time -- but they're still correct, and if their views are suppressed everyone suffers in the long run. Regards, Posted by: Ric Locke at February 18, 2006 11:52 PM | Permalink I created an 8-minute video essay in response to this post that features Chris Nolan, Mindy Finn, Hugh Hewitt, John H. Brown, Don Beck, Steve Rubel, Merrill Brown, Tom Rosenstiel, Congressman Rob Simmons. Posted by: Kent Bye at February 19, 2006 12:14 AM | Permalink The administration of course. They have no respect for us and, having no respect, want us kept ignorant. Of course it's not just Dick, this goes for the entire administration: a democratically-elected administration (OK, more or less so) is playing with the gamebook of the Nazis or any other majorly oppressive regime you choose. The shame on us for tolerating this and, yes, our apologies to the world for failing our responsibilities by electing these hegemonous crypto-fascists. Posted by: Mitchell at February 19, 2006 8:58 AM | Permalink Ric: "George Bush killed Kyoto." That's a damnable, palpable, flat, stinking, baldfaced lie.' But "he did it too miss" hasn't worked for me since first grade, Ric. How come it still works for you? But you make a good point about Cheney rightly fearing the librul media's spin. I imagine that's why he mixed himself a highball straight after instead of seeking a breath test soonest. Posted by: AlanDownunder at February 19, 2006 10:08 AM | Permalink Ric: Please provide a link to the press account that says "George Bush killed Kyoto," or an account that "supports the attack." You're not talking about editorials, are you? What are you talking about? What does "support the attack" mean? Crazed Bush-hating environmentalists on the left who lie all the time about everything claim, absurdly--because we know there's no truth to it--that Bush killed the treaty (that part I grasp) and the press.... does what? Fails to describe them in news accounts as they truly are, those "crazed Bush-hating environmentalists on the left who lie about everything all the time?" Is that your complaint? Oh, and the White House press corps--which can be whiny, thin-skinned, defensive and clueless as hell--is 50 times more willing to hear the truth spoken to its (dwindling, almost gone) power than the people in the White House who run the place are willing to hear truth spoken to their massive and exponentially increasing, ever-more opaque and unaccountable-to-anyone-including-you power. If your point is that slogans like "speak truth to power" and "afflict the comfortable" do more harm than good, well, I might agree with that. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 19, 2006 11:02 AM | Permalink Jay, I still find your assertion about freedom of or from fact unconvincing; the eight links you cite earlier not withstanding. On any subject it is not just possible, but virtually certain that you can find those that do not agree with the factual premise of key policies and assertions. The mere fact that press members, or a sort of unionized science group, or intelligence officers of various standing - are gathered together as examples from diverse subjects of that non-agreement - does not make the phenomenon any more real. It was already real. Anyone can gather examples of the non-agreed upon points upon which some administration operates. Howard Zinn comes to mind. Does Howard's work decertify the accomplishments of George Washington and every president since? No, I think the work illustrates that there are alternate voices, and voices of victims, and voices of dissent -- all with their own sets of facts. This to me does not seem a revelation, or a new phenomenon, or an alarming expansion of presidential power, or evidence of bifurcation of society, or the coming of fascist style control. I suppose the press may play a role by more actively seeking such stories out, but they play with no more credibility (or less) by reproducing them with greater frequency, or by digging out more examples. I may be missing some more subtle point of yours, but I remain agreed that Dick Cheney did not make a mistake in not informing the WH PC, and that there is at least among some in the administration something akin to what you term Rollback of the WH PC and certain other parts of the national press. I think we have previously debated these points, and contrary to Steve Lovelady's assertion that "you even gotten wingers to agree;” the point had been made, debated, and accepted (even from wingers); although for entirely different reasons from those you now assert. Posted by: John Lynch at February 19, 2006 12:54 PM | Permalink Calm, Jay. I'm agreeing with you -- just trying to go one step farther, OK? Stipulated: The Bush Administration is trying to cut the national Press "out of the loop". Agreed for purposes of argument: that their motives are basically obfuscatory, that they don't want accountability. The question is, then, what to do about it, both from the point of view of maintaining a role for the press and the meta-issue of maintaining (or forcing) accountability on the Administration. In order to do that, in order to formulate a tactic that will restore or create the situation we want, we need to know what's happening now. It is an axiom of conflict that you cannot counter an opponent's tactics unless you know what they are, unless it is simply by dumb luck. We need to know, to analyze, what Bush's tactics are and why they work, in order to create, promulgate, and deploy a set of tactics to counteract them. I keep bringing up matters from what you quite correctly call the "culture war" because the Bush Administration is using the culture war, and doing so quite brilliantly, to achieve its ends. In military terms, the culture war is the terrain upon which the battle with the Press is being fought. Like terrain, it extends far beyond the bounds of the present battle; and, like terrain, it provides (or not) footing, advantage, cover, and points of observation to the forces involved. When I first began commenting here I made the mistake of doing so from the standpoint of one of the battlers in the culture war. That irritated you, with justification, and you are still interpreting my comments in that light. I'm sorry for that because I have changed my mind. The culture war, important as it may be, is not the subject here; the subject here is the Press, its motives, methods, and justifications. But we cannot discuss that subject in the light of the conflict with the Bush Administration without taking note of the culture war, any more than an infantry captain could plan a battle without taking note of the streams, ditches, copses of wood, and hills in the area where the battle will take place. In the specific instance of my previous post I brought up the Bush vs. Kyoto matter. For purposes of discussion here it doesn't matter whether or not the Kyoto Protocols are a good idea, or whether or not they were issued in good faith. What does matter, here, is that Bush & Co. are using a mistake on the part of the Press as a way to push their agenda. When the Press asserts, or presents without criticism the assertion of another, that Bush killed Kyoto, Bush can then point to that falsehood and say, This is part of a pattern. What else are they full of s*t about? A single such incident doesn't matter much, but each such incident is a chip out of the Press's credibility, and therefore out of its ability to criticize in such a way that its audience will find the criticism credible. This is an example of a Bush tactic against the Press, and one that has succeeded repeatedly. A tactic must be found to counter it, or it will sweep the field. The point about the slogans is that they, and the way they are applied, represent ground chosen in the culture war upon which to do battle. My point is that the ground so chosen is not defensible; demonstrably, as the Administration repeatedly attacks the position and succeeds in the attacks. The Press needs to choose another point on which to stand. What it thought was walls and bulwarks turn out to be marshmallows and balloons. I am, in general, an admirer and proponent of George Bush and of his Administration. (This does not mean I find no fault in it.) More importantly, I am a member of the culture which George Bush adopted in preference to his natal one, and from that standpoint I can point out deficiencies in your (or the Press's) assumptions that cause wrong tactics to be adopted. From that point of view I urge you to a mental exercise, based on adopting for purposes of argument something you do not appear to believe: Assume, for argument's sake, that George Bush does not wish to escape accountability, but feels that the existing Press is not interested in forcing accountability; it is, rather, interested in forcing its own partisan agenda and building its own power. What, then, would be his proper course of action? How would the tactics he might adopt differ from those logical under your "avoiding accountability" hypothesis? Regards, Posted by: Ric Locke at February 19, 2006 1:16 PM | Permalink I've written about this before, and I will again. There's a rhetorician who I like, William Riker. (Same as the character on Star Trek.) Anyway, Riker would tell you that withholding, shaping, manipulating information is as old as, well at least as old as Max Weber. Here's what Weber wrote about this about a century ago: Every bureaucracy seeks to increase the superiority of the professionally informed by keeping their knowledge and intentions secret. Bureaucratic administration always tends to be an administration of ‘secret sessions’: in so far as it can, it hides its knowledge and action from criticism. . . . The tendency toward secrecy in certain administrative fields follows their material nature: everywhere that the power interests of the domination structure toward the outside are at stake, whether it is an economic competitor or a private enterprise, or a foreign, potentially hostile polity, we find secrecy.Here's a summary of Riker's view of manipulation of information, from his work publishsed about 20 years ago: William Riker described this as heresthetic, or the art of “structuring the world so you can win.” This type of political manipulation is related to rhetoric, or the art of verbal persuasion, but there is more to it. Successful practitioners of heresthetic “have set up the situation in such a way that other people will want to join them—or will feel forced by circumstances to join them—even without any persuasion at all.” So what's the difference between now and say, 20 years ago? Back then, the press was the unassailable authority on the political truth. When politicians practiced secrecy or heresthetic, the press would assure us it would get to the truth anyway. We believed the press. But the press has lost that authority, for all the reasons Jay has eloquently listed on this weblog. So now the press is whining, the public feels betrayed, and the power elites find it easier than ever to play rhetorical games and manipulate information. What will happen next? I’m just not getting the whole importance of this “freedom from fact” sidebar. Isn’t it irrelevant whether a particular Whitehouse has a particular “cunning” at managing the news and press? Isn’t “freedom from fact” just what some people do better than others to get what they want? Shouldn’t the time, effort, and focus remain on where it’s most likely to actually further the goal….creating press systems that fairly and truthfully inform the public? As others have stated, too, for every example that you cite, Jay, of the Bush/Cheney freedom-from-fact theme, someone here could provide similar examples of other presidents/VP’s statements. For example, your “Dick Cheney on tape” example reminded me of that whole “Bill Clinton on tape” thing a while back where he was recorded at a press club luncheon saying something about why he didn’t get Bin Laden when he was offered by Sudan back in 1996. I can’t find the original story but here are a couple of background links… I don’t want to fight that particular battle, BTW, I’m just using that example b/c it involved something captured on tape that was “explained away,” unsatisfactorily to some. I think it would be a safe bet that there are at least as many people out there who believe Bill Clinton was a Freedom-From-Fact-Guy as there are now Bush believers. So to me that part of this analysis seems irrelevant. I think that “freedom from fact” has always been here, it’s just more visible now that there are means to see it more readily. I think that press people focus too much on the “uniqueness of Bush” (or they call it lots of other names) and that perception and focus gets in the way of actually perceiving and then solving some of the real problems, because if those were solved what Bush did or did not do wouldn’t matter. …I just read Daniel Conover’s, “Journalism from a software’s perspective.” This is fascinating and important, I believe, b/c it keeps the focus on what matters—what can the press do? Posted by: Kristen at February 19, 2006 1:50 PM | Permalink Great piece professor Rosen--I think you are right on the money: The administration has purposely chosen to dis the press corps--it started when they didnt give the crazy old maid of the press corps, Helen, the first question--its the Veep's use of Fox (of course, I think it is the cabe network with largest viewing audience, but I could be wrong)--I could come up with a lot of reaons, but I given the low regard the American public has for the MSM (however defined) it isnt real hard and they score points with their base. With respect to the Cheney kerfluffle, I find it interesting that consipracy theories aside, very few "reporters" have seen fit to see what Texas law says about the reporting of hunting accidents on private property--just sayin' And if Drudge is correct, the MSM plans to continue to flog this dead horse next week--dont these idiots GET IT? Googling Bush killed Kyoto mostly seems to bring up right leaning blogs. Here's one: Times Watch, a site devoted to "documenting and exposing the Times liberal bias," which applies the "meme" to this 3/03 Times article that never uses that line. But it's wrong to say that Bush killed Kyoto...because that would leave out the role that EXXON played. But I'm just trying to help, Ric. I don't have access to Nexis at this moment so maybe you could help find the msm articles that use that "meme." Posted by: Ron Brynaert at February 19, 2006 3:14 PM | Permalink > Assume, for argument's sake, that George Bush does not wish to escape accountability, but feels that the existing Press is ...interested in forcing its own partisan agenda and building its own power. What, then, would be his proper course of action? How would the tactics he might adopt differ from those logical under your "avoiding accountability" hypothesis? Excellent question. :-) He would reach out to and engage experts from cultures that value objective descriptions of reality - scientists, economists, intelligence analysts, career bureaucrats (not political "spoils" appointees) - and incidentally, they would likely support him, given his and their mutual high regard for objective measurement. Needless to say, this scenario does not appear to have much correspondence with reality. Posted by: Anna Haynes PhD at February 19, 2006 3:45 PM | Permalink Kyoto / Bush: Other than a bunch of left wing sites, and enviro sites, and a few right wing sites; there are these: CNN, March 29, 2001 As I'm sure you all know, pulling old news articles is limited thanks to most "acting as a proxy for the public" newspapers putting their archives behind pay walls. Being unable to find articles that one can recall is not evidence that such articles did not exist. Posted by: John Lynch at February 19, 2006 3:47 PM | Permalink Hmmmm--Anna: are you telling us that scientists, economists, etc have objective views of reality? If that be the case why, for example, are Paul Krugman's views not the same as Milton Friedmans? And it is quite possible to point out nummerous differing points of view to those you suggest "value objective descriptions of reality." Admittedly some of the groups you mention are trained in the scientific method--but that doesnt mean that the training produces "objective reality." Dr. Anna, Do you know that he does not seek and gain such expert opinion, or do you base your assertion that "this scenario does not appear to have much correspondence with reality" on listening only to those that complain? By definition those would be those to whom he did not listen, or did not accept their advice. And if you listen to those who do provide expert opinion and advice: where do you find such reports? Posted by: John Lynch at February 19, 2006 3:53 PM | Permalink Professor Rosen--lets assume your analysis is correct (and I think it is): How should (for want of a better word) the MSM respond to it? What your J-school students discussing about this? My LexisNexus search on General News >> Major Papers gave zero hits for the full-text phrase "Bush killed Kyoto" in the past ten years, after getting no hits for the past five and/or for Headline, Paragraph, Terms(s). Likewise the same parameters for General News >> Magazines and Journals. I get one hit when searching News Transcripts >> All transcripts: MR. BARONE: He said we cannot be sure on the basis of today's science to what extent human activity contributes to global warming; that it may be to some extent that we need further research on it. I think that's a very good statement of where the science stands and it's entirely consistent with this National Academy of Science report. So I think a restrained response. Remember also, it wasn't Bush that killed the Kyoto Treaty, it was 95 U.S. senators in 1997 said we won't support it -- MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Right. Posted by: Phredd at February 19, 2006 4:21 PM | Permalink Phredd: I think that was the point Ric Locke was making earlier. That reporting, as shown with the three links I provided, provide a view that G.W. Bush killed the Kyoto protocols, or at least the U.S. participation in the protocols. The unchallenged reading of those articles would certainly suggest that. A more knowledgeable reader, or a challenging press would have known of and included the senate "sense of the senate" vote (95-0) against. I think Ric's point was and is that by not doing what Jay terms as Rollback, the administration loses - so why wouldn't the administration so engage? Posted by: John Lynch at February 19, 2006 4:37 PM | Permalink Kristen, your everyone-does-it naivete is charming. John: I think you are very thoroughly in denial about an Administration you support, and it will take years for you realize it. But then you must think I'm a crackpot, so we're even. Still I cannot tell you how complacent you are being about this group in power. Ric: I agree completely that the culture war is basic to the Bush coalition. I agree that the goal is to escape accountability. Culture war is also basic to the unprecedented--that's right, there are no parallels--attack on science, civil service, the press, professionalism in government, and intellectually honest Republicans who, for whatever reason, recoil from cooking the books. All must be assaulted, pressured, ridiculed, shamed, discredited, driven out. The hate for them that radiates from the White House is extreme and palpable. Culture war provides "the reason" that they deserve it. If it were simply Bush concluding that he faces an unfair and partisan press then we would not see this broader assault on all the instruments of factuality and accountability. For example, bringing career information officers in the government to heel under Bush's political people. It isn't the press, Ric. It's way way beyond that. It's anyone, and any group that might stand in the way of government's drive to order the world the way Bush and company say it must be. It's a "first the verdict, then the trial" ethic, and it's pervasive among the group in charge. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 19, 2006 5:04 PM | Permalink Jay, That is a tidy dismissal, and non-refutable as those in denial have no view of what they are in denial about. While I do have significant disageements with this administration, I have none particularly significant in the area of relationship with the press, or with getting and using expert advice, or with the presence of those with whom the adminstation does not agree. I suppose that allows you to categorize me as a supporter of the administration. However, I am one with whom the adminstration does not agree. At least on the subject of government size, and government spending - I disagree strongly. I haven't written a book on it, or issued a "Union of Concerned Businessmen" paper, so I guess that does not put me in the same category as others whom you cite as more important dissenters. I'll concede that my view of your position seems to place it somewhere in the crackpot category, but I'll withdraw, simmer for a few years, and see if there is anything worthwhile to add at some other time. Posted by: John Lynch at February 19, 2006 5:24 PM | Permalink "But then you must think I'm a crackpot..." Thanks for allowing that possibility :) I am always reminded of the difference between questions of fact and questions of values when I see some of the arguments made in favor of, or in opposition to (almost anything.) Do you know that he does not seek and gain such expert opinion On the contrary, we know that he assiduously seeks and gains such expert opinion; for example: 1. On creationism vs. evolution, he sought, gained, and aligned himself with expert opinion that places creationism on par with the thoery of evolution 2. On global warming, he sought, gained and aligned himself with experts who believe that global warming is not a man-made, but natural phenomenon 3. On Iraq, he sought, gained, and adopted the expert opinion that the US troops will be welcomed with flowers 4. On public finances, he sought, gained and implemented expert opinion that good governance is all about cutting taxes; the ensuing deficit will take care of itself through supply side magic It is not that he does not seek and gain expert opinion, but it is far more damaging than that; it seems that he very deliberately thumbs his nose at reason. In the end, we cannot blame him. He embodies the fear, intolerance and xenophobia of the population at large. Having elected him, there is no rational way we can disown him now. He is the leader of the tribe and he is intent on showing the other religions, one way or the other, why Jesus is more powerful than their gods. Posted by: village idiot at February 19, 2006 5:42 PM | Permalink I'm glad Jay reiterated his proposition that the Bush team's use of Rollback is intended to achieve freedom from the constraints of fact. It and earlier comments are a (perhaps imperfect) illustration of how I believe our friends on the left and their allies in the dominant liberal media often attempt to endorse certain "facts" (and acceptable bounds for confronting them) while coloring skepticism as a retreat from reality or seeking freedom from facts. That is: 1) Posit as "fact" popular ideas about which serious and reasonable people can disagree (e.g. Global Warming or Intelligence Manipulation), and then 2) persistently ridicule as either unserious, ritual denial, or solely partisan or ideological even good faith efforts to confront the assertions of fact. This is precisely what I've long argued: Many liberal ideas are accorded undue weight and unwarranted currency as a consequence of their endorsement by our dominant liberal media. Accordingly, the Bush team can be considered to be advancing truth, indeed seeking "freedom of fact", by taking advantage of "Rollback" (the self-delegitimization of the press). Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 19, 2006 6:03 PM | Permalink Village Idiot: did it occur to you that there are actually some scientific and economic opinions with respect to your first and fourth points that disagree with your assessment? Please recall it wasnt so very long ago that the weight of scientific opinion agreed that the sun revolved around the earth, that Phlogiston was one of the basic four elements that created fire, and continental drift was crackpot. Just sayin.... Jay, "naivete"? I simply disagree with your theoretical assessment of how Bush operates as compared to other presidents before him. Just because something is printed in the NYTimes, doesn't make it The Truth for me. Especially when reasonable, intelligent people whose views I respect offer other scientific research data, and their opinions are so easy to find today on the Net.... Posted by: Kristen at February 19, 2006 6:37 PM | Permalink Global Warming is not a liberal idea. It is a scientific idea. That you can't see the difference proves the point of the post. I was shocked the first time a student of mine said that the American people were "50-50" on global warming. I studied geology and climate science at a pretty conservative University. All of a sudden, George W. Bush becomes president and global warming can no longer be seen as a theory supported by the evidence and models that have played out (and in some cases the models are conservative), but as some liberal claptrap. It is absolute insanity. I saw a letter to the editor today from a woman who said "I don't believe in global warming." I've got news for you. Unless you are a CLIMATE SCIENTIST, whether or not you "believe" in global warming is irrelevant. The percentage of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS who attribute the current warming trends to human activity is in the 90s. The bulk of those few who do not believe that global warming is real and its acceleration human-induced ware in the employ of industries that have a financial stake in doing nothing. That's the ideological divide on global warming. Ask a climate scientist about global warming. Any climate scientist. See what she tells you.
Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 19, 2006 6:40 PM | Permalink This is a great thread, Jay. Who knew where poor Mr. Whittington's misfortune would lead? The word that keeps coming to mind is authority; I continue to perceive here a rather desperate attempt to find an authority that can stand up to the Bush team's machinations. To the extent that the press might fulfill that role, it seems that Jay would (rather ironically) welcome a return to Walter "That's the Way It Is" Cronkite if he could stop this war, too. Conover's fact-machine would serve a similar purpose -- Bush lies, so an unimpeachible fact-machine would stand against Bush. However, this quest is much larger, and includes institutions (e.g., "science") that might dispense such unimpeachable facts. Honestly, Jay, I find your naive faith in "experts" and their "facts" to be so charming that it is positively 19th Century. I mean, if a guy from NASA says it, it must be true (did you feel that way in 1986?). Hayek described well this "rationalist fallacy" at the heart of much thinking on the Left (although fallacious appeals to "science" are not limited to the Left). Coincidentally, President Bush just met with a contemporary popularizer of Hayekian ideas, Michael Crichton. In this 21st Century of massively distributed knowledge and complex systems, rule by enlightened experts seems a very quaint idea, indeed. As I have written before (and here), it is neither coincidental nor probative that members of these rationalist institutions tilt left, and would tend to oppose Bush (and there are institutional/inertial reasons as well). As WF Buckley said 50 years ago, I would rather be governed by the first 500 names out of the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. And, as kristen said 2 minutes ago, the internet is helping to level that playing field even further. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 19, 2006 6:41 PM | Permalink "Oh, and the White House press corps--which can be whiny, thin-skinned, defensive and clueless as hell--is 50 times more willing to hear the truth spoken to its (dwindling, almost gone) power than the people in the White House who run the place are willing to hear truth spoken to their massive and exponentially increasing, ever-more opaque and unaccountable-to-anyone-including-you power." Well, I guess I know whose side your on. Let me leave you with this, I would rather trust the Bar-flies at the Iron Pony than the Whitehouse press corps. Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 19, 2006 6:42 PM | Permalink Richard, Fred Singer differs. google time expended: 3 seconds; "any climatologist" refutation: priceless Posted by: John Lynch at February 19, 2006 6:51 PM | Permalink John Lynch, i'm impressed. a Singer 1997 press release is more up to date scientific evidence than the scientific consensus of the sun revolving around the earth. Posted by: polar bear at February 19, 2006 7:07 PM | Permalink Now Hayek is being employed in the support of Bush? From Lew Rockwell: Thus does Hayek's point apply to politics, especially to politics, even more especially to the politics of the military machine. The social scientist who believes he has the master plan to run the world is enough of a menace. But the politician who believes this, and is contemplating war, can bring about massive amounts of destruction and death. In these nuclear days – and let us say what we don't like to contemplate but which is nonetheless true – he can bring about the end of the world as we know it. As Hayek notes, a tyrant who carries the pretense of knowledge too far can become "a destroyer of civilization." Posted by: village idiot at February 19, 2006 7:08 PM | Permalink Forgot to note: the emphasis is mine. Posted by: village idiot at February 19, 2006 7:11 PM | Permalink Sorry Polar bear, (nice moniker for the subject) the point is that minutes of google yields much less than the concensus Richard speaks of. Here's a bet betweeen scientists. Posted by: John Lynch at February 19, 2006 7:23 PM | Permalink Richard Simon: I dont think there is much doubt that it is getting warmer--thats an empirical question--causality (or in this case, correlation) is something all together different-Please (1) dont conflate the two issues, and (2) drop the appeal to authority argument: it is demonstrably true that scientific consensus about any number of topics, is just that: consensus; not truth. There is a large difference. Scientific consensus, whether by climate scientists or any other kind of scientists, only reflects the state of the research today. Even more to the point: This solution is particularly compelling in light of the deep political divide in the US. A system that has a bitter and resentful 51% ruling over a bitter and resentful 49% is one that risks blowing up in ways we cannot entirely predict. Posted by: village idiot at February 19, 2006 7:28 PM | Permalink Moreover, RogerA, it really represents the sociology of a certain sector of the research community today. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 19, 2006 7:28 PM | Permalink When dealing with issues like Global Warming, what do you advocate that the country follow: a) A consensus of the overwhelming majority in the scientific community? b) A dissenting opinion of a few in the scientific community? c) A majority opinion among a sampling of red-staters? d) wait till the 'truth' of Global Warming gets established firmly (remembering that the laws of gravity are true only as an approximation to this day) Posted by: village idiot at February 19, 2006 7:47 PM | Permalink > ...Fred Singer... Oh, Fred Singer. (don't miss the comments, in which I make a somewhat larger than cameo appearance) Posted by: Anna Haynes at February 19, 2006 7:50 PM | Permalink Since you posed the question, VI, I prefer your (d); Why? because it is simply not clear that there are any significant policy initiatives (and I am totally rejecting the Kyoto approach) that would accomplish anything within any reasonable cost. (when in doubt, as a conservative, I generally favor the do nothing option) Jay I think I see this happening all the time on blogs and in journalism (in general). I've never had a tidy phrase to label it or a link to reference. I wonder, is the incompetence deliberate? And do journalism courses teach competent paraphrasing? Posted by: laurence haughton at February 19, 2006 8:09 PM | Permalink “Science Politics Tension Dates Back Centuries” Specifically the paragraphs entitled Posted by: Kristen at February 19, 2006 8:11 PM | Permalink .... (when in doubt, as a conservative, I generally favor the do nothing option) Just in the interest of consistency, did you also favor the do-nothing option on Iraq, or did you know beyond doubt that there were WMD there? Since you attribute this 'do-nothing' quality to 'conservatives', you must also believe that somehow 'conservatives' knew beyond a doubt that Mr. Hussein has WMD? Posted by: village idiot at February 19, 2006 8:12 PM | Permalink vi: Even a quick analysis suggests the inadequacy of your question in terms of policy/executive action. At the very least, the problem must be broken down into several further steps (too often conflated on the Left): 1)Is the earth getting warmer? I have seen too many examples of both scientists and media-types fudging #2 to get the desired answer for #1, and then just helping themselves to a big old spoonful of #3. Most of the remaining questions are best answered in the course of the democratic process, as they are not exclusively technical in nature. Again, watch out for that old is/ought fallacy. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 19, 2006 8:12 PM | Permalink Neuro, you seem to believe that the scientific consensus has come about without 1, 2 and 3; not to mention the 'liberal' 'spoonfuls' of 'fudge'. I would have a hard time arguing coherently with anybody who has such a poor opinion of the scientific community in general. So, do nothing, it is, then. Posted by: village idiot at February 19, 2006 8:23 PM | Permalink from today's issue of Time, Has the Meltdown Begun?: No computer climate model anticipated that increase, which means that all current predictions about how much sea level could rise...will have to be revised upward. 'If [Greenland's ice cap] all melted or otherwise slid into the ocean, sea level would rise by 20 ft. or so'..." reality is that which, when you refuse to believe in it, doesn't go away. (pkd) All other things being equal, it's better to have leadership that resides on the same planet as the country.
Posted by: Anna Haynes at February 19, 2006 8:26 PM | Permalink The rollback is extensive, and as Jay notes, the press is the least of it. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 19, 2006 8:28 PM | Permalink new to me, from a comment over at polar bear's post: "There is a saying that goes like 'you can always wake up a person who is sleeping. But you can never wake up a person who is acting sleeping.' " Posted by: Anna Haynes at February 19, 2006 8:41 PM | Permalink Can anyone imagine a better example of utopianism sliding into nightmare ? For starters: 1) The USSR Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 19, 2006 8:43 PM | Permalink If it were simply Bush concluding that he faces an unfair and partisan press then we would not see this broader assault on all the instruments of factuality and accountability. For example, bringing career information officers in the government to heel under Bush's political people. Considering the drive for accountability, how do we hold career information officers to account? The intelligence agencies and the careerists in them let us down in several instances. Perhaps there were some that needed to be brought to heel, even if they don't agree. Furthermore, Michael Scheuer, author of Imperial Hubris and strong Bush critic, heavily criticized the CIA careerists for launching a political war against Bush. How does an outside observer choose a side in such a war? It isn't the press, Ric. It's way way beyond that. It's anyone, and any group that might stand in the way of government's drive to order the world the way Bush and company say it must be. This is why Kristen's point was important and shouldn't have been dismissed as naivete. If one agrees with the way the government is pushing to have the world ordered- or is happy with the status quo and therefore no push for change, then one sees such a drive as not objectionable. It's true now, and it's always been true. Posted by: MayBee at February 19, 2006 8:43 PM | Permalink John: I agree that my dismissal above is not refutable, and that a man in denial can hardly be expected to see the light issuing from that which he is denying. Nonetheless, sometimes people are in denial. If you disagree strongly with the Administration on federal spending and size of the government then you must appreciate the intellectual honesty of the Bush people on that particular subject. They really take responsibility for their actions, don't they? Kristen: "Just because something is printed in the NYTimes, doesn't make it The Truth for me." Me neither. But what does that have to do with anything? I didn't argue that if it's in the New York Times it must be true, end-of-story. Nor do I believe that. Nor do I behave, as a critic, like I believe that. What I said was naive is your breezy "everyone does it" attitude. Though one can't prove anything with anecdote, you don't have any Clinton anecdote that is actually like the Cheney on CNBC anecdote. Why suggest you do? This might be a good time to acknowledge that while I have presented a kind of theory to explain conduct in the Bush Administration, and offered examples and evidence for it, I do not think I have proven the case, or even come close to that. Neuro: "governed by the faculty of Harvard?" Good god, where did you get that? And to repeat myself: what does that have to do with anything? I'm talking about a galling and intellectually corrupt pattern in the Bush Administration in which it goes to war with every group, profession, institution or counter-vailing force--regardless of party, position or political philosophy--that could offer an independent account of reality, and possibly show how the Bushies cook the books. It could be the General Accounting Office. It could be a NASA scientist. It could be career State Department people. It could be the CIA. It could be the press. It could be a Pentagon public information officer. It could be a Treasury Secretary. The alternative to that pattern is not government by college professors, which would be a disaster. The alternative is less hubris in the White House. A less radical Adminstration that does not operate in a "first the verdict, then the trial" fashion because it realizes how corrupt and reckless such conduct is. You're very wrong in leaping to your conclusion that I have some deep faith in experts, or believe in the general wisdom of my fellow academics, or imagine there's some unimpeachable fact dispensary somewhere that will give us truth. All these cartoons come from your imagination alone, and having nothing to do with me or my writing. Play on with them if you like. Buckely's phone book image is good. I prefer the original, from Jefferson: "State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules." I agree with Tom on that. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 19, 2006 8:56 PM | Permalink NeuroCon cites Buckley's "first 500 names" against the kind of scientific and, yes, factual authority that I also believe is in the cross hairs of this administration. Time to note that the "first 500 names" are polled as in favour of withdrawal from Iraq, a universal government health scheme, and distrust of Bush. Another of the freedoms from fact claimed by this administration is freedom from polled reality. The mainstream media appears to claim this freedom as well. Posted by: AlanDownunder at February 19, 2006 8:58 PM | Permalink First of all, that Time article is a classic of the alarmist genre: Greenland's ice cap covers more than 650,000 sq. mi. and in places stands nearly 2 miles thick. "If it all melted or otherwise slid into the ocean, sea level would rise by 20 ft. or so," says Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton. [emph added] We go from one set of datapoints about one specific region to: If it all melted! We're doomed! When these guys can't just let the data at hand speak for themselves, it inspires skepticism in this scientist. [Note that I am constantly sick at similar kinds of "forecasts" for progress in my own field.] But even granting, arguendo, my points 1-3 above, the policy implications are still debatable. See here: The final game-changer was Bush's successful initiative to launch the Asia-Pacific Partnership (APP) last summer... The APP emphasizes as its first priority economic development and the eradication of poverty. It also struck notes of realism about energy use, observing that "fossil fuels underpin our economies, and will be an enduring reality for our lifetimes and beyond." The partnership members pledged more resources for advanced energy research, but also for work on making current fossil-fuel energy cleaner. The real game afoot behind the APP is probably to accelerate the transfer of advanced technology to India and China, whose greenhouse gas emissions are expected to soar in the coming years if they use current fossil fuel energy technology. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 19, 2006 9:01 PM | Permalink Jay -- A small point, and a larger one: First, I think you are on shaky ground when you argue the uniqueness of the Cheney example. As just one example, the Clinton/Bin Laden quote is very popular on the right, as are others that were catalogued in the 90's. Moreover, I think the ultimate declaration of freedom from fact was the classic statement: "It depends what the meaning of is is." More broadly, I see the same contentious pattern you identify; however, I see it as a two-way street of push and pushback. I too have been struck by the way politics have turned over the last three years, but I view it as an intensification of the larger culture war between VRWC and VLWC. I believe that as the Bush Administration began the march to war in Fall 2002, the VLWC began a relentless campaign to hammer, hammer, hammer at any perceived weakness, a campaign that continues to this day (viz: Cheney's shot heard 'round the world). I'm not suggesting it's merely one-sided and Bush is only playing defense. I am saying that the comity essential for the kind of civic exchange that you might prefer has been lost, due in no small part to Bush Derangement Syndrome. As has been suggested earlier in the thread, try to view that phenomenon from Bush's POV. And try to examine the ways in which your own tone might be contributing. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 19, 2006 9:29 PM | Permalink Jay, You argue dishonesty and intellectual corruption where I see none. I guess that is my denial area, from which I cannot escape. I see a president who argues for and submits budgets. I see a House (which decides government spending) tacking on 14,000 earmarks on a budget already 100s of billions above the suggested budget. I see a Senate that gets tied up in partisan bickering instead of debate and resolution of known long-term issues such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (real financial concerns.) I see a judiciary deciding financial matters on government spending that no legislature has or would pass. I see the President asking for (tongue-in-cheek during SOTU address) line-item veto authority. I see a party mechanism that is more concerned with rallying the troops for the next short-term election than getting the message out about real governance actions necessary. I see an opposition party unraveling and offering no coherent counter-vision or progress on the issues I deem substantive. I see a press consumed with themselves and incompetent to address any major issue. All of this is overlaid with real-world events such as Islamic fundamentalist rioting, Iranian nukes, and natural catastrophes. I do not see (again blind spot possible) intellectual dishonesty on behalf of some group termed "Bush's people." Posted by: John Lynch at February 19, 2006 9:33 PM | Permalink I prefer the original, from Jefferson: "State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules." How about if we state a moral case to a certain Texas oilman and a certain Johns Hopkins professor, a case involving thousands of lives and a certain dictator that controlled large amounts of oil. Posted by: village idiot at February 19, 2006 10:03 PM | Permalink Jay, I see we have a number of people fighting the Culture War regarding the issue I brought up. I must say that, having had you criticize me (with perfect justification, I agree) for culture warring, it's a bit disappointing to see you stake out a position in the battle and start defending it. I say again: the question is not the culture war; the question is not whether or not Bush wants to cut the Press (and those you view as credible advisors) "out of the loop". I, as a rightist, agree that that's what's happening. It isn't a question any more, and debating Glowball Worming is a waste of your bandwidth. The question is what to do about it, and the question that has to be answered before that one can be addressed is why is Bush successful at doing that? If all the right (in the sense of correctness), not to mention truth, beauty, mother-love, and the astral conjunctions are on your side, why are you losing? And if the second Flood is imminent if something isn't done, it would seem to me there would be some urgency in figuring it out, rather than wasting time battting minutiae back and forth or engaging in Calvin-eyed denial. The correct antidote to such machinations would be a strong, respected, credible authority that could speak out to correct misstatements. In the ideal, that's what the Press is for -- but at present the Press is neither credible nor respected, and as a result it is not strong and its opposition is ineffective. How did that circumstance come to be, and how can it be reversed? It is crystal clear that the presently employed tactics to gain credibility and respect are not working; there are many on my side of the aisle who are crowing in triumph about it, and the tone of desperation in the Culture War posts, above, is clear to me if not to you. What to do? One of the first principles a green Lieutenant learns about "battlespace management" (the military being not at all immune to buzzspeak) is to think like the enemy -- put yourself in the opponent's place, imagine yourself with the opponent's knowledge and motivations, and build a plan based on that. With that plan clear in your mind, shake your head, resume your normal persona, and build a counterplan to frustrate the one you just made. If you are truly able to think like the enemy, your counterplans will always work. Doubling the effort for a near-guarantee of success is a good trade. Clearly the Bush Administration has you figured out with virtual completeness. Just this week they took a chance occurrence that should have been a fairly severe loss for their side, gathered a scratch force, and executed an impromptu flanking attack that drove their enemies back in weeping disarray. David Gregory might as well resign; he is and forever will be tarred as a petulant elitist whining about loss of privilege, the equivalent of the self-important rich asshole expecting to jump the line at the restaurant -- "Don't you know who I am?" The Press lost big. Isn't it time you figured out how to fight back? Regards, Posted by: Ric Locke at February 19, 2006 10:09 PM | Permalink Ric makes some excellent points. Two additional: Bad Tactics: The attack on Cheney not only redounded against Gregory but also may have saved Chertoff's job. Bad Strategy: As an early member of FreeRepublic (Jan 1998) and someone whose first thought upon hearing of Vince Foster's death was "murder," I can say that personal demonization of one's political opponents (especially a focus on their "uniquely evil" qualities) is bad politics, bad policy, bad statecraft, bad history, and just plain bad for one's mental health. Impeachment, which I supported avidly in 1998, was a terrible idea. Better to keep the focus on the issues, and help create an environment in which "facts" can emerge relatively unmolested for debate in the public square. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 19, 2006 10:23 PM | Permalink Anna -- I have been reading the actual Greenland article in Science. You might sleep better tonight knowing that the current ice discharge was measured in the summer 2005, and was compared to rates from autumn 2000 and winter 1996. What was that Twain quote again, you know, the one about statistics? Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 19, 2006 10:27 PM | Permalink From News Max: "After being told that his remarks were on tape, however, the ex-president changed his story, saying instead that he had 'misspoken' during the 2002 speech." After being told his remarks were on tape, Cheney stuck with his story. That is the remarkable thing I am trying to point out to you, Neuro. Those who would understand Cheney should understand that. He could have said he had misspoken. He went for infallabilty instead. I'll go a step further: I believe it is part of the strategic thinking of the Bush Administration that in order to fight Al Queda executive power not only has to be enlarged; it has to be made more opaque. Cheney is in charge of that, and the first sphere in which he executed that policy was himself. See this post for the details on it. Cheney is famous within the government for not saying what he thinks while wielding enormous influence. What do I mean by more opauqe? I mean that. Government power, executive action, made more opaque for strategic reasons, in order to increase uncertainty for Al Queda, and gain back some of the edge they have because they don't operate in an open society, where there are (were) accountability demands, unavoidable disclosures, a belief in transparency, a free and inquisitive press that screws up your plans. We do have those handicaps. Unless we change our society (or at least the executive branch) and re-write the rules on what is permitted. And this is why we see wars between the Bush people and the verification troops. They are necessary wars if executive power is to be expanded by being made more opaque, so that executive power can use stealth to keep us safe from an enemy unlike others. (My post used a different word: "With these changes, executive power has grown more illegible under Bush.") I listen carefully to what might be called the "national security right" when it starts talking about what how we need to change things to fight an enemy like Al Queda. If you're looking for why the Bush administration is being accused of being... different...like, going beyond what was tenable before, what's wrong with starting with Al Queda? Isn't that where national security conservatives start? Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 19, 2006 10:42 PM | Permalink The networks will do fine, with or without Mr. Gregory. The press will go from moribund to dead, but the bean counters will find other ways to feed the advertisers. The folks who voted for Mr. Bush (and those that did not) can suffer Mr. Bush for three more years, and maybe even four more after that if they are feeling particularly masochistic. Democracy is inherently regressive; it is also only as good as its most pervasive fears are. In this race to the bottom, apparently the right is crowing that it is setting the pace, and Mr. Locke wants us to devise a strategy to outpace them. Nice try, but no, thanks. A better option would be to split the country into two pieces, one a liberal democracy, and the second a christian theocracy, and both sides can then happily tend to their floods, raptures, and whatever else strikes their fancy. Posted by: village idiot at February 19, 2006 10:45 PM | Permalink Crazed Bush-hating environmentalists on the left who lie all the time about everything claim, absurdly--because we know there's no truth to it--that Bush killed the treaty (that part I grasp) and the press.... does what? Fails to describe them in news accounts as they truly are, those "crazed Bush-hating environmentalists on the left who lie about everything all the time?" Is that your complaint? They are supposed to report that the claim is false. They are not supposed to say "Greenpeace accused President Bush of killing Kyoto today, and Presient Bush denied it", they are supposed to say "Ignoring the Senate's 1998 93 - 0 vote against the Kyoto treaty, Greenpeace today accused President Bush of killing the Kyoto treaty." IOW, if you're going to claim to be honest distributors of the news, you have to actually BE honest distributors of the news. Which means you don't play "He said, She said" when there are actual facts that speak to the situation. Over and over again, when given the chance to point out that members of the Left are liars, the MSM repeatedly plays "He said, She said" instead. You folks aren't willing to do the job you claim that you have. You have a world view, and an agenda, to push, and you refuse to publish that which violates your desires. So three cheers to President Bush for figuring out how to get around you, how to attack your power, and hopefully how to break it. You've abused your power for long enough, it's time for you to go. Posted by: Greg D at February 19, 2006 10:51 PM | Permalink Successful practitioners of heresthetic “have set up the situation in such a way that other people will want to join them—or will feel forced by circumstances to join them—even without any persuasion at all.” So what's the difference between now and say, 20 years ago? Back then, the press was the unassailable authority on the political truth. You know, Jenny, you got it entirely backwards. he Press were the "heresthetic" group. Bush, however, figured out that they didn't have the power to actually force him to play their game, so he doesn't. The American People win, the President wins, and the Press loses. Great deal all around. (oh, yeah, the Democrats also lose, because they've been relying on the Press to do their heavy lifting for them. Which makes this path 4 for 4). BTW, Jay, your TypeKey validation isn't working (it works fine for me everywhere else). Posted by: Greg D at February 19, 2006 11:02 PM | Permalink Jay, if your Cheney example keeps you warm at night, please do not let me interfere, but do think about my prior admonition. As for the larger issue, count me in with the "national security right." Many things the government does in this war should remain opaque. But that is true in any war. While I agree that AQ is an enemy like no other, no nation in wartime benefits from seeing its signal intelligence methods blasted on the front pages of the NY Times. Perhaps it will shock you to know that my personal preference would be to see Bill Keller tried and ultimately handed a blindfold and final cigarette. But I also recognize that that is a fantasy, and would represent a vastly unnecessary and counterproductive overreach. I also recognize that nothing the Bush Admin has done remotely approaches the Executive power extensions of Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR. I think the historical difference between Bush and those examples is not in his degree of overreach (except that his is far less), but rather that there is no longer a patriotic consensus about national goals and priorities, due to the long-term ramifications of the New Left ideology. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 19, 2006 11:09 PM | Permalink He would reach out to and engage experts from cultures that value objective descriptions of reality - scientists, economists, intelligence analysts, career bureaucrats (not political "spoils" appointees) - and incidentally, they would likely support him, given his and their mutual high regard for objective measurement. ROFL. Thanks, that was a good laugh, I needed it. You know, I'm just trying to wrap my head around the concept of "career bureaucrats" as people who "value objective descriptions of reality", as opposed to valuing the ability to build their bureaucratic empires and personal power. Like I said, thanks for the laugh. If you really believe that those people aren't people , with agendas, desires, preferences, and differences of opinion, then you really need to get out more often.Posted by: Greg D at February 19, 2006 11:09 PM | Permalink A better option would be to split the country into two pieces, one a liberal democracy, and the second a christian theocracy, and both sides can then happily tend to their floods, raptures, and whatever else strikes their fancy. Why, Village Idiot- where would the anarchists go? So maybe we need three countries. Oh but wait! What about the pacifists and the liberal hawks- who gets control of liberal land? Maybe we need four separate countries? Who would give Hitchens a green card? Where would David Gergen, professional moderate live? Democracy is not inherently regressive, but it does require some ability to recognize the limited importance of your own personal opinion. Posted by: MayBee at February 19, 2006 11:10 PM | Permalink Laurence Haughton: Jay, Could you define (in a little more detail) what you consider to be incompetent paraphrasing. In other words tell me, "What are the characteristics that are present in paraphrasing that's incompetent?" No one has ever asked me this question. Instead, I have had to peddle the answer without the advantage of having been asked. By my definition, a competent paraphrase is where I tell you what you said, you read it, and you recognize it: yeah, more or less... "I wouldn't use those words, but yes." Ever been in that situation? Then you know what an in-competent paraphrase is. My first test of whether I am capable of having a serious discussion with you (not you, Laurence, anyone...) is not what you think, or what "side" you are on, but whether you are competent in paraphrase. If you are, I can immediately warm to what you are saying. I do think it's a skill, mostly lacking. And, if there's anything Web discussions are spectacularly lacking in--everywhere--it's this. But then journalism isn't so good at it either. (However, some reporters are.) Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 19, 2006 11:16 PM | Permalink Greg, I disagree. The Press doesn't have an agenda. It looks like it only because they're lazy. Never claim malice when sloth and ignorance are sufficient explanations. "Speak truth to power". Instead of thinking that through and acting on it, the Press has chosen a simplistic formulation: opposing the incumbent in all things constitutes "speaking truth to power". It's simple, easy, requires little or no ratiocination or planning, and involves no exertion. And if you're being contrarian there's a ready source of thoughts and arguments opposed to the Administration, namely, the party out of power. Just grab the Opposition's rhetoric, file off the serial numbers, and Bob's your uncle. Bias, to the extent it exists, is contributory rather than causal. The fact that most members of the Press are Democrats makes Democratic Party Thought readily available and comprehensible, so it gets used by default -- more laziness. That same effect mitigates the nihilism somewhat when Democrats are in power, or has in the past; things have changed a bit since Clinton, and we don't really know whether the braying pack of nay-sayers will change their behavior any if a Democrat gets elected next time. Myself, if nothing else changes I expect the next Democratic President to have a much harder time than he or she anticipates. Habits get ingrained. Regards, Posted by: Ric Locke at February 19, 2006 11:19 PM | Permalink Maybee: Five countries, it is, if you please (or is it six, that you prefer). As for me, I think I might be able to live with two. The differences that I see with some of the red staters and Bushites are so great that I do not even want to attempt to bridge those. It is like a third world country that one visits every once in a while. I am sort of curious, but if I can help it, I want to stay away from it. Posted by: village idiot at February 19, 2006 11:22 PM | Permalink "...if your Cheney example keeps you warm at night, please do not let me interfere." I do think about it at night. Just the way I am. But what it keeps me is cold. "Perhaps it will shock you to know that my personal preference would be to see Bill Keller tried and ultimately handed a blindfold and final cigarette." Nope. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 19, 2006 11:38 PM | Permalink Unless there's a working climate scientist in this thread, nobody here is really qualified to critique the science behind the global warming debate. And this is the root of the problem that science faces in 2006: Science works by its own rules, and those rules really just don't give a damn how you feel about that. Science doesn't ask your opinion about pentaquarks. It doesn't stroke your wounded little ego when it comes to evolution. Science loses politically because it just doesn't make nice. Science makes some people feel really small. Makes them feel bullied by reason and academic titles. What's more, science has a habit of telling people that what they desperately wish to be true isn't, and some of us simply cannot exist without our most cherished illusions. I was raised on the same anti-intellecutalism, but I was lucky: When I was 17 a teacher asked me if all opinions were equal. Being a good little anti-intellectual American boy I said yes, they were. So the teacher asked, "If your doctor told you you had cancer and your bus driver told you you didn't, would you say that both opinions were equal?" We're not going to settle global warming by taking a poll of lay people, but here's the situation, and you can like it or dislike it: The vast majority of working climate scientists agree on the following basic statements: 1. The world is heating up; 2. Greenhouse gases generated by human civilization are contributing to this trend; 3. Even if we stopped producing those gases tomorrow, this this warming trend would continue for decades. And no, I don't agree that we can agree to disagree on this topic. You can either accept these circumstances and join the conversation (which, by the way, includes all SORTS of interesting discussions on flawed data, radically different outcomes, competing theories, etc.), or you can stay in denial and talk amongst yourselves about how arrogant I am because I won't let you pretend that your non-qualified opinion matters. I don't care, because science doesn't care. And here's the blunt, non-scientific part: We're not going to "fix" global warming. We can't solve this problem because we are the problem, and despite all our advancements, human beings as a species haven't changed all that much in 5,000 years. We can't save ourselves because that would require cooperating, and we won't cooperate because, deep down, the majority of us are driven by fear, not love or reason. Which is why global warming has become an issue in the culture war. People who couldn't recite Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics talk about hard science as if it's some contestant on American Idol. "Oh, I don't believe that." They're not talking about climate science -- climate science is just another proxy for the way they feel about themselves and the world around them. To wit (close eyes, click heels together, repeat in unison): "There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like home." Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 19, 2006 11:41 PM | Permalink Thanks. I like that: (a competent paraphrase is where I tell you what you said, you read it, and you recognize it: yeah, more or less... "I wouldn't use those words, but yes.") So the person being paraphrased is the judge and the person doing the paraphrasing needs to understand what was said and what was meant? And anything less, from any point of view is not competent? That's a great journalism lesson. Posted by: laurence haughton at February 19, 2006 11:42 PM | Permalink Maybee, village idiot: it's nine. The definitive treatment is a little dated, but still apropos. Regards, Posted by: Ric Locke at February 19, 2006 11:48 PM | Permalink Daniel C -- Science works by its own rules, and those rules really just don't give a damn how you feel about that. Why do you view science as a monolithic entity that operates utterly independently of petty human foibles? Have you ever seen the sausage get made? climate science is just another proxy for the way they feel about themselves and the world around them. And you are immune from any such projection, Mr. Science guy? BTW -- I have more academic titles than I know what to do with. At my institution, they hand them out in lieu of pay raises. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 19, 2006 11:54 PM | Permalink You got it, Laurence. It relates to this argument I had with Dexter earlier about my e-mail interviews. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 20, 2006 12:10 AM | Permalink I think there's a meta-meta-story here, which is how far the story got from the facts, and how quickly it happened. Folks, check out the Smoking Gun copies of the various reports. According to the police reports, (1) there was a local constable on the premises when it happened, who did the first investigation; (2) the Secret Service notified the Sheriff at about 5:40PM (not the next day); (3) the Sheriff sent someone the next morning because Constable Medellin was already there when the accident occurred; (4) a beer at lunch doesn't constitute "alcohol being served" at 5:30PM. By the way, Jay, I agree with you nearly completely. This is unusual enough that I thought I'd note it. Posted by: Charles Martin at February 20, 2006 12:14 AM | Permalink I'll repeat it again. Someone less exalted than the 2nd in command of the United States goverment really needs to try to replicate this experiment. Try shooting someone in the face and heart, turning away a sheriff's officer who shows up at the ranch gate a couple of hours later, and then waiting until 8:30 the next morning to entertain local law enforcement authorities. Let me know how it goes. Steve, see the police report. This never happened. Since it didn't actually happen, what would your point be --- other than the unreliability of the reporting of people in the mainstream press? Posted by: Charles Martin at February 20, 2006 12:20 AM | Permalink David Conover, Please consult the list in this post, particularly Item 4 and subsequents. Then take a deep breath, consume whatever mood-relaxant suits your personality and metabolism, and consider what (if anything) the following have in common: --Eric the Red and his son, Leif; After that, if you feel it incumbent upon you to continue your present course, do feel free. It's entertaining, and sock puppets are cheap. Regards, Posted by: Ric Locke at February 20, 2006 12:35 AM | Permalink I'm not a working climate scientist, but I am a working computer scientist who specialized in simulation of complex systems, and from that point of view I can tell you there are two things that keep cropping up in the discussion of global warming. (1) the notion that global warming is anthropogenic ("caused by man") is supported primarily by highly abstracted models of complex systems that are known to be sensitive to inital conditions; these models don't deal at all well with some observations, eg, that there is global warming occurring on Mars of comparable magnitude to what is observed on Earth. This is based on measurement, not simulation; it considerably weakens the case for anthropogenicity. (2) all the modeling, and all the statistical studies of proxy data from which the models are generated, show one very consistent regularity: it invariably points to the author of the particular study having been Right All Along. This is always a suspicious sign. Posted by: Charles Martin at February 20, 2006 12:51 AM | Permalink I really don't think that arguing the science of global warming is going to get us anywhere in a PressThink way, which is why I have not been participating. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 20, 2006 12:56 AM | Permalink Hi, my name is maria Zuppello and I'm the first Italian reporter getting alone, with a small digital camera, without a crew to Antarctica. Posted by: maria zuppello at February 20, 2006 1:04 AM | Permalink I really don't think that arguing the science of global warming is going to get us anywhere in a PressThink way I agree; I was trying to use it as an example of something else. David Conover got my goat. Sorry. I'll try to do better. Right now, though, I have to get the dogs in and the cat out and go to bed. Regards, Posted by: Ric Locke at February 20, 2006 1:10 AM | Permalink But before we leave global warming..... I think Daniel's got it right. The earth is warming. And greenhouse gases producd by humans and their contraptions are contributing to that. But whether the warming is actually statistically significant--that is, outside the bounds of normal temperature variation within a 100 or more year period--is not yet known, I think. Nor is it known how much of this is simply normal climate change. The earth has gone through several warming/cooling phases. The other thing is I think everyone who wants to write about global warming needs to list the cars they own, the square footage of their house, the BTUs consumed to heat the house, and the kilowatts spent to power it. Also, number of computers, since manufacturing them is a big polluter. I watched Meet the Press in the re-run last night. Mary Matalin was on representing Cheney, with David Gregory of NBC News, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, and Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal. Matalin was given most of the time to defend the VP (probably in a deal with Russert to get her to come on his show, rather than ABC, or CBS.) The other panelists mostly sat there and listened to her hold the floor. Sneering, eye-rolling, contemptuous of the questions she was asked, ridiculing the press corps at every turn, acting like it pained her to be there, laying it on thick as her eyeliner with the culture of South Texas vs. the "parallel universe" of the Washington press, and stonewalling to the hilt (no one ever said it was Harry's fault!...) she completely dominated the proceedings. Gregory started out apologizing for his very testy exchanges with Scott McClellan (good example of Rollback working perfectly) and it was downhill from there. Representing the White House press, he was inarticulate, unsure of his ground, on-the-run, unable to make good arguments. Here's a sample: GREGORY: The vice president's office doesn't feel an obligation to disclose that to the American people directly. You do it through a ranch owner in Texas? It just -- it just strikes me as odd. MATALIN: It strikes you as odd because you live in a parallel universe.... GREGORY: If you thought he did everything right... why did you do a big national interview this week? MATALIN: Because you went on a jihad, David. For four days you went on a Jihad. GREGORY: And that's an unfortunate use of that word, by the way. This is not what that was. MATALIN: "Oh, OK. All right. How -- were you saving up for that line?" "Saving up," as if Gregory knew ahead of time that Matalin would be bringing jihad into it. But that's the way she played it. Maureen Dowd ("diva of the smart set," according to Mary) was starved for time by Russert, but she did get a few cuts in when allowed. ("We don't know his schedule. We don't always know where he is. We don't know what democratic institution he's blowing off at any given minute...") Paul Gigot chuckled about how there were more important things in the world. Aren't there more important things in the world? There must be more important things in the world. Bottom line-- a wipe-out, no contest. Matalin began as the aggressor, stayed aggressive, practically spat at her opponents, spoke as much as the other guests put together, and did "let's play culture war" like a total pro. Transcript here. Some of the video here. On the lighter side, I have to present this summary from Rob Cordry, the guy who interviewed me when I was on the Daily Show: “The Vice President is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. Now, according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be a 78-year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr.Whittington in the face.” Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 20, 2006 10:04 AM | Permalink Mr. Cheney went on Fox and Friends because Mr. Gregory went on a jihad? Is Mr. Gregory that important in Mr. Cheney's worldview (some call it a bubble)? Mr. Gregory lives in a parallel universe? which one is that? is it the one in which the Iraqis are going to welcome the troops with flowers? or, is it one where between 65% to 70% of the country think that Mr. Cheney's shooting incident is newsworthy, and that Mr. Cheney should have been more forthcoming? Going by Ms. Matalin's attitude during the interview, it seems like she may have confused 'Meet The Press' for 'The Jerry Springer Show'. Separately, all these questions about Global Warming have been asked and answered as thoroughly as possible (a thousand times more thoroughly than is being discused here) during the past two decades by the scientific community (proponents and opponents included), and after all that, there is no doubt today that an overwhelming consensus exists in the global scientific community on the nature of the problem and the direction the solution would have to take. That we are rehashing the issue here for the umpteenth time is indicative of the extent of the rot that has set in. Posted by: village idiot at February 20, 2006 11:02 AM | Permalink Further, it seems like Mr. Gregory was on the panel so that he could (was he encouraged by the NBC brass to do this?) apologize to the powers that be for his petulant comments at the White House the other day. His presence on the show was not intended to provide a counterweight to Ms. Matalin. She just used him for her rant and he, being a journalist, was constrained from offering an equally combative response. A news reporter could never be effective in countering partisan hacks. Posted by: village idiot at February 20, 2006 11:29 AM | Permalink Jay, I belive you are in error when you paraphrase events in the following manner: "After being told his remarks were on tape, Cheney stuck with his story." - Jay, above. According to the transcript, Gloria Borger did not tell Cheney his remarks were on tape: BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohammad Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed." Indeed, in the post-mortem of this event, to which you linked, Borger explicitly indicates she could not exhibit to Cheney the exact quote for technical reasons: Q. Let's talk about your recent interview with Vice President Cheney. Your "pretty well confirmed" quote of the Vice President was accurate yet Cheney denied it... So we're at the same place on Cheney's misremembered quote as this place on Clinton's misremembered quote: "In his April 2004 testimony before the Commission, Mr. Clinton was confronted with his 2002 comments on the Sudanese offer.
Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 20, 2006 11:34 AM | Permalink I really don't think that arguing the science of global warming is going to get us anywhere in a PressThink way, which is why I have not been participating. I respect that, and it is your blog Jay, but I like the using global warming debate as an example because it can actually progress independently of politics. As lay people, we're not independently qualified to render a meaningful opinion on global warming, and that's not a slam on the intelligence of lay people. And yet we're asked, politically, to make decisions based on scientific claims related to global warming. So how do we connect these two realities? As journalists? Citizens? Voters? How do we make intelligent decisions based on incomplete information? How do we evaluate claims? Which facts are most meaningful? Science coverage is a great laboratory for press ideas, because the field has standards to which you can apply your comparisons. You can't say the same thing about politics, so politics is -- to me -- a poor choice for studying the principles of journalistic practice. Science may be a flawed human endeavor, but at least it doesn't suffer from "truthiness." Not for long, anyway. Why do you view science as a monolithic entity that operates utterly independently of petty human foibles? Great question, neuro, but wrong assumption. Science is famously subject to all the weakness of humanity. What separates science from journalism, though, is that science -- as a process -- operates based on transparent, published standards that are self-defining. What makes something scientific isn't whether it's ultimately proven correct or incorrect, but whether the people who created it followed the process correctly. On the other hand, what makes something journalism? climate science is just another proxy for the way they feel about themselves and the world around them. Absolutely not! Bingo! None of us are. Which is why we need some process that accounts for these flaws in our communications, or eventually we all wind up just choosing our echo chambers. The PressThink of the White House says that's what we should do. I think Jay is wrestling with an alternative. But whether the warming is actually statistically significant--that is, outside the bounds of normal temperature variation within a 100 or more year period--is not yet known, I think. It may interest you that scientists working within the field of global climate studies debate these issues constantly. As I tried to indicate, global climate researchers are far from monolithic -- for example, there is no consensus on whether the effect of this warming will lead to a prolonged warming trend or a sudden cooling event. Pretty big deal, but they really just don't know. So "GW is real" does not equal "Vote for Kyoto," and I never said it did (and personally I couldn't care less about Kyoto, since I don't think we have a chance in hell of reversing the CO2 problem). The reality is that the vast majority of climate scientists agree on the most basic premises of global warming, but a plurality of the public doesn't know or believe that. Why? Might it have something to do with the press coverage? If the subject is Cheney, then you line up the partisans and everybody's opinion is equal and you choose sides and squabble. Fair enough. But do you need another kind of journalism when a fair representation of the field would look like 97 scientists in agreement on the basics and three scientists (one or two of whom is funded by oil industry) calling the work of the other 97 "junk science?" I think you do. And I think people will probably hate it. Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 20, 2006 11:51 AM | Permalink Daniel, Neuro-Con raised you academic titles. We trust NASA scientists to put a man on the moon, drones on Mars, but their take on climate science is bunk? Let's trust a guy who wrote novels about recreating dinosaurs from DNA, that's real science. For the record, I drive a 98 mustang, which gets 24 mph on a good week. My house is 1700 sq ft with no solar panels, don't know the BTUs it takes to heat ir. I have 2 computers, one is a lap top. I guess Michael Dell can't talk about global warming since he makes computers. Charles M, was Medellin working in a security capacity for the ranch or the Kenedy County or the state of Texas on that Saturday? What was Medellin's official capacity on Saturday night, ranch hand or constable? Once Whittington was at the hospital Saturday, Cheney was too tired, too shook up, felt so much remorse that he can't talk to his press office to put out a release, even to the Corpus Christy paper? Did Cheney sit down with Medellin on Saturday? Posted by: bush's jaw at February 20, 2006 12:13 PM | Permalink Charles Martin: Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 20, 2006 12:23 PM | Permalink TA: After the exact quotes were dug up, the VP's office was contacted the next day and asked about the discrepancy, and whether Cheney wanted to revise his claim that he had never said "it was pretty well confirmed." He declined. Source is an ex-student of mine who worked at CNBC. Thus: "After being told his remarks were on tape, Cheney stuck with his story." I don't know if they reported that on the program, "Capital Report," the next night. They may have. Daniel: I think at this point the matter is troll bait. Conservatives, so-called, know that people like you consider the science of global warming, and the consenus among climatologists, a kind of totem of candor, or marker for seriousness in debate, along the lines of "if they deny this, they'll deny anything." They know it drives liberals crazy when they say, "actually there's no consensus on...." I think your "97 scientists in agreement..." is too juicy, too tempting. And so they do it, just to delight in the "can you believe this?" reactions, just to show that everything can and will be disputed, and of course to clear Bush of anything his opponents can charge him with. It's basically troll behavior. Fun, in other words. If you really press them, they just switch to a different claim: that there's no consensus on what to do about global warming, which of course is true. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 20, 2006 12:57 PM | Permalink I also like science as an example because it raises a very sensitive point for me: Appeal to authority. I hate it when someone says "Well, the senate subcommittee report didn't find any evidence of that, so your question is pointless." And I've been in meetings with social scientists and experts who clearly didn't know their asses from a collective hole in the ground, but were sure as hell directly flaunting their titles. I understand the resentment that comes from asking anybody to believe something "because I said so, and I should know." It sets my teeth on edge. But at some point, that's what advanced hard science requires of lay people, and for whatever reason, I've been able to make my peace with that. So how can I square that with my general belief that rule-by-superior-credentials is a recipe for disaster? How can I get from specific statements (I trust this authority, but not that one) to a general principle? And the truth is, I still can't square these things. I have not found a principle I can state in positive terms. Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 20, 2006 1:02 PM | Permalink If you really press them, they just switch to a different claim: that there's no consensus on what to do about global warming, which of course is true. Conceded. I'll let it be. Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 20, 2006 1:07 PM | Permalink Jay, any thoughts on Howell's latest column and Dana Milbank's outfit last week on TV? Posted by: bush's jaw at February 20, 2006 1:11 PM | Permalink Steve, Ramiro Medellin is still a constable...as well as the ex-sheriff of Kenedy County (a position he was elected to whilst living at Armstrong Ranch...a Dem no less). But...obviously...Medellin can't be considered an impartial witness. And there are a few Medellins who live on Armstrong Ranch. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at February 20, 2006 1:11 PM | Permalink I find this discussion fascinating in that "the press" is bestowing themselves more power than most people think that they should have. The White House press corps is assuming that they should be notified first because of a prior aggrement made with a prior administration. Guess what, things change and sometimes there are losers. This time it is you. If you want to ask about change talk to the thousands of former AT&T employees throughout the country. The real question is what now. I agree that the Administration needs to be looked at by the public for some of its secrecy. If we need a press to do that how do I get to choose who asks the questions? Who guards the gatekeeper? With the advent of new tools the "central authority" and its distribution system are under attack. With this phrase I include not only the White House, but the White House Press room. After all if the notifing the press meanhy any member of a news organization, isn't Corpus Christie enough? And if not why not? I am in broad agreement with Daniel's last several posts, which I think provide a sharp and urgent challenge to today's press. I have written about this here and here, for example. I would love to see a full-throated discussion of science reporting here. In particular, I think that Daniel hits the nail on the head on the problem of appeal to authority, which is all-too-pervasive in political PressThink as well as science reporting, and which has been a major subplot on this thread. bush's jaw said it worst: We trust NASA scientists to put a man on the moon, drones on Mars, but their take on climate science is bunk? Let's trust a guy who wrote novels about recreating dinosaurs from DNA, that's real science. not coincidentally, bush's jaw also wrote: As I hope was obvious from the context, I am not the one putting any great stake in my titles. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 20, 2006 1:32 PM | Permalink As I hope was obvious from the context, I am not the one putting any great stake in my titles. Agreed. For the record, I have a BA in journalism, and that's it. The only personal appeals to authority that I can make with are related to experience, not education. I can say this, though: My instructor in my first J-school class was the great Jim Schumaker. And if Shu were alive today and caught me talking all this high-minded theoretical jive, he'd likely call me on the phone and cuss me out for putting on airs and acting like an g-d egghead. And he'd probably be right, god bless him. Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 20, 2006 1:45 PM | Permalink It would be interesting to know how far up Cheney's press office your former student's question got. Do you or your former student know if Dick Cheney is yet aware a tape of his remarks exists (like Clinton was made aware)? If your former student's inquiry was simply ignored, and especially if Cheney wasn't explicitly told that his words were on tape (as Clinton was) and had them exhibited to him, I don't believe one can fairly say: "After being told his remarks were on tape, Cheney stuck with his story." ... rather than he simply misremembers it, as Clinton did. It seems like you're in danger of relying on an approach to verification previously followed by 60 Minutes II on the National Guard story (CBS took as confirmation of the documents' authenticity Bartlett's non-challenge of their authenticity), and by Newsweek on the Guantanamo-Bible-flushing story (one official declined to respond, and one official didn't dispute it) - - where a declined offer to confirm is taken as confirmation (very bad form). I think a main pillar of support for your (grand) thesis about Cheney's (as an example of this Administration) regard for facts requires more than an unconfirmed assumption about what Cheney supposedly knew and did. Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 20, 2006 1:51 PM | Permalink I told you how I know; you aren't impressed, fine. Apply the appropriate discount rate to my story, and to me. You sound like some oppo research man with orders to destroy. ("If I can topple this, I can topple his whole argument!") By the way, it's an anecdote, an illustration, not a pillar of anything. In my post the story gets a line of dialogue, with a link. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 20, 2006 2:04 PM | Permalink Daniel -- I think that the current pace of scientific change, combined with the degree to which science increasingly impinges on our personal and political decisions, requires a re-thinking of the mission of our science press. I strongly believe that it is essential that we not yield aspects of our citizenship to an unelected elite of scientists. To that end, a critical mass of the citizenry must rise above innumeracy/scientific illiteracy (I would like to coin a single word for that), and our current science press seems incapable of assisting. Reconciling current discoveries with a common-sense conservative worldview was a primary mission of my (now-dormant) blog. In the long run, I hope to provide at least a few new templates for filtering science news in a more civic-minded fashion. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 20, 2006 2:07 PM | Permalink Professor Rosen: since I was one of the participants on the question of global warming, I would like to assure you my participation in the discussion wasn't trolling--In fact, as Daniel and neurocon have noted, we have a serious problem with science reporting in this country (not to mention serious illnumeracy on the part of the population as a whole). One of the best science reporting efforts is on NPR on Fridays I(Ira what's his name); but the inability of the mainstream writers to put scientific concepts, and worse, basic statistical concepts, in layman's terms is lacking. Worse yet, as many have noted, that irrespective if warming is occuring, what are the policy implications? and at what cost? It one thing to know the sea levels might rise; but what does that mean from a policy standpoint? I really believe the science writing media has dropped the ball on explaining all sides of the debate. So no, Professor--global warming isn't a "totem of candor" used by conservatives to smoke out liberals---It is a metaphor for the failings of J-schools to teach their students how to explain science and its policy implications to a lay public.
Here's what we're doing about it at NYU. We're one of a handful of J-schools to have such a program. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 20, 2006 2:43 PM | Permalink Whether Cheney is a liar or operates with an alternate view of reality has yet to be proven… the jury is still out but working furiously. On the other hand, Bill Clinton has admitted to being a liar so why not take him at his word? (Isn’t this equivalent to “bias makes you dumber”?) My point, however “breezily” I said it, is what real difference does it make to what the Press has to do to play its role adequately? We can agree that they all want to have “freedom-from-scrutiny” no matter who they are and what their reasons. The Press is not in trouble b/c of Bush and Cheney so is it not a lot of time and effort wasted to focus so much on that? I’m just impatient, Jay. I can only take just so much theory (although it is fascinating) before my application side kicks in and I think, My Gosh, why don’t they just have the last page of every paper be a rebuttal to the news stories from the day before…or why don’t they have reporters have pay raises based on the accuracy of their reports (least complaints, anyway…?) , or why don’t they have hiring quotas based on political demographics as well as race, or why don’t they just require every reporter to post their full interviews or tape transcripts online, etc. etc. It’s always just talk, talk, talk but not enough or fast enough CHANGE. Arghhhhh. Plus, I mean, come on. I’ve sent two of several kids so far through this darn school and the school newspaper is doing WHAT? Suspending editors and no blogs? In 2006, in the US of A? Arggghhhhhh. Oh... and while we're speaking anecdotally, it's 0 degress here today at my house so all this global warming stuff is just plain silly. :) Posted by: Kristen at February 20, 2006 2:52 PM | Permalink The reality is that the vast majority of climate scientists agree on the most basic premises of global warming, but a plurality of the public doesn't know or believe that. Why? Might it have something to do with the press coverage? Great point, Dan Conover, and I had been thinking about the cancer example, too -- and it can be extended to press coverage. You go to the doctor, and he tells you you have cancer and must begin treatment. So you go to another doctor -- an oncologist -- who tells you the same thing. You go to another and another and another, until the eleventh doctor tells you he's uncertain if you have cancer, that it may be something else, and that you should not begin treatment because it will be financially dangerous. You take the eleventh doctor's advice, disregarding his religious affiliation with a sect that does not believe in medicinal treatment. You go with him, because it means you don't have cancer. You shop for verdicts until you don't have to hear what you don't want to hear, which is that you have cancer and could very well die. So you have ten doctors telling you you have cancer and one telling you he doesn't know if you have cancer, and you decide to believe that you don't have cancer. In effect, what you have done is to elevate to equal status the opinions of the ten and the opinion of the one. Unfortunately, this is what the American press has done with global warming BECAUSE of the he-said, she-said culture that has arisen to some degree because of this appeasement of the conservative movement who want to hear what they want to hear (their worldview, regardless of reality) reflected in the press. So the 90%+ of climate scientists who believe that GW is real, human caused, and likely disastrous are counterbalanced by one guy who believes that the science is inconclusive (but who happens to be in the employ of Exxon.) And the politicians in the employ of the same interests work to convince their consitutents that this "balanced" view reflects the reality of climate science. This has allowed lay Americans to believe that global warming is an issue of liberals vs. conservatives, when it is largely an issue of climate scientists vs. climate scientists who work for oil companies. Yes, it is true that scientists are people, too, with biases. That's why their work is peer-reviewed. It must pass muster by being replicated by third parties who are often in competition. That's where credebility comes from in science. Now, the press is beginning to treat global warming as news-section news, rather than Top Scientists Predict Global Disaster (Science Times: p.D6) But "50%" of the American people have been led by their chosen political leadership to believe that global warming a. does not exist; b. may exist but if it does it is not caused by humans; c. may exist and be caused by humans, but it may be good for us. Conflicting triplethink position chosen depending on the expediency of the political moment. I believe that it is not out of line with decertification and rollback to note that this does have to do with the rollback of all knowledge professionals by politicians: (liberal) journalists Note that the biggest opponent to the theory of global warming, in our government, in James Inhofe, Senator from Oklahoma. Guess what industries are Inhofe's biggest political contributors ... And off goes Inhofe, comparing climate change to Bigfoot and Nessie. I agree with Jay 100% that there is a pattern of de-credentialing anyone who opposes the Administration and its policies, which at current include doing very little about global warming. The common argument from conservatives is that all these people are so raging with Bush-hatred that they are blind to anything the Bush Administration does right. But I think that many conservatives are still so blind with Clinton-hatred that they cannot see what the Bush Administration is doing that is dangerous for the health of our country -- and at this point the planet. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 20, 2006 2:54 PM | Permalink Many things the government does in this war should remain opaque. Such as what? The names of CIA Case officers or Pakistani agents? Posted by: Alice Marshall at February 20, 2006 2:54 PM | Permalink upping the ante on academic titles was tongue in cheek. many commenters on the Right frame the press debate as a war between the WH press corp and the WH. and that the press is losing and how it will fight back? as far as future administrations, if the strategy is rollback then they can use this WH's playbook and be very effective. i doubt that future WHs will be so disciplined where no one leaks like this one. McClellan as the prototype spokesman for the future? Gawd help us all. as far as technology forcing changes between the press, sources and news consumers, i defer to Jay. moreover, debating the quality science reporting would represent the debate of the sociology of a certain sector of the media community today? Posted by: bush's jaw at February 20, 2006 2:59 PM | Permalink "Do you or your former student know if Dick Cheney is yet aware a tape of his remarks exists (like Clinton was made aware)?" He does if he or any of his minions watched the Daily Show that week. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 20, 2006 3:02 PM | Permalink "I agree with Jay 100% that there is a pattern of de-credentialing anyone who opposes the Administration and its policies." Might be so, but I didn't argue this, Richard. I argued that the Adminstration sets out with unusual zeal after what I called (with only partial phrase-making success) "the verification troops," those who are in the business of depicting reality, describing the world, and determining what are the facts on the ground-- anyone who can audit the Administration and be a check on its descriptions of how things are. These might include (and this is one of the striking things about it) people who support the Administration's policies, but dispute the Administration's picture of what happened. They become the Bush team's "opponents," but opponents of what? This is the mystery my post is about. Many in the intelligence community would fit this description. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 20, 2006 3:07 PM | Permalink Sorry, yes, Jay. I did (and did not mean to) mischaracterize what you wrote (as well as what I thought). Their attacks on the credibility of those who oppose are clear and above-board (see Kerry, John; McCain, John; Richards, Ann, et al). But it does look like they treat those who oppose; those who question; and those who are able to verify equally -- they attack the credibility by calling it into question. Hence my confluxion. I'm waiting to see what they have to say about this disgruntled former Homeland Security Chief. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 20, 2006 3:16 PM | Permalink Professor Rosen: Sounds like your SERP program is a dynamite program--good on you, and good on NYU--I really like the colloquia approach to education. Would be very interested in the program evaluations by your graduates (I suspect they are very rewarding to you and the rest of the faculty). If I wasnt 65 years old, I would love to sign up for it, but I am still paying off student loans from earlier educational efforts. On a related note, I think your "rollback thesis" is right on the money--and I am one who thinks a free press is a pretty good idea--so what strategies are available to counter the administration effort to weaken (at least) the White House press corps? What are the media's policy alternatives so to speak-- Thanks to everyone (Neuro, Daniel, V.Idiot, Jenny D. Jaw etc.) for the side dialog on science. I'm trying hard as a layperson to understand competing claims and the reliability of those claims in these climate debates. As a novice it was suggested to me that I read what Karl Popper had to say about the subject: "Thus I may be utterly convinced of the truth of a statement; certain of the evidence of my perceptions; overwhelmed by the intensity of my experience: every doubt [and doubter] may seem to me absurd. But does this afford the slightest reason for science to accept my statement. The answer is, 'No'; and any other answer would be incompatable with the idea of scientific objectivity." (from "The Logic of Scientific Discovery") That seems to say that science doesn't want anyone to "believe" in it. Real science is politely open to challenge, calm when confronted, and scientific (not personal or illogical) in it's counterarguments. (Is that a competent paraphrase?) Posted by: laurence haughton at February 20, 2006 3:33 PM | Permalink
I think that's probably fair in the abstract, but as others have pointed out, the practice of science is often as ugly as our other endeavors. Peer review? Great process -- but who gets peer reviewed? I wrote a story on science heretics -- fully credentialed experts who knock down big-time research grants yet can't get their most radical ideas peer-reviewed. Want drama? Look at archaeology -- these guys build entire careers around arcane theories, and they're not going to give up their life's work without a fight just because new data challenges their assumptions. Scientists are people, and they're not always calm or polite or fair to each other or to new ideas. But science, as a process, does tend to be self-correcting over time. Accordingly, science progresses. The same cannot be said for politics. Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 20, 2006 4:09 PM | Permalink By the way, Jay, I think it's great that y'all have that SERP program. Here's one anecdotal indicator of the state of professionalism in the media. About a year ago, having developed a science beat at my paper where none had existed before, I applied to join a professional organization of science writers, in hopes of attending some seminars (on my own dime) our joining some professional-development discussions. Problem was, the organization requires that all new applicants must be sponsored by a member. And I didn't know any members. I followed a link that promised to take me to a person who would help applicants who didn't have friends in the group get sponsorship, but I received no reply. Weeks later I wrote back saying "You know, I'd really like to join your group and give you my money, but you're going to have to write me back." This prompted an apologetic e-mail from some guy, who promised to get back with me soon. He never did. I lost interest. Readers suspect we're an elite club more interested in keeping them at bay and enjoying the personal perks of access and power. I don't know what we are, really. Whatever it is, it isn't quite a profession -- and if it was, I probably wouldn't qualify anyway. Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 20, 2006 4:21 PM | Permalink > Real science is politely... that's the ideal. See Mr. Conover above. Apologies to Jay for my contributions to the global warming sidetrack - we should have moved that discussion to the climatologists' blog. It's funny...we KNOW better...but still feel that we can get through, so hit the Post button, with all too predictable results. Here's a procedural suggestion (which I think I've made before, but given that the Theme du Comments is "do the same hopeless thing over and over again expecting different results"...): How about if, purely in the spirit of scientific inquiry, you designate one (future) PressThink post as requiring on-topic comments? and then use a heavy hand - yours or a minion's - to delete any comment that strays from the topic? I know that if I knew my 10 min. of composition would be immediately wiped from the planet, I wouldn't write it. (At least not a 2nd time) Posted by: Anna Haynes at February 20, 2006 4:30 PM | Permalink I'm not all the way through Popper's book but I don't think he was writing about "the abstract." As for your comment that "scientists are people" I'm sure you must mean something more than that. Popper is drawing a line between scientific thinking and thinking that is incompatable with science, I think. Posted by: laurence haughton at February 20, 2006 4:38 PM | Permalink Daniel is pretty much on the money with respect to science--in the abstract, its great; if you, however, are a doctoral candidate you chose your committee based on their personal politics and their ability to get along with your idea; if you are junior faculty, you have to be careful to suck up to the tenured folks as your name comes up for tenure (would they do THAT?--in a friggin second)--Scientists have big egos for precisely the things Daniel cites--- Think about it: they are highly trained folks, often having gone through a rigorous academic program, and even more often bereft of genuine social contact--they are wedded to their theories and their research--they spend their lives on their hypothese and research; and if someone publishes something that casts doubt on what they have done--well, the respond like most people would. Then there is the grant seeking business (which more resembles classical economic rent seeking)--most scientific efforts are supported by grants; you have to suck up to the grantors--they have the money. And if you want a well paying job in science, you have to either become a nobel laurate (tough) or work for a national science lab for the feds-- OK--I have painted the scene harshly, but if there are any untenured faculty out there reading this--how far am I off the mark? Here's my buddy Matt Stoller at My DD: - Jay Rosen has a fascinating post, in which he mentions that John Harris, editor of the WaPost, refused to allow Jay to put up a Q&A Jay had done with him earlier. I don't know why Harris didn't let him; I do wish Jay would describe the ground rules by which he did an on-the-record interview and then allowed Harris to retroactively make it off-the-record. Unless I'm missing something? As I said in my post, I don't know why he changed his mind, either. The only thing Matt's missing is that my Q and A's have different ground rules. I define them as co-authored blog posts; and anything co-authored has to be approved by both. The way I do them requires collaborative editing. The goal is to make it say exactly what we--the interviewee and I--want it to say; and to give the person I'm doing the interview with a chance to go into depth, make complex but careful arguments, and achieve fine distinctions with their words. After all, it's writing, not talking. And it's writing that is broken up and done over a period of weeks, 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes at a time. A telephone interview or an interview in the Oval Office is an event, though staged, and the article made from the interview ought to reflect what happened during that event. Here, the "event" is the entire process of crafting the Q and A to say exactly what Jim Brady or Bill Grueskin have to say. I send you some questions, you send back the answers. I read what you wrote, think about it, send some follow-up questions; you send some more answers. I think about it some more and ask another round of questions, you send some more answers. If I have to I will ask a final Q. Then I put it all together into one Q and A. Of course the person who put all that work into the exchange--10, 15 e-mails--will want to see it; and the agreement I make beforehand is that they will see it, and they can change it, too. If the whole point is to make it say exactly what they want it to say, this creates maximum accountability for their words. Thus one of the goals is to make "I was misquoted!" or "out of context, out of context!" not applicable. That's an advantage. There are disadvantages. The spontaneous outburst, the unguarded moment don't happen. The last minute sinking that my Q and A with Harris suffered shows another disadvantage. (First time that's happened, and it was pretty disappointing.) Nonetheless, for my purposes--exploring in detail the press think of key journalists--this is a sound method. It creates not an adversarial situation but a "we're doing this together" situation. There are other interviews of this type; PressThink didn't invent the form by any means. The Paris Review Writers-at-Work interviews available online, are the most well-known. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 20, 2006 5:06 PM | Permalink We've witnessed on this thread why Conover's idea won't work---those who throw up Ramiro Medillin as a valid source will be dismissed by others. We can' As to the question as to why John Harris refused to permit Jay his Q & A----don't you think that that Angry Firedoglake People may have something to so with it? Why would any rational person choose to endure the wrath of the Angry Firedoglake People as Brady and Howell did? Doesn't this remind you of the journalists who caved to the Angry Islamists when they rationalised that the "public's right to know" didn't include the cartoons that have have caused deaths worldwide? So much for Our Fierce Watchdogs, who don't want to hurt anyone's feelings except those who they know can't hurt them. I'm so impressed. Posted by: abigail beecher at February 20, 2006 6:27 PM | Permalink I really don't think that arguing the science of global warming is going to get us anywhere in a PressThink way, which is why I have not been participating. Hell, Jay, I'm not sure it gets anywhere in the science blogs, but I hate seeing these declarative pronunciamentos saying things I don't think are nearly as settled as all that. Posted by: Charles Martin at February 20, 2006 6:41 PM | Permalink Gregory started out apologizing for his very testy exchanges with Scott McClellan (good example of Rollback working perfectly) and it was downhill from there. Jay, it's your theory so perhaps you understand Rollback better than I do (kidding!), but is this really a good example? My thinking is more along the lines of Paul Gigot on the same panel. The national press dials every Bush story and sub-scandal up to a 10. Had this story stayed around a 5, where it probably belonged, this wouldn't have become an unneccessary front on the rollback wars. Posted by: MayBee at February 20, 2006 6:46 PM | Permalink Unfortunately, even science has become so politicized that we can't trust it. I recall during the 04 election that a group calling itself "Scientists for Truth", or some such, denounced GWB. But far from being neutral scientists, when some digging was done, it was revealed that said "scientists" were financed by one of the many trusts of Mrs. John Kerry. Sorry, but even "science" isn't neutral anymore----follow the money! Posted by: rgrafton at February 20, 2006 6:56 PM | Permalink Steve, re Medellin, as noted above he was both currently a Constable and was previously the County Sheriff. That link is to the current county directory. Give him a call, and see what he thinks of being told his sworn statement isn't reliable. In Texas, a Constable is a licensed and bonded Peace Officer, a police officer in fact. I found that link in approximately 0.992 seconds via Google (measured by the Firefox page load clock). I don't think my reading skills are at question; perhaps you should look to your own. Posted by: Charles Martin at February 20, 2006 7:02 PM | Permalink In the the spirit of temporarily swinging the truly bizarre climate conversation back to the question of the moment -- Dick Cheney, the art of stonewalling and Katharine Armstrong -- permit me a response to Charles Martin: Call me a romantic, call me a cynic -- hell, call me a romantic cynic -- but Charles, it seems to me that you are dodging the larger point here. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 20, 2006 8:19 PM | Permalink Steve, you've got the phone number. Give the Constable a call, and ask him if he thinks you're suggesting he's lying. Or, better yet, withdraw the libelous suggestion that Constable Medellin has committed perjury and caused a false report to be filed. Posted by: Charles Martin at February 20, 2006 8:39 PM | Permalink Ramiro Medellin didn't make a sworn statement. He was quoted in Sheriff Salinas' report. Medellin was also quoted here, if we can trust the MSM: Ramiro Medellin, a county constable who also works at the ranch, said he had no doubts it was an accident. But it did not surprise him that Sheriff Salinas did not question anyone the evening of the shooting. Secret Service agents told the sheriff that it was an accident, and he trusted their word. "This is the federal government, and they run the show," Constable Medellin said Tuesday. "They say who comes and goes. They are in charge. I know from experience." The incident report of where Whittington was standing relative to Cheney. Mr. Cheney told me he and Pam Willeford had walked approximately 100 yards from the first location and met up with Oscar Medellin and the hunting guide Bo Hubert. There was a single bird that flew behind him, and he followed the bird by line of sight from counter clockwise direction not realizing that Harry Whittington had walked up from behind and had positioned himself approximately 30 yards to his west. Mr. Cheney said the reason Harry Whittington sustained injuries to his face and upperbody was that Mr. Whittington was standing on ground that was lower than he (Cheney) was standing on. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 20, 2006 8:48 PM | Permalink BJ, if you read the actual report, you'll note that Medellin's statement is referred to as an "affidavit". That is to say, "a sworn statement". Posted by: Charles Martin at February 20, 2006 9:02 PM | Permalink sorry, those links require registration to the Dallas Morning News. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 20, 2006 9:04 PM | Permalink This is a remarkable analysis. I think no-one has said that this approach is only possible if the Administration has abandoned the notion of public service altogether. Charles, my links were to the same incident report. Ramiro Medellin was not an eyewitness to the shooting. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 20, 2006 9:26 PM | Permalink Steve, you've got the phone number. Give the Constable a call, and ask him if he thinks you're suggesting he's lying. Fortunately, Charles, I have never said he was either "lying" or "commiting perjury" (which he could only do in a court of law, which has yet to be convened. And I think we both know it will not come to that.) Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 20, 2006 9:28 PM | Permalink Global warming aside for the moment, the press' use of science is miserable. You will recall the NYT's hysterical announcement that some of the Arctic Ocean was melting (in the summer). It hadn't done so for fifty million years. You certainly wouldn't expect the NYT or other MSM outlets to tell us about the Norse running cattle in Greenland a thousand years ago, or that it couldn't possibly have been anthropogenic, and that it was not a disaster anywhere that we know of, and that it was warmer then than now. Since it's clear what they will tell us--true or not--and what they won't, I guess we will have to look elsewhere. It is those little things, like measuring rate of melting by summer figures versus autumn figures, or forgetting to tell us of the shrinking ice(?) caps on Mars that cause one to think about dumping the MSM. It's a scientific magazine threatening to sue a writer for quoting them too extensively when he was defending himself against their charges--he quoted the charges--that makes you wonder even if "science" is pure and clean. See Bjorn Lomborg--The Skeptical Environmentalist. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 20, 2006 9:34 PM | Permalink New York Times on the Norse in Greenland 1,000 years ago: Book Review and op ed. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 20, 2006 9:56 PM | Permalink I wonder if poor Medellin, working at the feudal Armstrong ranch, was ever forced to call himself Lucy Rameriz and meet with Bill Burkett? Some 'facts' are more believable than others, eh? Posted by: MayBee at February 20, 2006 9:59 PM | Permalink BJ, the report says (on page three) that Medellin "dictated to me as I wrote his affadavit" then notes that affadavit as being attached. That would be Medellin's affadavit. As far as if Medellin was acting in his official capacity, I think you'll find that the description of a constable's duties I linked doesn't say "when on duty." I realize it's different back East, but out here a county cop on the scene can't say "I'm not on duty." In any case, though, the report makes it clear (by, for example, calling out the fact that Sheriff Salinas relied on "Constable Medellin's report") it's clear he was acting in his official capacity. Steve, are you seriously trying to say that you're suggesting that Medellin's affadavit is not truthful and that he's caused a false police report to be filed, but you're not saying he's lying? With a straight face? You might also want to look back at all those discussions of perjury that happened during the impeachment trial. I think you'd find that lying about a material matter in an affadavit is perjury, and that causing a false police report to be filed is another crime. Posted by: Charles Martin at February 20, 2006 10:03 PM | Permalink Richard Aubrey, not everyone who understands that global warming is a real and human-exacerbated threat gets their understanding of the science from reading the New York Times. Come to think of it, that's what Inhofe's man told me, that global warming is a liberal media issue. This is the real problem with decertification. Once the press (and other knowledge professionals) have been delegitimized, then there is no longer any such thing as verifiable truth. Now why would a One Party Government want that? Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 20, 2006 10:19 PM | Permalink Steve, are you seriously trying to say that you're suggesting that Medellin's affadavit is not truthful and that he's caused a false police report to be filed, but you're not saying he's lying? No, Charles, I'm not saying that "Medillin's affadavit is not truthful" nor am I saying that "he caused a false police report to be filed." Those are your words, ascribed to me. For the third time, what I did say -- listen closely, now -- is, "No one is calling Ramiro Medellin a liar." What part of that is it that you don't understand ?
Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 20, 2006 10:25 PM | Permalink Page 3 is the third page of the report by Deputy Sheriff Gilberto San Miguel who wrote that he spoke on Feb. 14 to Geraldo Medellin who dictated to San Miguel his affidavit. Do we have a copy of Geraldo's affidavit? on Page 2, San Miguel said Geraldo helped him ID the other people in the hunting party. San Miguel did not refer to Geraldo as constable. In the supplemental report, Sheriff Salinas mentions his call and conversation with Ramiro Medelline. In the East and everywhere in the country, police officers moonlight as security guards etc. and when they do, they don't act in their official duty if there is an incident on their moonlighting job. In constable Medelline's case, it is not clear if he answered Salinas as Armstrong's employee or Kenedy County constable. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 20, 2006 10:26 PM | Permalink I'm an old guy -- not as old as Steve Lovelady, but getting up there. I remember when the Scientific Consensus™ was that the continents were eternal and stationary. One of my profs, back in the Sixties, was a geologist who was positively scathing about the crackpot notions of continental drift. I remember when the Scientific Consensus was that ulcers were caused by stomach acids. My brother had to eat bland food and drink lots of milk, which he grew to hate, to "treat" his ulcer. Viral infection? Lunacy! And I don't remember, but have studied, times when the Scientific Consensus were that atoms were solid, unbreakable balls, when the Luminiferous Ether filled space, when heat was escaping phlogiston... science reporters and those who read them should recall Arthur C. Clarke's observation: When a distinguished and elderly scientist says something is possible, he may well be right. When a distinguished and elderly scientist says something is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong. The same is true of the Scientific Consensus. Ask Paul Dirac and Wolfgang Pauli. I'm also a dilettante of a lot of things. I read about space and space science, for instance, so I know that evidence for global warming on Mars is solid, evidence for warming on Pluto is good but can't be called firm yet, and there are tantalizing clues of warming in the cloud tops of the gas giant planets. Anthropogenesis seems a bit unlikely in most of those places. The Mars rovers run on batteries and solar cells; if that's the cause of Martian warming you really shouldn't buy that Prius, should you? I know a guy who programmed the Mann equations into Excel (computers have moved on). I watched as he got "hockey sticks" out of the random number generators in C++, Excel itself, FORTRAN (version 6), and an old copy of Turbo Pascal. The best one, though, was from entering the last four digits of the numbers on a randomly-selected page of the Cleveland phone directory. Those folks in Ohio are f*ed, let me tell you. And I like to look sometimes at ancient history. Up until the Climate Scientists took hold it was the Consensus of Historians (actually it still is) that there was such a thing as the Medieval Climactic Optimum, an unusually warm period beginning around 800 AD or a bit before. In the year 1000 people were farming in Greenland where glaciers are now; how cool is that? :-) And before that, it was warmer than usual between 500 BCE and 100 AD, so people grew wine-grapes in Thuringia and Britain for the entertainment of their Roman overlords. In general, there appears to be an historical record of climate change consistent with alternate warming and cooling with a period of around 1200 years. The neatest one is the Harappans, where Pakistan and Kashmir are now. If the twelve-century period is about right the Harappan civilization grew up in one warm period, survived the following cold one, expanded enormously in the next warm, then were wiped out at the beginning of the following cool time by invaders from the North, who had (funny thing) expanded their population and economic base and were(?) looking for someplace warm to live. Oh, and the intervening cool period featured remarkable amounts of vulcanism pumping carbon dioxide (and water vapor) into the atmosphere. All just coincidence, of course. If it gets warmer we're all gonna die. Daniel Conover says so, and he believes in science. I also remember disasters. Remember in the Fifties (Steve does, I'm sure) when we were all turned into Pod People in gray flannel suits by the voracious growth of the megacorps? The only way out of that, according to the vocal consensus, was for the United States to abandon its economic expansion, turn all its affairs over to Socialist management (i.e. the Soviet Union), don sackcloth and ashes, and apologize for vileness and wrongdoing. Later in the Fifties, of course, we all got blown up by the A-Bomb, with pitiful remnants left On the Beach. The solution to that, according to Consensus, was for the United States to abandon its economic expansion, turn all its affairs over to Socialist management (i.e. the Soviet Union), don sackcloth and ashes, and apologize for vileness and wrongdoing. In the Sixties it was the Ice Age, remember that? We all froze to death. The only way for any remnant of humanity to survive, according to the Consensus, was for the United States to abandon its economic expansion, turn all its affairs over to Socialist management (i.e. the Soviet Union), don sackcloth and ashes, and apologize for vileness and wrongdoing. Later in the Sixties we all choked to death on Pollution, if you remember. All that industrial activity was poisoning everything, and the firm, unbreakable consensus was that the only solution was for the United States to abandon its economic expansion, turn all its affairs over to Socialist management (i.e. the Soviet Union), don sackcloth and ashes, and apologize for vileness and wrongdoing. In the Seventies, first, we all starved to death. The damned Americans were porking all the food, and the growing world population didn't have anything to eat, and the clear consensus was that the only possible way out of the problem was for the United States to abandon its economic expansion, turn all its affairs over to Socialist management (i.e. the Soviet Union), don sackcloth and ashes, and apologize for vileness and wrongdoing. After that was the Second Ice Age, a.k.a. Nuclear Winter. The Soviet Union was gonna rule the world, anybody who said different was an Imperialist, and any defense against it raised a dust pall that cut off the Sun and froze everybody, and the clear consensus was that the United States had to abandon its economic expansion, turn all its affairs over to Socialist management (i.e. the Soviet Union), don sackcloth and ashes, and apologize for vileness and wrongdoing. Starting to get a little repetitious? Betcher ass. We're up to the point where 'most everybody on thread should be able to add in the next couple, though. Climate science, a.k.a. Global Warming, got pushed 'way behind start because it was immediately siezed upon as the latest disaster to which the only possible solution is for the United States to abandon its economic expansion, turn all its affairs over to Socialist management, don sackcloth and ashes, and apologize for vileness and wrongdoing. There isn't a Soviet Union any more, of course, but the Usual Suspects are happy to make do. The scientists, like any human beings, are flattered by the attention <FX::homer simpson voice: Mmm, groupies!> and the politics (and the money) follows the shouting, as usual. A free, honest, alert, and informed Press would be telling us some of those things. It might even remind us (in its role as advisor about what's important) that there's a lot of commonality between the Current Consensus and the Conventional Wisdom. Instead a lazy, self-indulgent Press has taken the one loudest "narrative" and promoted it as the only one, and people get sore about it. Whether or not any or all of those factors are relevant will play out over the next few years, and (as in all previous disasters) there will be winners, losers, people who break even, croupiers taking tips, and a house percentage. Meanwhile, the Press loses another one. Getting almost boring, isn't it? Regards, Posted by: Ric Locke at February 20, 2006 10:27 PM | Permalink Jay. Ref Norse et al. Book review. Op ed. Not news. The function of an op ed is to dissent from the paper's prevailing wisdom, hence "op" ed instead of merely "ed". The review was of Diamond's book and the op-ed was by Diamond, the mention buried. That the NYT considered it news as in facts it would be nice to know in conjunction with us all burning up in an unprecedented heatwave....nothing. Nice try. Scratch that. Lousy try. BTW, I read "Guns, Germs, and Steel", and even reviewed it for Amazon. I didn't think much of it, spotting several cases of special pleading, planted axioms, and logical bullstuffs. So I'd be interested in a news or analysis piece where the NYT actually looked at the Medieval Warm Period as a matter of some import in the current discussion. Got any? P. S. The Medieval Warm Period is also known as the Little Climactic Optimum. It appears to have been a world-wide phenomenon, contrary to the wishes of those for whom it is so inconvenient that the fallback position is that it only affected the North Atlantic. Of course, the Holocene Maximum was warmer still, the Roman Warm Period was kind of copacetic, while the Dark Ages Cold Period and the Little Ice Age were pretty grim. You have to think....Aubrey got a modest GPA at Enormous State University so he could get a degree for OCS, was a grunt and now sells.... Maybe somebody's busted. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 20, 2006 10:34 PM | Permalink While I think it is commendable that NYU has the SERP program to which Jay pointed earlier, it appears that the program's scientific curriculum is heavily geared towards specific content areas, rather than scientific reasoning, statistics, methods/research design, etc. It is also interesting that "Environmental" reporting gets its own billing in the Program's title, as against all other domains of science. Why is that? Is the study of the environment fundamentally different from all other disciplines at the scientific level? Or is there a cadre of young, eager J-students who are specifically drawn to environmental reporting? I wonder why that might be, and what impact that might have on their reporting? Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 20, 2006 10:47 PM | Permalink Oh, good, Steve, then you do believe Medellin's affadavit is truthful and reliable. Well, that pretty much settles it, then: it was an accident. I don't know what all that feudalism stuff was about, then, but what the hell. (Actually, I do: you not only are saying in so many words that Medellin isn't a reliable witness, you think that we mere mortals can't tell a prevaricating weasel when we see one.) BJ, as far as I can see Medellin's affadavit isn't in the stuff at Smoking Gun, but that doesn't change the fact that the report specifically notes that Medellin dictated an affadavit, that he was on the scene, and that the Sheriff acted on his report. In city-boy terms, he was the investigating officer. It's a helluva sight better source than the Dallas Morning News stories. Seriously, now, though, let's consider what we're being offered here. We have an accident that is probably the most common kind of bird-hunting accident; we have a sitation in which the police report, the reports of various eye-witnesses, and even the report of the guy who got shot all say it was an accident. On the other side, we've got one incompetent "ballistics" test --- in which they only got every significant detail wrong about the weapon --- and a bunch of wink-wink nod-nod about Texas constables and "feudalism". You just end up looking like fools, guys. Posted by: Charles Martin at February 20, 2006 10:59 PM | Permalink that doesn't change the fact that the report specifically notes that Medellin dictated an affadavit except that Geraldo Medellin dictated an affidavit, not constable Ramiro Medellin. Geraldo is likely the same person as Jerry Medellin, (scroll down on the link) who was with the hunting party. While I enjoy splitting hairs, it's a dead horse. the Cheney shooting story is over. could have been over that first Sunday. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 20, 2006 11:13 PM | Permalink Climate science, a.k.a. Global Warming, got pushed 'way behind start because it was immediately siezed upon as the latest disaster to which the only possible solution is for the United States to abandon its economic expansion, turn all its affairs over to Socialist management, don sackcloth and ashes, and apologize for vileness and wrongdoing. Case in point. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 20, 2006 11:16 PM | Permalink Telegram for Mr. Aubrey: A link is not an endorsement. It's just a link. You make a sound. The link makes a sound back. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 20, 2006 11:25 PM | Permalink I don't find any "scandal" in what Cheney did. I find the elements of a political style that can and should be criticized. I have tons of questions about it. Making a "gate" out of this is, I think, a bad idea. To a certain extent I agree with our friends calling themselves conservatives who say the press hands overplayed the incident, blew up so they could vent frustration, not because there's so much to get to the bottom of here. Maybe something nefarious went on after the shooting; can't say I know. Could be the story changes, and bad stuff comes out. Right now I think moving on is the best idea for everyone, but it won't happen for all. I'm struck by McClellan's role. In my view he's the key to it all. One thing: He keeps the old rituals running so that the picture looks familiar enough to disguise the new logic that's in place and working. The press doesn't grasp it yet: they closed the briefing room by putting McClellan up there. He's the angel of death, information-wise. The dead podium has a live person "manning" it, and so the press is tricked into thinking its world is basically entact. But it has to exist in a constant state of rage at a system designed to frustrate the search for information. McClellan tells unbelievable stories on purpose, stoking the rage. He insults the press corps non-stop, and refuses legitimate and not legitmate requests for information on the same basic principle of always saying no deal. The strangest part to me, and the part where the novelists ought to take over, is that all the regulars--David Gregory, for example--say Scott is such a "nice guy." They say how much they like him. There stands the angel of information death at the White House podium: a nice person!
Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 20, 2006 11:43 PM | Permalink Jay -- Why do you insist on portraying the WH PC as hapless victims of rollback? Do you not acknowledge any prior pattern of roll-forward by the press? Or the patterning of the most relentlessly anti-administration series of news cycles since 1974? Your reasoning is curiously analogous to the Chomskian view of foreign affairs, in which the evil US is the only prime agent, and helpless 3rd worlders can only react in fear and anger to the behemoth. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 20, 2006 11:53 PM | Permalink You mean after all the gaseous blather about Constable Medallin, affidavits and whatever hell else Mr. Martin was talking about, Ol' Charles didn't notice that Geraldo and Ramiro were different names? Can't wait to hear his take on global warming. Actually, I can. So let's don't. I knew when the shooting event happened that it would take about 10 minutes before it became another rallying point for the partisans. Apparently I was a little generous. As it turns out, it's been more interesting for the way the White House used it to bolster it's policies on the media. Ignore them. Or use them. Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 21, 2006 12:01 AM | Permalink Or provoke them into acts of self-decertification. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 12:07 AM | Permalink there you go again Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 21, 2006 12:12 AM | Permalink Oh, for heaven's sakes, Jay's not saying the White House press are 'helpless victims.' They don't have to be provoked. And they don't have to decertify themselves. But they do. That doesn't mean the White House isn't trying its best to make it happen. And I'm not buying the "most relentlessly anti-administration series of news cycles since 1974" schtick. Bush didn't get the Patriot Act and the current war in Iraq despite the press, you know. If the media are paying more attention now (and I'm not really convinced that's true) then it's beause even some conservatives are getting a little nervous about this White House. Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 21, 2006 12:23 AM | Permalink Neuro: I never said the White House press corps were hapless victims of rollback. Once you again--fourth or fifth time this thread--you prove yourself incompetent at paraphrase. But if you doubt me, or don't like the sound of that, you are welcome to find the passages where I describe the press as helpless victims and circulate them so that others may know where you come by your wacky summaries. I do portray the White House as very active in Rollback, perhaps you are reacting to that. I say McClellan "provoked." Only in your fevers does that mean the press is off the hook. Being provoked takes two; even a five year-old knows that. Like any partner in an abusive relationship, the press is a participant all the way. So I would say the press is deeply complicit in the action of Rollback and also the object of the action; that's part of the reason I asked John Harris about it. And to me it is a legitimate subject of debate whether the news media got too incorporated, too far into the White House. Here's a post I wrote a year ago about changing course. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 12:26 AM | Permalink There stands the angel of information death at the White House podium: a nice person! Jay, Jay. If villains all looked like villains life would be easy. Stereotypes are useful shorthand in fiction, like the prisoners' stripes that used to be common for bad guys in cartoons, but they don't help in real life. If all corporate villains were heavy-set and bald, and smoked cigars while compulsively stroking a long-haired white cat, it would be easy to pick them out of the crowd. If all muggers were dirty-faced guys with disheveled hair and bad teeth it would be easy to cross the street instead. And we wouldn't need a Press at all, would we? Regards, Posted by: Ric Locke at February 21, 2006 12:45 AM | Permalink Bloggers craft notes: for your files on the syndication era in blogging. For the Huffington Post, I split this piece and made it two. PressThink, Dick Cheney Did Not Make a Mistake By Not Telling the Press He Shot a Guy (Feb. 16) became It Was Not a Mistake When Dick Cheney Routed Around the Press. Just the Cheney analysis. (HP, Feb. 18) "What if Bush Changed the Game on You?" My 1,107-Word Question to the Political Press. Just the question to Harris, with a new introduction. (HP, Feb. 20) Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 12:47 AM | Permalink fourth or fifth incompetent paraphrase or intentional misparaphrase? it's sophomoric of me, but direct. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 21, 2006 12:54 AM | Permalink Jay -- I can now see why so much of journalism is mere stenography. Eminent J-School professors seem incapable of appreciating the difference between a paraphrase and an inference. Are you really that dense and pedantic, or is it just an act? Hypothetical example: Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 21, 2006 1:02 AM | Permalink Difference between a paraphrase and an inference... hmmm, well I guess there's no problem, then. It's your inferences that are incorrect. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 2:09 AM | Permalink Rollback hits the National Archives. Money Quote: Anna K. Nelson, a foreign policy historian at American University, said she and other researchers had been puzzled in recent years by the number of documents pulled from the archives with little explanation. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 21, 2006 2:12 AM | Permalink Why wasn't this the money quote: The restoration of classified status to more than 55,000 previously declassified pages began in 1999 or this: Experts on government secrecy believe the C.I.A. and other spy agencies, not the White House, are the driving force behind the reclassification program. ---- You will note that depending on when in 1999 the reclassification program started, the number of documents reclassified each year under Bush and Clinton could be almost identical. Finally, the question left unanwered is this: are these the trusted career intelligence officials that ran this program under two different administrations? Or the political intelligence guys? I won't even bother to make a Sandy Berger joke. Posted by: MayBee at February 21, 2006 3:34 AM | Permalink I will add that some of those reclassifications sound utterly preposterous. Posted by: MayBee at February 21, 2006 3:38 AM | Permalink Jay. Still quick on your feet, I see. The point about the links to the NYT's mentions of the Medieval Warm Period was that I had asked for something like using the information as part of a news story. Sorry I was unclear when I asked about "mention", but I figured the import was there, considering the path of the discussion. You ostensibly were showing me where the NYT considered it news rather than spending a penny's worth of ink on somebody else's mention of it. But you were wrong. The NYT still hasn't, then. Back when the SDI was first proposed the Concerned Scientists of America--I believe that was the name--opposed it because of the cost. Turned out they'd overstated the cost by about 1400%. To their credit, they corrected themselves in Congressional testimony which had already been scheduled. Needless to say, other SDI opponents didn't bother with the correction. The other curious thing was that, having been publicly deprived of their ostensible reason for opposing SDI, they continued to oppose SDI. So even appeals to the authority of scientists can be dicey. But, as I say, see Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist". Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 21, 2006 7:33 AM | Permalink Someone is going to need a long, long article some day to explain how conservatives, so called, became the post-modernists, doubtful about the possibility of establishing anything as fact, chuckling about the authority of science, and generally acting as if there is no truth, only politics. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 10:03 AM | Permalink That's funny, Jay. Conservatives as post-modernists. But, science is one of the new religions. Just like the press is a religion. And that's a nice seque into this column about the press religion breaking down. A writer at the Merc News says this: I suspect I speak for many with whom I share this building when I say that I like the paycheck, but that the Mercury News is more than a job. When we came to work here we came with a mission. We wanted to shine light in dark corners and make the world a better place. We wanted to expose corruption. We wanted to provoke thought, debate and, yes, laughter. Excellent essay. At the end of your questions to Harris, you write, "And why shouldn’t you guys—the Post and the press corps at large— change the game on Bush and company?" I'm curious -- what could/should they do to change it? Thanks Posted by: Ken at February 21, 2006 11:25 AM | Permalink "...neither Medellin (nor any other employee on the payroll of the Armstrong Ranch) can be considered "an impartial witness" -- not when Katharine Armstrong, the boss lady, has already issued her version of events. If you are involved in the training of journalist, I can see what the profession is in disrepute--Continue to pump out your J-school graduates with the snotty attitudes that you exude, and the press approval rating will be even lower than it is now. Who's Lovejoy, and what J-school does he teach at? Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 11:27 AM | Permalink Someone is going to need a long, long article some day to explain how conservatives, so called, became the post-modernists, doubtful about the possibility of establishing anything as fact, chuckling about the authority of science, and generally acting as if there is no truth, only politics. Heh. I was thinking this yesterday -- that the sense I get from trying to have a discussion with some of these folks is like trying to understand deconstructionism. The great irony is, indeed, that they are deconstructionists and probably understand it better than most of the wimpy bluestate city dwellin' academics. Cause you don't really get it until you're doing it. Every time you think you might know something, you pull the floorboards out from under your own feet ... on purpose! Whee! All facts are relative! It's the newest expression of American Postcolonialism -- only it's procolonialist, rather than anticolonialist (oops, there goes the floor again). Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 21, 2006 11:48 AM | Permalink i like the yarbg tag team style. didn't Robert W. Palmer write this song? just because some of us believe in climate change, we don't necessarily agree to join Kyoto. where does Lovejoy teach? Posted by: bush's jaw at February 21, 2006 12:00 PM | Permalink Ric, Richard Aubrey, etc.: I'm interested in continuing our science discussion off-thread, so as not to hijack a comment thread that wants to be about something else. I don't see a way to contact you via your handles, so if you're interested, e-mail me at xark@bellsouth.net. Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 21, 2006 12:05 PM | Permalink The secret service agent who marked down a time twenty minutes then the "official" one for the shooting appears to be impartial. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at February 21, 2006 12:08 PM | Permalink bush's jaw: "incidently everyone has been Sheriff or constable at one time in Kenedy County." Untrue. I can't find any record of Oscar Medellin ever being constable. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at February 21, 2006 12:14 PM | Permalink ron, i didn't mean literally. geez, i take it back. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 21, 2006 12:17 PM | Permalink JennyD I feel so sorry for this Cassidy guy at the SJ Merc. Then I think about the tens of thousands of others in the Valley who went through these same worries and pain during his tenure. You'd think after investigating their situations, empathizing with their plight, and telling their stories he'd have noticed that the same freight train was coming for him and his industry. Posted by: laurence haughton at February 21, 2006 12:41 PM | Permalink i was in San Francisco from the late 90s to 2001. the gold rush was fun while it lasted. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 21, 2006 12:56 PM | Permalink Jay, it's not that conservatives are "...doubtful about the possibility of establishing anything as fact...". Instead, it's that conservatives toady are compelled by our dominant media's malpractice to be skeptical about press-endorsed assertions of "fact", which all too conveniently advance the politics those who mistake their political ideology for enlightenment. Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 21, 2006 12:57 PM | Permalink yikes, could not afford to sell their $200k house to buy a 2-bedroom fixer in the Valley that was going for $800K. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 21, 2006 12:58 PM | Permalink TA: You could find "dominant media" bias in a dish of rainbow sherbet. If you're not someone's operative at the RNC or Grover's joint, you should be. You think like one. New book by conservative and supply sider Bruce Bartlett (like Fitzwater he worked for Reagan and Bush) notices some of the same things I have been pointing out, and it shows why most conservatives have become relativists. They are covering up for, and justifying after the fact, the most relentlessly anti-empirical president in the modern age. So facts have to become extra flexible because of the manner in which Bush makes decisions. To wit: Reviewin this morning's Times: [Bartlett's critique] extends well beyond the economic sphere. He argues that "Bush has driven away and even humiliated the few intellectuals in his midst, preferring instead the company of overrated political hacks whose main skills seem to be an ability to say yes to whatever he says and to ignore the obvious." And he declares that the president's "unwillingness to properly utilize the traditional policy development process" lies "at the heart of the failure of his Social Security proposal and possibly the Iraq operation as well." The key is already decided upon. First the verdict, then the evidence. And this, according to a loyal Republican who's disgusted with it. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 1:31 PM | Permalink Jay Posted by: laurence haughton at February 21, 2006 1:42 PM | Permalink In my hunting parties, all shooters walk abreast of each other in plain sight and it is considered careless, if not downright stupid, to whirl to one side and start blasting away. But then again, we "hunt," that is we pursue wild birds, while this was a "shooting" party where the participants merely waited for clipped-wing birds to be released. This seems to me to be even more telling about someone who shoots wildly when there are more than enough birds thown up before his guns. The news was salivating at what was obviously a stupid mistake by a man who is incapable of admitting them. It took him all of four days to realize that and just say he was wrong and he was sorry. Meanwhile, so many reporters got their drawers in an uproar that they and not Cheney seemed to be emotionally distraught. The professor's thesis is excellent and on the money. The fourth estate has been coopted, put in its place, politicized, bought and sold, and finally, diminished. What do they do about it? Now there is a real question. Posted by: Marylin Able at February 21, 2006 1:51 PM | Permalink Ah yes, the old angry conservative who didn't get his way writes book pandering to the Leftwing media so he can get good press. Happens every three or four months, has no effect except to feed the Leftwing media's religious devotion that they are the only purveyors of truth and the Bush Administration is evil. Beyond parody. "First the verdict, then the evidence." Nice. That will go on the tombstone of the Leftwing media. Posted by: joe at February 21, 2006 1:52 PM | Permalink Let's all give a big hand to Joe for providing a fine example of Mr. Bartlett's theory. Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 21, 2006 1:58 PM | Permalink Yes. No criticism of Bush that can't be delegitimized with a simple Rovian-Homeric Epithet. Old angry conservative If Reagan himself returned from the grave to offer constructive criticism, I suspect it would be: Alzheimer's-addled ghost More than once, I have seen this phrase used to describe the Conservative variants: "he's fun." As in, Reagan is fun, but he's an Alzheimer's-addled ghost. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 21, 2006 2:13 PM | Permalink From Bruce Bartlett, Jay's new go-to guy: One of the things that drives Republicans crazy is the media’s enormous double-standard in how it covers various scandals. While day after day we read on the front pages about how awful it was that a Republican congressman played golf with some lobbyist—as if that is the epitome of unethical behavior—cases of actual criminality by Democrats are buried on the back pages...
Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 21, 2006 2:31 PM | Permalink You mean after all the gaseous blather about Constable Medallin, affidavits and whatever hell else Mr. Martin was talking about, Ol' Charles didn't notice that Geraldo and Ramiro were different names? -- Dave McLemore Amazing, isn't it Dave ? It's enough for someone to call him a "prevaricating weasel" -- if this were the sort of place where anyone but Charles himself used language like that. As for Charles' companion in crime, the hapless Roger A, let me straighten a few things out: My name isn't "Lovejoy," I'm not a "professor," I don't "teach" journalism or anything else, I'm not involved in the "training" of anyone and I don't "pump out" J-school graduates. Other than that, you're statement holds up really well. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 2:31 PM | Permalink 2 + 2 = 5 we have these mathematicians whose study shows 2 + 2 = 5 and we have Michael Crichton. math is just more evidence that the MSM loses again! The fourth estate has been coopted, put in its place, politicized, bought and sold, and finally, diminished. What do they do about it? is this partly why Harris bailed on the Jay's Q&A. the MSM doesn't have answers for roll back? meanwhile, from the left flank, charges the MSM are nothing but WH stenographers. so what will happen with a Dem WH? the sides will switch (Froomkin's column becomes WH DeBriefing, the inside scoop?) and the Left accuses the MSM of being conservative attack dogs, and the Right which cheered the demise of the WH press corp will say see, the MSM is giving the WH a free pass. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 21, 2006 2:38 PM | Permalink Not an operative, Jay; just one of many Americans who acknowledge the leftward tilt of our dominant media. Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 21, 2006 2:42 PM | Permalink Uh oh, Joe has accused Bruce Bartlett of ... of ... of ... well, of Press Think! That should expose the "old angry conservative" for what he is -- a post-modern relativist ! Oh, wait -- that's not Bartlett, that's the conservatives in this thread. Never mind ... Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 2:43 PM | Permalink On the subject of disillusioned people, of which both parties, both "sides" have lots of.... "Leaving the left--I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity Also… "Why a Democratic Liberal Became a Republican Conservative" By Joan Swirsky (For the record, and to make it easier in the future for someone to put me into the appropriate group, I’d have to say that I’m a sometimes liberal, sometimes conservative libertarian who happens to have voted for Bush. Twice. Oh, and I’m an American.) Posted by: Kristen at February 21, 2006 2:44 PM | Permalink So, Bartlett is credible when he is criticizing "the media" but not credible when he is criticizing the Bush administration. That makes sense. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 21, 2006 2:48 PM | Permalink Jay, I'll try again. Despite evidence that there are those who are critics of the administration, and G.W. Bush in particular, (and that some put them in genus and phylum) do you have evidence that he does not have people that he does listen to and use their input to formulate his "verdict?" In order to avoid the dreaded incompetent paraphrase, I'll try to use your quote directly: "First the verdict, then the evidence." The assertion that there are critics is accepted. The assertion that he does not have input prior to his decisions is not. Your argument depends on having both parts true. If you have evidence, you should present it. The assertion of those who are excluded from decisions does not provide evidence that there were others that were not included. Their statements they were excluded, or that they did not witness input, does not generalize to "all are excluded." The “freedom from fact” argument requires more than lists of those that disagree, or find fault. It also requires some means to conclude that there are none that participate and have meaningful input. This seems a variation on the “bubble” discussion. I think some might question who is really in the “bubble.” Posted by: John Lynch at February 21, 2006 2:55 PM | Permalink Richard B -- Exactly not my point. My point is that Jay is reaching for another argument from authority, in this case trying to use a respected conservative as a totem. I was merely pointing out that this form of argument is dangerous. So far, the only "fact" for which Jay has actually attempted to make an empirical case is the Cheney MTP quote. I suggest that he selected that one because he would have a much harder time defending his more controversial insinuation that the Atta/Prague story itself lacked empirical foundation. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 21, 2006 3:00 PM | Permalink Thiscould serve as a piece of evidence: In the book, [Former Treasury Secretary Paul] O’Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate. But, of course, it's a Disgruntled Former Administration Official, as reported in a Disgraced Liberal Media Outlet. Does that mean that Bush is not listenoing to someone, somewhere, who is giving him advice? No. But it does mean that the people whom he hired and Congress approved to give him advice are not those people. Maybe the Great Gazoo? Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 21, 2006 3:06 PM | Permalink the Disgrunted former Administration official was CEO of Alcoa and president of International Paper. the man obviously a Leeeberal masquerating as a conservative. what else can be his motivation? Posted by: bush's jaw at February 21, 2006 3:34 PM | Permalink What O'Neill described is eerily close to what Richard Clarke described which is eerily close to what Bartlett now describes: " ... preferring instead the company of overrated political hacks whose main skills seem to be an ability to say yes to whatever he says and to ignore the obvious." Joe is right when he says a new one of these guys pops up every three or four months. He might do well to ask why that is. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 3:46 PM | Permalink Steve, I'm sure one person's "over-rated political hack" is another person's "trusted advisor." You are right to examine the phenomenon though. Do you really think it true that there were not dissenters in previous administrations who left and then went public with their dissent? Aaron Burr comes to mind, but I suppose other more recent examples could be found with a few minutes of Google, or Press Club title searches. Posted by: John Lynch at February 21, 2006 3:56 PM | Permalink "Do you really think it true that there were not dissenters in previous administrations who left and then went public with their dissent?" There may well be, John, but I can't recall any with the sort of scathing detail-in-support-of-a-damning-hypothesis supplied by an O'Neill, or Clarke, or a Bartlett. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 4:34 PM | Permalink Well, here comes another round of books. I wonder what they will say? Posted by: John Lynch at February 21, 2006 4:50 PM | Permalink Neuro-conservative: If the Atta/Prague story has empirical foundation, why did Cheney backpedal so hard from his earlier statement that it was "pretty much confirmed" -- to the point that in his interview with Borger, he denied ever saying it ? Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 4:57 PM | Permalink "But it's a very real phenomenon worth deconstructing, on some level more useful than just brandishing it just to score political points." Agreed. What I have tried to describe is, from my point of view, of equal interest to Republicans invested in the success of the Bush White House, and conservatives whose priorities are getting heavy rotation on the Administration's playlist. If you cared about Bush's legacy or agenda you would be very alarmed by the retreat from empiricism, which is a recipe for hubris and disaster. That's what I think. If what you care about is your own bitching at the get-Bushism of the other side, you might miss the alarm that is ringing for you: The public visibility of the presidency itself is under revision. More of it lies in shadow all the time. Non-communication has become the standard procedure, not a breakdown in practice but the essence of it. What Dan Froomkin calls the Bush Bubble is designed to keep more of the world out. Cheney himself is almost a shadow figure in the executive branch. His whereabouts are often not known. With these changes, executive power has grown more illegible under Bush the Younger. The question I asked 200 comments ago was: why is this happening? One answer is simple: the President wills it. And that accounts for a lot. But why is this happening also means why is this happening now? Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 5:00 PM | Permalink "Joe is right when he says a new one of these guys pops up every three or four months. He might do well to ask why that is." Leftwing media creates a narrative. Leftwing media ignores or downplays evidence to the contrary. Leftwing media finds about a half dozen or so disgruntled conservatives who didn't get their way in the Bush administration and have books to promote. Leftwing media says "see, even Republicans are saying the same things which proves that we've been right along." Leftwing media promotes disgruntled conservatives as paragons of virtue (which of course they wouldn't on any other topic). Leftwing media repeats cycle of self-parody 2-3 times a year. Leftwing media loses annual amount of readership/viewership as it slides into oblivion. Posted by: joe at February 21, 2006 5:07 PM | Permalink The question I asked 200 comments ago was: why is this happening? And yet you do not allow yourself to consider the possibility that any of these other institutions (press, bureaucracy, CIA, etc) have themselves done anything to Bush that might warrant such treatment (even from his point of view). Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 21, 2006 5:08 PM | Permalink Joe -- A similar thing even happened here last summer. Jay invited some commentary from conservative milblogger Austin Bay. Some of Bay's comments were critical of the press, some were critical of WH press relations. Jay largely ignored the former while blasting the latter from the tree-tops. The thread later took a bizarre turn, but that's another story... Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 21, 2006 5:15 PM | Permalink Okay, that's one answer. They all deserved it! Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 5:16 PM | Permalink That's true. Everybody's out to get Bush. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 21, 2006 5:22 PM | Permalink Steve -- I have previously addressed the factual basis of the Atta/Prague story. Do try to keep up. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 21, 2006 5:22 PM | Permalink Joe -- Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 5:28 PM | Permalink The Chicago Tribune Washington bureau has a group blog, The Swamp, which is a good way of doing it. Cheney's penchant for keeping a low-profile fit the requirement to not have a vice president who outshines the president. But his lack of desire for the presidency removed from Cheney an incentive to be responsive to the public, Republicans included. Where I'd question the Trib bureau is "media focus." There's an assumption that a.) we know what that is, b.) we know it matters, c.) Presidents must worry about it. Those are the automatics of a previous era. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 5:31 PM | Permalink
All that link tells me is just how inconclusive (in November, 2003) the picture was to Edward Jay Epstein. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 5:36 PM | Permalink Steve L. You may be right that the reason you "can't recall any with the sort of scathing detail-in-support-of-a-damning-hypothesis supplied by an O'Neill, or Clarke, or a Bartlett" is because this kind of flawed decision-making process is something unique to GWB among modern presidents. But seeking confirming evidence, avoiding disconfirming evidence, remembering one's hits, forgetting one's misses, surrounding oneself with yes men /yes women and all the other factors that add up to what Jay labeled a "recipe for hubris and disaster" is tragically common among decision makers and opinion givers in business. And from what I've studied, the history of military decision making is rich with examples as well. So if he is unique (and this is true) he is only unique in a small subset of all people in leadership. That's not written to justify the flaws, just to put them into perspective. Posted by: laurence haughton at February 21, 2006 5:43 PM | Permalink Steve -- I have no desire to convince you that Atta was in Prague. Besides, it's happy hour now anyway. My purpose in linking was twofold: 1) To establish that there was at least some evidentiary basis to the Admin's claims, contrary to Jay's assertion that "You need Atta in Prague you can have Atta in Prague. Whether he was there or not is a ultimately a negligible factor in your powers of assertion and documentation." Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 21, 2006 5:46 PM | Permalink Jay, you answer your own question at the start of the thread, but then ask again, “why now?” “Cheney has long held the view that the powers of the presidency were dangerously eroded in the 1970s and 80s. The executive “lost” perogatives it needed to gain back for the global struggle with Islamic terror. “Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam both during the 70’s served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area,” he said in December. Some of that space was lost to the news media, and its demand to be informed about all aspects of the presidency, plus its sense of entitlement to the star interlocutor’s role.” That’s the essence of your answer. Why do you complicate it? I could grab similar Bush quotes since 9-11 but what’s the point? Every speech he gives reflects his belief that right now the War on Terror is paramount to our survival. Period. There isn’t any more. Not everyone agrees with his methods but why try to overanalyze why he and Cheney do what they do? Everything they do starts from that spot. Posted by: Kristen at February 21, 2006 5:51 PM | Permalink Laurence: isn't a better question to ask whether Bush is running the White House in a way that is fundamentally different from White Houses past? To wit: how to make sure the president hears from a wide range of advisors without making chaos the takeaway is a perennial problem in the White House. What to do when the president has no desire for a "range" of voices at all is not. There are parallels I suppose, but I would be very careful about comparing President of the United States to other CEO positions. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 5:52 PM | Permalink Yes Jay that is a great question. I would love to read an email interview you do with someone you believe knows the answer. And I will be careful about the comparison between business executives, military leaders, and politicians. As I said I've never studied the latter so I am not aware of the significant differences. Posted by: laurence haughton at February 21, 2006 6:13 PM | Permalink Louis Freeh has a book out. Mary Jo White (no book, just memos) The book, All Too Human, released this week, provides an intimate portrait of life inside the Clinton White House. It is unflinching in its critique of both the President and First Lady. The book's release has sparked debate on the propriety of former White House staffers criticizing a president while he is still in office. This past Sunday, Sam Donaldson questioned his colleague about that on ABC's "This Week." SAM DONALDSON: If it runs true to form now, there are various parts of this book that are not a very good read if you're President Clinton or Mrs. Clinton, I suspect they are going to denounce you in some respect, or say that it's a bunch of hooey. What do you say to people who say, well, you're now the betrayer, oh, you should not have written this book? Did you vet this book with them? Robert Reich, Locked in the Cabinet (although a personal friend of the Clintons, and his criticism isn't directd at the man. Is that good or bad?): No wonder. Reich found himself the sole ''progressive liberal'' among a cautious, deficit-hating, bond-market-worshiping cadre of Presidential economic advisers who couldn't wait to rescind Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign promises. How about former adviser Dick Morris? Posted by: MayBee at February 21, 2006 6:31 PM | Permalink Steve Lovelady: Personal and heartfelt apologies for (1) screwing up your name; and (2) what you do. I am genuinely sorry. Unbelievable. PressThink--and this post--made it into one of Bill O'Reilly's rants, and I became some left wing ranter. Hilarious too. This is from Media Matters. O'Reilly would fire "rabid dog" Gabler for Fox News Watch comments. Who's "this guy?" I didn't write a word about the Christmas controversy. Anyway, there's more if you click on the link. The only thing I have to add is that I know Neil Gabler, and he did send me a note about how much he liked the post. Just shows you how close the culture war is. Like right outside the door. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 6:50 PM | Permalink This is what Steve Lovelady said: "I'm not a "professor," I don't "teach" journalism or anything else, I'm not involved in the "training" of anyone and I don't "pump out" J-school graduates. Other than that, you're statement holds up really well." This is what I said: "If you are involved in the training of journalist, I can see what the profession is in disrepute--Continue to pump out your J-school graduates with the snotty attitudes that you exude, and the press approval rating will be even lower than it is now." Now, Mr Lovelady: Please compare the two statements. You simply misrepresented my post.--First--I started my post with the conditional word "if"--so one might reasonably think that if that doesn't pertain to you or what you do, you needn't comment. If fact, your paraphrase (something that Professor Rosen has been carping about on this thread) is quite inaccurate; well, thats the gentle version: you lied about it by introducing into my post things I didnt say; things that you have inferred, and then you do the ad hominum crap--Is that how you edited news and news magazines? Damn, no wonder you are in academe--its the last refuge of incompetence. Let me know how you parse the two quotes I put up there, Steve. My basic point is that hapless folks like you are why most Americans think journalists are slightly lower in esteem than trial lawyers. Just a reminder: the Office of the Vice President is a constitutionally separate office from that of the President. The Vice President does not report to the President except through courtesy. The vice president is an elected official in his own right and owes his allegiance to the people and the constitution, not the president. He has his own house and his own budget. He can be termed part of the White House only by blurring the lines of his authority, or by the practice; not by his actual line of authority. Posted by: John Lynch at February 21, 2006 7:30 PM | Permalink May I please return to the thesis of this thread: Professor Rosen--contrary to what some posters have said I said, I think you are right on target. The Bush administration feels they can dis the press and get away with it; and they are doing it. It started with Helen Thomas, and as you refer to him, the Angel of whatever--bottom line, the administration really and truly doesnt give a damn about the MSM--and they are riding off popular discontent with the media (or at least the discontent of some 50% plus one) So--What does the media do Jay Rosen? (and for the record, I do believe a free and independent press is pretty damn significant in our country) Jay, I believe O'Reilly was referring to Gabler as the "guy" who smeared him about the Christmas controversy. But you're right, O'Reilly does credit you as from "one of those nutty far-left blogs." For my part, I would concur with Hugh Hewitt, placing your blog on the center-left of the political spectrum. Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 21, 2006 7:42 PM | Permalink Jay- But look, you should have come back and said to Gabler, ...But you got a guy like Gabler, and this is the second time this guy did this -- first time he smeared me about the Christmas controversy. We called him up, he's too cowardly to come on. You let him slide with that. And now you got him coming in here with this insane conspiracy thing. The "this guy" he is referring to in regards to the Christmas controversy is Gabler himself. Not you. Posted by: MayBee at February 21, 2006 7:51 PM | Permalink Roger A: You are an original. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 8:11 PM | Permalink Thanks for that, TA. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 8:31 PM | Permalink Listen Steve--I have been insulted and harrassed by experts--save your sophomoric crap for newly hired correspondents--Lets multitask this: I was quite sincere in my apology: dissing a man's name, purposely or not--and it wasnt purposely, deserves an apology; not knowing what he does is a failure of my part to find out more about you--not that that is important. So that apology stands. Calling a man on misrepresenting what he said is another issue altogether, and I not you really havent addressed that--In fact, you respond with a nice slur (backhanded of course) "if I said you were jackbooted nazi..." Nice try Steve--I am not a jackbooted nazi, and you really didnt address the fact that you misrepresented what I said-- Let get this clear "son"--Stop playing asinine word games with people who are at least as smart as your are. Again, Steve--you are an exemplar of journalism at its finest.
Apologies to Jay Rosen for letting personal issue impinge on his blog-- Steve--if you want to continue calling each other assholes, lets take it off line. You have my email address, and I have yours. Somehow I think that you and I are not going to come to any mutual accommodation on this particular issues, and it is disrepectful to our host to continue a personal squabble on his dime. Maybe you should challenge him to a duel, Roger. Otherwise, you're taking this - and yourself - a little too seriously. On to other matters: Is there anything less useful than the right/left characterizations. Isn't everyone left or right to someone else? Just imagine. There's someone out there who is to the right of Cheney. I think he posts here from time to time. Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 21, 2006 9:12 PM | Permalink Roger: On one level, I couldn't agree with you more about the idiocy of continuing this conversation on Press Think. But if you think you have been misrepresented, you haven't gone back and read your own words. Steve Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 9:31 PM | Permalink Mr. Lovejoy, I'm sorry to jump in on your thing here with RogerA. we've seen posters such as these yarbg fellas RogerA, Neuro, Charles Martin before. Here is RogerA's entire entire Lovejoy post: Wow Mr.Lovejoy--you must be a journalism school professor--Feudalism? What part of private hunting party do you have a problem with? Because the VEEP was hunting one a private ranch he should have had impartial witnesses along lest he pepper one of his companions and we can get someone other than the "serfs?" I assume you would not believe the secret service guys or anyone else in the VEEPs entourage: they are, perforce, all "partial." i have this pseudonym from time spent in the HuffPo comment section, which is gutter polititcal combat. i don't think you and Jay have been there, because if you were disappointed with the Austin Bay comments, that's everyday at Huffo. i even run up against a fictitious newspaper editor, Michael Hagan, who created a fake email address of a publisher. RogerA says he's 65 years old but doesn't appear to take offense of you calling him son. these are paid trolls on shift work. (i have no proof, just a hunch, there is something phony about them.) Neuro clocks out and RogerA clocks in. they start out politely, then ... and that's the conclusion of Columbo. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 21, 2006 9:35 PM | Permalink Jeez--here we are--I dont, suppose, bush's jaw, the the fact I put quotes around son, suggests any thing otherwise--and in the interests of full disclosure my birthday is 9/26/41--Sit down boy, you dont know what you are talking about. Steve; clearly political discourse has come to this--dont wish to continue this whole conversation--the posts are up for every one to read as they wish--good luck with your efforts--I will pursue mine. Take care, be safe, and long life (even if you are a f*ing liberal (sorry--couldnt resist)) Roger -- Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 9:50 PM | Permalink Steve--I do admire your panache; it is something else-and as for Harry, damn--I checked his huffington website--this is the guy that did the three best indy movies(not counting cohen brothers stuff): spinal tap, a mighty wind, and best in show--Harry, my man--it isnt really important to me, but if you want more info about me personally, it might really surprise you-- Steve--you and I are going to continue to disagree, my man; and honestly, if you think this is a case of "orchestrated trolls," you are wrong--but thats your perception. You know, sports fans, its amazing what a glass (or three) of Myers rum does to ones hostilities as the night wears on. B-jaw -- I have news for you. Not only are we well-orchestrated trolls, but everything you know is false. You are actually unconscious in a pod in the Matrix, and even when you wake up, you will be in a TV show where everyone else is a paid actor. I can't believe you've figured it all out. You must be the Chosen One. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 21, 2006 10:06 PM | Permalink I would request that you discontinue it, Steve and Roger. And so you don't have to agree to disagree, you can just honor my request-- separately. As far as I know, I didn't argue that Cheney engaged in a conspiracy to get other issues off the front pages, which is what Gabler said, then O'Reilly. See what I mean about competent paraphrase? But check this out: O'Reilly actually had on his show his own network's guy--Fox News Watch host Eric Burns--specifically to attack him for having Gabler on, and specifically for letting Gabler float stuff gotten from far-left blogs like mine. Too funny. And then Burns apologizes because other panelists wanted to jump in and refute GablerRosenKrantz but there wasn't time. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 10:18 PM | Permalink RogerA, bush's jaw is not Harry. and i like the jaw thing for the comments by both sides diagnosing the video. i have no idea what the jaw thing is, but apparent many people across the political spectrum can diagnose the president's condition from that video. (a Frist-like job on Schiavo.) it's the viewers who bring the bias. here is Harry answering my comment. my comment was on Feb. 7, 11:09 p.m. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 21, 2006 10:20 PM | Permalink Done, Jay--and seriously, thanks for a great blog and topic--you may find that lots of conservatives share your feelings Posted by: RogerA at February 21, 2006 10:22 PM | Permalink Neuro, Roger:
Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 10:51 PM | Permalink Steve, please elaborate. Exactly how do you think our conspiracy operates? Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 21, 2006 10:53 PM | Permalink Sorry, Jay. I didn't see your request until after my most recent post.
Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 11:02 PM | Permalink Okay, thanks for halting, Roger and Steve. Yes, conservatives, so-called, agree with me on this one up to a point. And it makes sense that they would: they support Rollback. As I said in the original Rollback post: "Back ‘em up, starve ‘em down, and drive up their negatives: this policy toward the press has many strengths as a working piece of politics, and supporters of it abound within the Bush coalition." I should have said earlier that, while I don't agree with Thomas Sowell on many things at all, I think--well, as a student of this history I know--he was completely correct when he said: There is nothing in the Constitution or the laws that says that the media have a right to be in the White House at all, much less to have press conferences. What he calls a two-way street I called a "consensus understanding," which only works if both sides understand it. Conservatives believe there was no reason to remain in that consensus. The real genius of Rollback, however, is not that. It's what I said to Harris. The White House correctly guessed that "if it changed the game on you, you wouldn’t develop a new game of your own, or be able to react." Many people have asked me since this post was posted: "what do you think the new game should be?" I do not have a good idea of that yet, so I tend to say nothing. But I know where I'd start. First, the press has to realize that Sowell is right: "There is nothing in the Constitution or the laws that says that the media have a right to be in the White House at all." There is nothing that says they have to be there either. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 11:10 PM | Permalink Sorry Steve, You've been purged from this site. Roger A says so. Posted by: SpinMD at February 21, 2006 11:12 PM | Permalink Steve, please elaborate. Exactly how do you think our conspiracy operates? Neuro: I don't think you'll find the word "conspiracy" in any of my posts. But permit me to defer to bush's jaw for your answer. It's not a "conspiracy" so much as it is an orchestrated swarm. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 11:17 PM | Permalink Neuro, nice Matrix comeback. Jay, i'm not a press historian, but we didn't always have this so-called "speak truth to power" press. didn't the US have a history of tabloid press? so what will drive the future press, capitalism, technology? i had the displeasure of working for a Gannett paper. Gannett is profitable but i wouldn't want to live in a community with a Gannett paper. and Jay didn't boot Steve and RogerA off the site as posted as yardb. what is the color of the sky over there? while Neuro is here asking what conspiracy, RogerA is there admitting to the coordinated attack. you can't make this up. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 21, 2006 11:27 PM | Permalink Sorry Steve, SpinMD: Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 11:34 PM | Permalink Steve -- Please elaborate on who is doing the orchestrating, and how it is accomplished. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 21, 2006 11:40 PM | Permalink listen folks--Jay asked me and stevie whats his name to drop it I have done that; I assume Stevie has done that--are there other issues that should come up? Let me be blunt: somehow I dont think that Stevie or I give a good goddamn if either one of us lives or dies. I think that Jay Rosen has put forward on this post a VERY important point LETS FOCUS ON JAY's POST that the Bush Administration is doing damage to the institution of a free press-- now what's so fucking hard about that for you folks to get your arms around? Now if there are continuing conspiricy theories about blogs out to get someone, stop, get your big asses in both hands, and recognize where the threat is coming from from. Posted by: RogerA at February 21, 2006 11:41 PM | Permalink Kirsten: I wanted to respond to your questions. You said I had the answer to “why now?” ("“Cheney has long held the view that the powers of the presidency were dangerously eroded in the 1970s and 80s") so why ask again. Government needs those powers back for the war on terror. "That’s the essence of your answer. Why do you complicate it?" And: "Not everyone agrees with [Bush] methods but why try to overanalyze why he and Cheney do what they do?" About "why over-analyze?". I do like to sift to a finer grade than most people would. The reason is obvious: GOLD! But you misunderstood my why. When I ask "why is this happening now?" I don't mean: what are Bush's ideas and motivations, and what are Cheney's? They're politicians. They seek more power, more autonomy. Executives build empires and try to elude controls so they can build even bigger empires. That part isn't hard to explain. The 9/11 part isn't hard to slot in there as game-changer. So far so good. But we're supposed to have a system of check and balances in America. There are supposed to be limits on some things, and push back. We're supposed to have two parties, at least. There's Congress. A free press. Remember Madison? Factions are good; they will prevent too much power from concentrating in one place. Why is this happening now asks about all these other institutions--all the checks, all the balances, all the counter-vailing forces--and why have they permitted, abetted, encouraged, supported or enabled some of this. Many mysteries there. I would warn you against one thing. Some people think when they have figured out people's motivations they have figured out the why. (Indeed, journalists very commonly do this.) It is never so. Cheers, K. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2006 11:42 PM | Permalink Jay -- Now that we've returned to a reality-based discussion --thank God--- you're absolutely right about Sowell. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 21, 2006 11:47 PM | Permalink Gee, Roger, hope you have a better day tomorrow. Look, if you want to talk about the very important topic, then talk. And maybe let the gang know back at your club house that Jay really didn't kick you out. That would be the honest thing Jay raises the ante on the discussion with the question: what happened to the system of checks and balances? They are our governmental equilibrium but things are certainly out of whack. I never really bought the media as the fourth estate. Rather I see their job as questioning the three branche of government who are supposed to keep things in balance. The media hasn't adequately done that job and the Bush White House has raised the erosion of balance to an art form. Jay's likely correct. I has more to do with power and holding on to power than ideology or political acumen. Cheney - and Bush - don't talk to the media because they don't really have to. And they don't need no stinkin' balances. They have their program and that's all anyone really needs to know. As I said, even some conservatives are getting a little edgy about the direction Bush is taking us. But we're supposed to have a system of check and balances in America. There are supposed to be limits on some things, and push back. We're supposed to have two parties, at least. A free press. Public schools. Remember Madison? Factions are good; they will prevent too much power from concentrating in one place.
Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 22, 2006 12:00 AM | Permalink OK--truce? Jay? Steve? Good questions--perhaps it is bacause they have been there for quite an historical while-it is historical presence, inter alia, that bestows legitimacy-- Now I do agree with Steve's question (and I am sure he will correct me if am wrong): What, precisely, is the question a jouralist should ask? Posted by: Rogera at February 22, 2006 12:05 AM | Permalink Jay -- While I am tempted to snarkily ask you how public schools got implicated in all this, I will resist. ;>) Instead, might I suggest that an opposition party or faction would be far more effective if they could operate in the realm of reason and principled debate. It does you no good to ignore your opponent's arguments, or to assume they are trolls, or evil, or incompetent, or motivated by anything other than sincere belief in a set of ideas that differ from your own. I am just a regular guy who happens to be conservative. I have a family, friends, etc., just like you do. I have been exceptionally busy with a major project ay work for many, many months, and have taken advantage of some rare vacation time to do some posting here. Some of my friends at yargb have obviously spotted this thread at the same time I did and have come over independently (as stated explicitly in this thread, contra B-jaw's mis-reading). I gain no direct benefit or payment, either from posting here, or from being a conservative. I have never met Karl Rove. But I have a set of ideas I have been developing over the course of my adult life, derived from thinkers as diverse as Aristotle, Nietzsche, Burke, Hayek, Darwin, Freud, and even Neil Postman and Christopher Lasch, and informed by my observations of and experiences with the media. I would be happy to share them with you, if you'd like. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 22, 2006 12:11 AM | Permalink Jesus folks--Stop the goddamn condesention--do you folks think that conservatives DONT care about these issues--dave: reread Federalist 10 and 51--and think about it in the modern context--just might surprise you Posted by: RogerA at February 22, 2006 12:13 AM | Permalink Steve -- Please elaborate on who is doing the orchestrating, and how it is accomplished. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 22, 2006 12:14 AM | Permalink Uh, guys.....drop it please means drop it please. The schools didn't belong in there, NC. I was editing that post. It should read: But we're supposed to have a system of check and balances in America. There are supposed to be limits on some things, and push back. We're supposed to have two parties, at least. There's Congress. A free press. Remember Madison? Factions are good; they will prevent too much power from concentrating in one place. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 22, 2006 12:18 AM | Permalink we have cache jay Harris, we have cache haha Posted by: bush's jaw at February 22, 2006 12:19 AM | Permalink Jeez folks--again I raise the issue that professor Rosen did: MY paraphrase: the Bush administration has taken as a policy to denigrate the the media--Professor Rosen has provided sufficient detail the question is: what should we do (not defining what, or anything else) Listen, folks--Jay Rosen has put this issue in as stark terms as he could--he's done his job Posted by: rogera at February 22, 2006 12:24 AM | Permalink Let's try this. In a Utopian or perfect system, the Press is not a participant in the political discussion. It is the medium by which political actors transmit their messages to one another and to the public. Network engineers talk about "the cloud". The wire on the back of your computer disappears into the cloud; so does the one on the back of mine. When I post, the message disappears into the cloud and reappears on your screen. None of us gives a hoot what the details inside the cloud are so long as it transmits our messages faithfully. If the messages aren't transmitted faithfully the system falls down. You may not lose much if you don't see my blatherings accurately transcribed, but if the different parts of the political system can't accurately communicate with one another they can't reach accommodations, can't adjust their actions to conform to the reality created by the existence of the others. There are other channels of communications, but the nice thing about the Press (in this ideal) is its cloudiness. A free Press turns out to be Hell for useful as a mutual communications medium. It's easy and available to everyone in the system; dump a message into it, and it gets to the desired recipients with no further action. Highly efficient from the point of view of the actors. Unfortunately the existing Press not merely fails in that respect, it rejects the role in disgust. Stenography. We've just gotten over a couple of examples; Judith Miller has been effectively drummed out of the Corps for the vile crime of transmitting The Administration's views unaltered. The Press insists on being an actor, a participant in the political process. It asserts the right to insert its own views, its own messages, into the system. Why? Status. A faithful transmitter of messages is no more than an Ethernet switch, $49.95 at Fry's, set on the sideboard and forgotten until it fails, then replaced without emotion. Participants in the process have power. They're important. For the others involved it's frustrating. At this point, neither you, nor I, nor Solomon Grundy has any real notion of what George Bush thinks about anything. What we have is what some editor left in of some reporter's interpretation of what some Press secretary said about it, and the sure knowledge that everybody in the chain has an agenda -- the editor trying to keep it consistent and conformal with (his organization's view of) the Press's vision; the reporter "speaking truth to power" by assuming contrarian nihilism; the secretary trying to phrase it artfully enough that some of what he wants to say gets through. The result is pellucid as a brick. The channel is corrupt. What do you do with a corrupt channel? Several things. Step up the power, trying to improve the ratio of signal to noise. Repeat, repeat, repeat, so comparing multiple versions of the same message may make it possible to discern the original content. Add in error checking, so corrupted messages can be ignored. Send out diagnostics contrived to expose which components are failing, and try to chop them out or repair them. And find other channels. It's worse when the channel has volition and insists that it isn't corrupt, that it's just doing what it's always done and should do. To a certain extent it's even true, but here we run into an environmental problem. There used to be multiple subchannels through the Press; each was corrupt in a different way, and by comparing the messages as received via each subchannel it was possible to discern the original content. Business consolidation combined with social factors have taken away the multiple subchannels; we no longer have two morning papers and one evening one, plus the Daily Worker, to compare and contrast, and the rise of journalism as a profession, with training and certification (ad hoc, but real), has to a large extent homogenized the viewpoints and attitudes of the people who make up the Press. It's inevitable that people who've spent large chunks of their formative years together will think more alike than not. George Bush knows for sure that the channel is corrupt, that messages he sends will not be received unaltered. He knows because the channel -- the Press -- has said so, loudly, repeatedly, and insultingly; has in fact defined it as villainy, and disciplined several of its members for doing so. Do you really wonder that he takes steps to overcome that? But he lies, and we have to show that, it's News. Bullshit. Prevarication is a normal and expected part of the political process, a tactic used by all participants and allowed for by the normal and usual process. Thomas Edison's first invention was an electric tally-system for voting in a legislature. A politician explained to him why it went nowhere: the pols needed the time of the roll-call for logrolling. This is the same thing. The political process allows for, expects, lies. Even if the Press were evenhanded, exposing all lies promptly and equally, that would distort the process because working out what the lie is and what makes it plausible tells more about the subject than straight discourse ever can. When the Press assumes that the Administration has Power and others do not, and preferentially exposes its lies ("speaking truth to power") while allowing other lies to pass unchallenged because the tellers are not "in power", it distorts the process out of recognition. When it injects false data of its own ("false, but accurate") it destroys the process almost completely. There's a simple solution; unfortunately like most simple solutions it's very hard, likely impossible in this case. Stenography. The Press needs to commit itself to faithfully transmitting the messages, reserving its own opinion to separate commentary. Ain't gonna happen. It isn't power. It's subservient -- the very word has been used. A more complex solution, but more nearly feasible, is establishing alternate channels, with the goal of replicating the multiple-subchannel system in a new form. Bloggers see themselves as an important part of that, but bloggers correspond not to the "journalist" part of the Press but to the "pamphleteer" section. Like the pamphleteers and handbill-distributors they're just too many and too various, and they aren't stable enough. Talk radio -- taking over a channel abandoned as having too little cachet for the cognoscenti to use -- helps a bit for one faction; the other has been lured into complacency by the fact that the Press's notions run parallel to theirs for the moment, and hasn't worked to establish anything. There are exceptions; Howard Stern, anyone? George Bush has opted for the anarchist solution: the channel is corrupt, it is therefore useless and takes up resources that need to be put elsewhere. Destroy it, sweep up the pieces, and start over. From a partisan point of view, Go George! From the point of view of someone wanting to see the political process work for the health of the Republic, that solution doesn't look so nice. But frankly I haven't a better one. Regards, Posted by: Ric Locke at February 22, 2006 1:32 AM | Permalink I can't police the thread all night so I am closing it. It was headed for Protocols territory, or a DOS event. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 22, 2006 2:02 AM | Permalink I've re-opened the comments, hoping people will make smarter choices. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 22, 2006 9:31 AM | Permalink Ric -- But he lies, and we have to show that, it's News. Bullshit. Prevarication is a normal and expected part of the political process, a tactic used by all participants and allowed for by the normal and usual process... The political process allows for, expects, lies. Even if the Press were evenhanded, exposing all lies promptly and equally, that would distort the process because working out what the lie is and what makes it plausible tells more about the subject than straight discourse ever can. Ric, when you think about this assessment, is it your conclusion that the stenography you propose would be somehow self-correcting of lies? Is there a difference between a citizen blogger who is trying to be fair-minded about things but seeks the truth and a professional journalist who makes the same claim? Do you see any value in information that is of equal utility to all observers? Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 22, 2006 10:55 AM | Permalink Also: When people who say they want to make the world a better place enter into politics, the military, science, medicine, civil engineering, law, firefighting, law enforcement or teaching, we celebrate their commitment and spirit. In fact, we celebrate that spirit to the point of kitsch. When a journalist makes a similar statement, we scorn it. Why? But we're supposed to have a system of check and balances in America. There are supposed to be limits on some things, and push back. We're supposed to have two parties, at least. There's Congress. A free press. Remember Madison? Factions are good; they will prevent too much power from concentrating in one place. Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 22, 2006 11:04 AM | Permalink Ric -- You don't want news, you want advertising. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 22, 2006 12:13 PM | Permalink Funny thing Ric, your counterparts on the Left says the WH press corp already performs stenography. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 22, 2006 12:46 PM | Permalink Daniel, The short answer is that people don't believe that sales professionsals, business executives, managers, etc. do what they do in part or in whole to make the world better for others because either they, their peers, or others who came before them said that while behaving differently. Sure some of the skepticism is fueled by rivals and enemies but it's wrong to point the finger only at others. To understand why people are so skeptical you [again not you individually, but you, your profession] have to assume responsibility. That's the case in business by the way... Jay and others can tell you if it is at all true in journalism. Also it seems to me that if you used your journalistic skills to interview people who had this skepticism, and really listened to what they say and (especially) what they mean you could find the answer and share it. I'm sure others in journalism are asking the same question. For me I grew up reading great journalists and learned the history of broadcast journalists in college. I'm a fan. I also spent years working on the business end of the journalism business and thought my contribution [how I was making the world better] was generating clients who helped pay the bills of professional journalism. But even the journalists I worked with questioned my intentions. So I can empathize with your situation. Posted by: laurence haughton at February 22, 2006 1:12 PM | Permalink laurence: Thank you. I did want feedback. And as for interviewing skeptics, I have and I am. This question was, in a sense, an interview question to a larger audience. I'm right with you on the "assume responsibility" prescription. And I'm like more than a few people who have been on both the giving and receiving ends of journalism. I have no illusions anymore that all of my colleagues are noble, selfless defenders of truth and justice. If I stopped there, I might be a hero to the Right, but I don't stop there. I'm not convinced that modern attitudes toward journalists and beliefs about journalism are solely the product of millions of individuals independently waking up to the flaws in my profession. I am asked, by critics, to become aware of and stand accountable for the persuasive power of subtle bias in mass media. I'm asked to recognize its power in shaping public opinion on everything from news reporting to public relations to selling soap powder. But when it comes to mass media campaigns aimed at decertification and rollback of the press, should I apply a different standard? Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 22, 2006 2:11 PM | Permalink Jay sez: "...we're supposed to have two parties, at least." Well, amen to that, but why isn't Jay asking why Democrats can't get elected, except in urban areas where people can't survive without government help? Also, do those who fret about the lack of "two parties" do so when the Democrats control everything, as they have in the past? Come on people, this is a real truth-telling moment. Do you really believe in "two parties" if your party controls everything? Just askin'. Posted by: abigail beecher at February 22, 2006 2:59 PM | Permalink Yes, which is why I supported Giuliani in 1997, a Republican, and Bloomberg in 2005. He is more like a frustrated Democrat bolting the party. In New York City it was once the case that one party ("my" party, since I am a registered Democrat) controlled everything. It became obvious to me after a good number of years that this was bad for the city. In fact it took a Republican billionaire with no ties and allegiances to the Democratic clubhouse to break the strangehold of inertia and politics and assume mayoral command of the public schools, so that there is something resembling accountability for their condition. He blew up the bureaucracy, literally kicking it out of its old headquarters in Brooklyn and installing it next door to city hall. Big symbolic move. He got a real executive from outside the education "community" to be chancellor-- Joel Klein. There is real hope for improvement for a simple reason. If the mayor does not improve the schools, the mayor can be voted out of office. If the mayor doesn't have ideas for fixing the schools the mayor will never win office. It took the "other" party to accomplish that. So I not only believe in competitive parties I am seeing the benefits. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 22, 2006 3:11 PM | Permalink Of course I believe in a two-party system. It's what works best for the governed -- and what helps limits power for the governing. I like my national politics best when the party that holds the presidency doesn't control the Congress. It creates a fourth check on power. And reminds the party in control that elections come around regularly and they must pay a bit more attention to the people's business. Abigail's question is built on the understanding that political parties are largely heterogenous from the local to the national level. They're not. Jay's answer raises an important point: A Democrat in New York is not necessarily a Democrat in Ohio. Or Texas. Or California. And the more diversity we have in the political process, the better. Though I never underestimate the ability of an elected official to claim a 'mandate' even with a razor-thin margin. Just look at 2004. Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 22, 2006 3:36 PM | Permalink I'm with Jay. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 22, 2006 3:49 PM | Permalink I'm told Brit Hume mentioned this post on his "Special Report" last night on Fox, and mis-identified me as being from Columbia J-school, which happens constantly. If anyone saw it or can find a transcript let me know. (I just bet it was about the "conspiracy theory" I never had, but who knows?) Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 22, 2006 4:04 PM | Permalink (One Party Rule is bad news, no matter which party. Monolithic Dems have gerrymandered the districts here in California so that their seats are never in jeopardy, just like they do it in DeLay's Texas. That's not good news for anybody except the Dems in the state house. Honestly, Abigail, I'm a third party/independent/maverick voter more often than not. I'm also a Registered Republican. I have always seen the two-party system as corruptible and corrupt. But One Party is worse. I have NEVER identified as a Democrat. But in these Bush years, I sure identify WITH the Democrats. At least they're not fascists. And it's easier to trust those who have no power. The day the Bushists realize that much opposition to Bushism is not about party politics is the day we get our country back on track. This UAE port hoopdeedoo seems to be giving the Congressional Republicans at least the appearance of an excuse to dehitch their wagons from the Bush train to ditchville.) Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 22, 2006 4:13 PM | Permalink This Fox Hume special report IDs Jay with NYU The former chairman of New York University's Department of Journalism says Vice President Cheney's failure to promptly inform the major media about his hunting accident was no mistake. Instead, Jay Rosen suggests that the move was contrived to ignite the press and keep other, more damaging stories off the front pages, saying media outrage over the disclosure of the accident kept the press from pummeling Scott McClellan over administration failures. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 22, 2006 4:33 PM | Permalink Let's ask our conservative friends here if this is good reporting, misquoted, conservative bias or stenography? Jay Rosen suggests that the move was contrived to ignite the press and keep other, more damaging stories off the front pages, saying media outrage over the disclosure of the accident kept the press from pummeling Scott McClellan over administration failures. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 22, 2006 4:37 PM | Permalink I think the WH is doing it again. As you may have noticed, the WH is good at providing all the rope you need. The WH didn't make the press look bad. The press has done so for years. The WH merely provided them with an another opportunity to emphasize it in a loud and insistent manner. The issue is not what journalists think. The issue is what news consumers think of journalists. The WH is more than happy to let you explain yourselves further to the public. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 22, 2006 4:39 PM | Permalink Okay, here's what Brit Hume said on Fox's Special Report, according to a Fox producer who's a former student and asked me to come on their morning show. (No dice.) And the former chairman of New York University's journalism department who still teaches there says Vice President Cheney's failure to promptly inform the major media about his hunting accident was no mistake. Instead Jay Rosen suggests that the move was to contrived to ignite press and keep other more damaging stories off the front pages, saying media outrage over the disclosure of the accident kept the press from pummeling Scott McClellan over administration failures. Rosen added that Cheney, quote, "followed procedure, his procedure" and quote, "took the opportunity to show the White House press corps that it is the natural conduit to the nation at large." Translations? What I actually said was: "Cheney took the opportunity to show the White House press corps that it is not the natural conduit to the nation-at-large; and it has no special place in the information chain." The transcript leaves out the "not." And I didn't say Cheney did it to drive other stories off the front page. That's 80s think, more conspiratorial than I was willing to be. I wanted to question the lazy assumption among reporters that it was "damaging" to the White House if this story "dominated the news." There's no conspiracy theory in that. Thus: "How does it hurt Bush if for three days this week reporters are pummeling Scott McClellan over the details of when they were informed about Cheney’s hunting accident? That’s three days this week they won’t be pummeling Scott McClellan over the details of this article..." etc. And they didn't. Thing is, you can follow the Foxification of a blog post real time. In what O'Rielly said and then (more subtly) Hume. That's full service blogging, pulling in the other media. We give the posts to you people first, of course. Then after they're absorbed by our users we send them to Fox and let the distortion field have a go. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 22, 2006 4:50 PM | Permalink Jay, I can't tell if this is Hume's typo or your typo but there's a serious misquote one way. Here's what you say: "Cheney took the opportunity to show the White House press corps that it is not the natural conduit to the nation-at-large; and it has no special place in the information chain." Here's what you quote Hume quoting you as saying: "took the opportunity to show the White House press corps that it is the natural conduit to the nation at large." If Hume didn't say "not the natural conduit" that's a serious misquotation. But if its just your typo, well, not as big a problem. Posted by: catrina at February 22, 2006 4:59 PM | Permalink Fox: Fair and balanced, my ass. Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 22, 2006 4:59 PM | Permalink I know, cat. We don't know if it's the transcript's error, or Hume, though. And a "Fox transcript" is a dicey thing anyway. My source (a TV viewer in her robe) says they called me chairman at Columbia, not former chairman at NYU. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 22, 2006 5:02 PM | Permalink Jay, If they got your quote wrong by leaving out the word "not" then you should complain to the producer. That little word completely modifies the entire point you made. Its enough of a screw up Hume might issue a correction on-air. I thought believe it was deliberate attempt to misquote you. When typing I do that kind of thing all the time. Its why my posts on Press Think don't always make sense because I left off an important modifier. Wow. What do the Conservatives present have to say about how the Conservative Media has characterized this post?
Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 22, 2006 5:05 PM | Permalink Its why my posts on Press Think don't always make sense because I left off an important modifier. Like this hambone sentence: "I thought believe it was deliberate attempt to misquote you." I meant "Though I don't believe it was a deliberate attempt to misquote you." It could be a transcriptionist error if they type the way I do. Call that producer again. Catrina, I think we're all typing the transcipt of the movies we make in our minds. And we're all bad typists. Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 22, 2006 5:24 PM | Permalink Jay, I just called up the actual video on TV Eyes (which is sort of a Lexus-Nexis for tv that we keep around here at CJR Daily to help us do our jobs.). Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 22, 2006 5:31 PM | Permalink Thanks, Steve. Well, that's a screw up for sure. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 22, 2006 7:03 PM | Permalink Meanwhile, back in the real world, counterposed as it often is to Culture War Theatre on Fox... conservative Senator Orrin Hatch learns about some of the costs of the anti-empirical approach. He has to back down and looks foolish doing it. And for fans and students of Rollback I don't even have to comment on the significance of this... President Bush yesterday strongly defended an Arab company's attempt to take over the operation of seaports in Baltimore and five other cities, threatening a veto if Congress tries to kill a deal his administration has blessed. So he decided to summon the reporters. And of course when called they come. (No doubt it felt good to be needed.) Why did he summon them? He needed something: How do you issue a veto threat without the press? (A veto threat is communication.) This tells us that Rollback has its flaws. Its logic is not complete. Or maybe not. Until they're prepared not to be there when called ("Thanks but no thanks, Mr. President. You don't need us, Sir, you can make your veto threat yourself, directly. No filter!...") they will continue to be outplayed by Bush and company. I wrote about this in A Prime Time News Conference Before a Special Interest: Make Sense to You? (April 04) Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 22, 2006 8:13 PM | Permalink Jay, summoning reporters is not a flaw of Rollback. the WH is still in control. i can't imagined reporters ever flatly saying no a summon. They may not print the story or exactly how the WH wants, but they would always show up. i sent you an email earlier today. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 22, 2006 8:31 PM | Permalink Jay, So do you regret not accepting Hume's producer's request now that the alternative was having your views managled? Having never been misquoted by a national TV personality I have no idea what one feels like and what is the proper response to such actions. I guess if your Cheney or Bush you throw up your hands and say "gee the Press can never get anything right" I need to stop talking to them. Until I need them. There was a Newsweek article this week that was talking about Cheney and his ultra-secretivness and I believe Newsweek quoted some of Cheney's unnamed friends and blamed the fact that the Press makes so many mistakes as the reason Cheney stopped speaking to them in the 1970s. This unnamed friend could have been Alan Simpson because I heard him make the same argument on NPR last week about Cheney. The argument went "Cheney saw the press ask so many asinine questions during Gulf War I that he learned they are morons who can't be trusted." That's another side to the Rollback argument. Not that the press are liberal, but that its a "I've been burned too many times by your stupid actions to trust you" reasoning. But I don't think you can blame the one poor schmuck who ran to hear Bush's complaints. Its like blaming internet message board posters for being irresponsible and ruining it for everyone. If one guy or girl said "no" then another would have stepped in. And if the second reporter refused the WH would have gone down the line to the third. I guess Bush could have had McClellen make the same veto threat but this feels a little like Bush just wanted to vent in public. Posted by: catrina at February 23, 2006 8:10 AM | Permalink The press asked so many asinine questions during Gulf War I that Saturday Night Live mocked them. How does journalism deal with this? It's one thing to have the font of all evil (Cheney)think this, since he can be discredited because he's Cheney and thus reallyawfulandrottenandstuff. But when SNL thinks its audience will be rolling on the floor when they mock the press, and they get paid to figure out what the audience likes, maybe it really is true. Now what? Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 23, 2006 8:18 AM | Permalink Richard, I've been thinking about the SNL skit a lot. Its pretty remarkable to remember any single SNL skit, but especially one that is 14 years old and I would have been only 16 years old myself when I saw it. Just to keep people up to speed, the skit involved a gaggle of press at Norman Schwartzkopf/Colin Powell type briefing. The joke? The press kept asking highly specfic questions like "can you tell me exactly where you are going to attack and when?" The skit implied (and indeed I think reinforced) the idea that the press were so stupid as to want to give away vital attack plans to Saddam's army. I'm sure my 16 year old self thought that "hey, this is an accurate reflection of how the press behaved during the Gulf War." In fact it is not. I'm not saying you can't find a transcript where someone did ask an asnine question, but they generally were no where near the level of stupidity implied by SNL. And even most of the questions about specific battle info was not really helpful information to Saddam and more that Schwartzkopf/Powell/Bush Sr. didn't want to release information that may be embarrassing or not positive. In fact it was a Press Think media frame pushed by the Bush Sr. WH that the press were asking stupid questions, which SNL furthered without looking to see if it was actually an honest reflection of the situation. So overtime that skit has become embedded in my mind as the reality of the how the press behaved instead of any actual information of how it did. The simulacrum has replaced the real. I doubt I'm the only person who when they think of press briefings (and press behavior) during the first Gulf War they think of that SNL skit more than any actual boneheaded Press questions. I can't help but wonder if its the same way with Cheney. The "myth" of the stupid press is just part of his DNA coding now. He kind of reminds me of how starletts complain about how the "tabloids" are never correct about them when sometimes they are indeed correct. Hey Nick and Jessica did split up! Angelina did break up Brad and Jen. The Olsen girl really was anerexic. Posted by: catrina at February 23, 2006 9:18 AM | Permalink are we revising history? Posted by: bush's jaw at February 23, 2006 9:40 AM | Permalink catrina. Remembering a particular skit is not a pathology. The press did a bunch of other stupid things, some referred to after the war before Congress. People are allowed to know this stuff, even if the press prefers we not. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 23, 2006 10:00 AM | Permalink Richard, Interesting answer. I don't want to get bogged down with a discussion about Gulf War I and SNL skits although what's revelant to this discussion is Cheney as Sec. of Defense during Gulf War I and current attitude towards press now. I still can't believe Cheney was Ford's Chief of Staff though. If only because by the time Ford became President people really wanted more openness and had a lot of respect for the press in the Ford presidency. Yet here's a guy who acts as if he's always in the middle of Nixon's Watergate scandal. How can/did a guy move from being a Ford guy to being a Nixon guy? Posted by: catrina at February 23, 2006 10:09 AM | Permalink Of course there's such a thing as a stupid question. And, from time to time, stupid questions will pop up during a press conference. But let's try to understand the essential reasons for questions at a press conference. 1. To flesh out facts stated at the press conference. 2. To elicit facts left unsaid that might challenge the message of the press conference. 3. To get those holding the press conference to say something in their own words. Often, at this stage, the form is in the form of a stupid question. Which may be the case in Richard's anecdotal recollections of a Desert Storm P/C. Of course any mines in the field is dangerous. But no one wants to hear the reporter say it. Not when they can hear Schwartzkopf's pithy quote. What news value is added by such questions is subject for future discussion, perhaps. And, as said, sometimes the questions are really just stupid. But a press conference is a process, not normal conversation. Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 23, 2006 11:10 AM | Permalink But a press conference is a process, not normal conversation. Indeed, and expecially when you are dealing with spokespersons who are not interested in being cooperative, or in actually conversing -- which is pretty much everyone in this Administration. (So much so that it is literally shocking to see someone from a previous administration speak in public, like Bill Clinton, for example. The mere appearance of candor is enough to make you weep. And this from Bill Clinton ...) Reporters need to work to provoke a response, to poke someone into actually saying something that is not in the script. And this is seen by some as "gotcha" journalism, or as fishing for ledes, or even as grandstanding. One way to fight agreement with rollback among the consumers -- the creeping notion that journalism and the mysterious all-pervasive entity "the media" are to blame for society's ills -- might be to change to way that WH press conferences work. It seems to me that opinions of the press have declined since regular daily briefings have been viewable. The poke-for-response process isn't pretty if you like the person at the podium, and it looks awfully ineffective if you want to see that person knocked off message. So how can the process be tweaked -- or the public educated -- in a way that either looks better, or that viewers understand better?
(A reality show featuring journalists living together and loving together on Rudy Giuliani's zoo plane ...) Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 23, 2006 11:52 AM | Permalink Richard -- Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 23, 2006 12:32 PM | Permalink cat, nice post on SNL Gulf War. as far as asking dumb questions, some times it's intentional. there is a rule of no question is dumb. then there is where you ask dumb questions. i worked here, and i had to learn to chit chat first (how was deer camp) with the source before asking questions or else you were rude. (and they never tell you that you were rude.) once you start asking question, you play dumb, gosh can you help me with this, i don't know anything about this ... Posted by: bush's jaw at February 23, 2006 12:53 PM | Permalink Bush's jaw, That post is just a place filler. I mean to go back later and add some links and/or change what I said. :-) In other news...wow someone read my blog! i folo people's link, which tells you something about them. if you have URL, you want people to go there? sometimes you want to go where everyone knows your pseudonym? Posted by: bush's jaw at February 23, 2006 1:34 PM | Permalink itchy fingers. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 23, 2006 1:37 PM | Permalink Dave. ref the mines question: The reporter wasn't "saying" anything about mines. He was implying Centcom had overhyped the threat from mines. As one guy I know from WW II said regarding mines, "it takes every gut a man's got to take a single step." To complain that there were not enough mines--which was the moron's implication--goes beyond stupid. One difference between the press and the rest of us is that the press' job is to be seen doing its thing by as many people as expensive marketing activities can arrange. That means the usual dumb mistake--not even counting the deliberate distortions--are broadcast to the world, or at least several hundred thousand people. You may insist that the press is no more likely to screw up than other professions, but the public venue in which the screwups happen makes it a different thing altogether. If the screwup is merely between, say, the press secretary and five reporters and they get it straight before the meeting is over, that's one thing. If it's on CNN live, the same goofup presents a different view. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 23, 2006 2:10 PM | Permalink Richard, Without viewing the tape this is a hard discussion to have. I can't evaulate your example and offer counter argument. It may be that the example was exactly as you portrayed. It may be that your memory is how you perceived the question/questioner. I was listening to Adam Corrolla rant about the media/reporters yesterday and he started going off on how reporters in interviews ask questions to things they already know the answers too. Like "I'm not familiar with the term; teabagging...please explain it." Corrolla got angry at this sort of faux-ignorance because of course the reporter knew exactly what the term means and simply is, in his term, faking ignorance. But of course this fake ignorance is merely a rhetorical device for interviews. Particularly for TV ones where the goal is not to have the reporter state what he/she already *knows* about the subject matter but to get their source/interviewee to restate it for the home audience. You can get angry at the assumption that a reporter has to "fake" being ignorant because saying on camera "now tell me what you said before about XYZ" doesn't sound quite so interesting as "explain this to me as if I'm hearing it for the first time." (Especially when the reporter's reaction is as much a part of the interview). But I have wondered why some very standard operating procedures in interviews look so downright objectionable to lay people? People are actually upset about David Greggory but not at Scott McClellen. He was apparently ignorant of one of Schwartzkopf's exploits. In Viet Nam, when one of his guys was down and bleeding badly in a minefield, Schwartzkopf went after him. He was so scared, he said, that he had to reach down and manually keep his knees from buckling. And you expect the average CNN viewers to know this background when the mine question was asked? a WSJ journal reporter covering Coca Cola for 10 years will never have the knowledge of the Coke's inner workings as much as a fund manager or the CEO, or some employees. that is a natural shortcoming of journalism, not intentional ignorance. should WSJ stop writing about Coke? Posted by: bush's jaw at February 23, 2006 2:34 PM | Permalink Bush's jaw. You missed the point. My guess is that many of the average CNN viewers--there were more of them then--knew about Schwartzkopf and the minefield. How on earth did you think that was my point? Jeez. My point is that the moronreporter didn't know, didn't know he didn't know, and presumed to give Schwartzkopf a hard time because there weren't as many mines as advertised. Not only is he the south end of a northbound horse, he looked like one on national television. And it's stupid reporter tricks like that which cause people to think the press can't be trusted to get a story right, and, come to think of it, offer rich ground for comedy writers. Point is, I didn't do it. The viewers didn't do it. Bush 41 didn't do it. The reporter did it. Not my fault our self-selected proxies can't tell the time of day and show us regularly all about it. Anyway, this example came from the comment that Cheney learned in GW1 that you can't trust the press to get it right. So he acts on that knowledge. This is a surprise? Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 23, 2006 3:09 PM | Permalink Richard, i believe your point was: I recall one absolute, brain-fried moron asking Schwartzkopf if he thought the relative absence of mines [after the initial assaults] meant there had been no threat. Schwartzkopf said that where there was one mine, there was a threat. ... your point was that because without knowing Schwartzkopf's heroics, therefore the reporter is a moron for asking that question? your argument was that EVERYBODY knows about Schwartzkopt and VN and land mines. in my previous post, i was saying the WSJ Coke story is for the general audience, not the fund manager, the CEO nor the people in the know about Coke. there always will be people in the audience knows more than the reporter. not to say that is an excuse for errors. reporters try hard, but you can't always get at the absoluth, unvarnished truth. and it doesn't make them morons for asking questions. i served in the military too, guarding the German border here. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 23, 2006 3:33 PM | Permalink i served in the military too, guarding the German border in the late 80s here. guess who my corp commander was? Colin Powell. i had to memorize his name and know my chain of command. i know more about Powell's military service now from the press than i did then. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 23, 2006 3:36 PM | Permalink Mr. Jaw, I have some experience in this (as I believe you do). I think business journalists should hold themselves to a higher standard than a step below fund managers. We need their eyes and ears to make informed judgements and investments. Posted by: laurence haughton at February 23, 2006 4:02 PM | Permalink Its kind of pointless to argue about a specific question during a Gulf War I briefing, especially since we can't objectively view the evidence. I brought up SNL because I was interested in this projection of Cheney's--as part of Rollback--that somehow Cheney learned the media can't be trusted. Is the attitude in fact a put-on? The one who I actually heard make the argument that it was from Gulf War I that Cheney learned this attitude was suggested by Alan Simpson as his "friend" (even though hilirously Simpson has even admitted he hasn't talked to Cheney much since basically he's been out of the Senate. Simpson was basically the only "Cheney friend" that NPR could get to talk on-air I suspect). So this entire discussion could really just be Alan Simpson's fevered projections of what his former close acquitance is currently thinking. What's odd is that Cheney's Press Think seems so 1970s to me, but Rove, who is much younger, has adopted that bunker mentality, but then given it a cynical twist. Rove knows exactly what he is doing with Roll Back. Cheney I think this is a sincere expression of his total distaste for being questioned by anyone (let alone mere reporters, but mere schmucks like average citizens). Whereas I would almost say Bush is the only one who is almost *not* being cynical about both believing the press doesn't serve the people. The son of someone famous truly can grow up in an area where distrust of the press becomes part of his upbringing and not just a cynically adapted behaviorism. So to wrap up: 1. Rove...a cynical user of Roll Back Bush's Jaw. The point is not that the reporter should have been as ignorant as the supposed viewers are. For most reporters, that would be an improvement. The point would have been almost as good if it had been somebody else in command. He was reproaching the general for supposedly overhyping a threat, one which the troops, mostly, avoided by planning, training, and luck. The proper question, for a normal person, would have been something like, "To what do you think the US owes its surprisingly low casualty rate from mines?" He might refer to pre-war briefings about all the mines Saddaam had had, along with the lack of mapping and charting as required by the Geneva Convention. Nope. Not some journo speaking truth to power, or at least the power he can count on not to yell at him or something. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 23, 2006 4:15 PM | Permalink It's true that reporters sometimes act dumb precisely to elicit information that would not otherwise be forthcoming. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 23, 2006 4:16 PM | Permalink Two suggestions: 1) Improve the immediacy of print reporting. Link the online and print editions of news reporting. For every print article, there is the corresponding article in the online edition, with the addition of something like what Jay does here: Notes, After-thoughts, and Corrections. This allows a report to have more than a snapshot-in-time feel to it, but a more immediate sense of what the story/news is at the time of reading. 2) On major issues, strengthen the editors’ functions to have series or complementary pieces to adequately portray the more complex stories. The reader is intelligent enough to understand the complex issues, but a single report is insufficient to portray the story, and comes across as incompetent reporting. A war, for example, is more than explosions. There are combat operations (units involved, objectives, difficulties faced, progress,) political issues (in-theater, not here at home, although there is that as well), civilian affairs (again in-theater,) infrastructure issues, financial, economic, and market issues, and on and on. Each of these might require the relevant experts, not merely cited, but actually contributing and shaping each portion of the overall story. While an individual journalist may be competent at his or her job, the reporting cannot be competent unless the more complex stories are adequately covered. This is not to imply any sort of false relativism and "get both sides of the story" type of line, merely that the story is complex and needs adequate coverage to be understood; otherwise it will be dismissed. These complex issues include global economy issues, long-term entitlement issues, global warming issues, war, Islamic and Western clashes, and others. Fine papers, with fine reporters simply have not competently put together coverage that is sufficiently rich in complexity to address the major issues. It makes the individual reporter, the paper in question, and the industry look inadequate. The art of interwoven, editor-directed articles each addressing portions of the more complex story has been missing, but is required for these types of stories. Alternatively, the approach of a series might address such stories.
Posted by: John Lynch at February 23, 2006 4:20 PM | Permalink Fine papers, with fine reporters simply have not competently put together coverage that is sufficiently rich in complexity to address the major issues. It makes the individual reporter, the paper in question, and the industry look inadequate. The art of interwoven, editor-directed articles each addressing portions of the more complex story has been missing, but is required for these types of stories. Alternatively, the approach of a series might address such stories. The bigger and more well-staffed papers try to do that John. Some days they succeed. Some days -- not so much. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 23, 2006 4:37 PM | Permalink Steve, That is the sort of thing I am speaking of, and the Dubai Port story is more than adequately covered by the approach. Sort of an elephant gun for a quail coverage. But, complete and understandable. On war, or other major issues, I have seen multiple stories, but they fall short of the requisite depth by subject matter (combat, civilian, economic, etc.) But, I agree it can be done, and the Dubai port coverage by NYT is a good example on a not that difficult subject. Posted by: John Lynch at February 23, 2006 4:42 PM | Permalink Laurence, the Coke thing was from my personal experience covering companies. you may have misread it, or i wrote it poorly. as a reporter, i relied on my sources on public companies. let's say that Coke story is about a product trend. my sources are an analyst, a marketing person whose entire job is to get the fund managers to buy Coke stocks through the analyst's investment bank. the money is in the brokerage transactions, not that worthless research report, which is his talking point. fund managers pay for that report, do you think the analyst spends time explaining to reporters about the research for free? the fund manager, a better source, because he is evaluating the stock. he doesn't generally talk to reporters before his knowledge is power. he knows from his research whether Coke's products are hit or miss. and he ain't tell a reporter that info. the fund manager is keeping that secret. he's shorting or buying in secret. the CEO knows he trend of the new product, but he is not breaking that out in the press release or statements. don't want to harm the stock or let competitors know. he may not even tell you if sales are great. the 10-year WSJ reporter knows a ton. doubtful he is covering the same company for 10 years. and the WSJ reporter won't know as much as the fund manager or company insider -- there is info he will never have access to. so the WSJ tries its best to cover Coke, it will not know that absolute truth, it gets it mostly correct. the market (stocks, consumer) will know eventually. and this is not a knock on the WSJ, just an example of ... what? i can't remember now. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 23, 2006 4:48 PM | Permalink Richard, many reporters in the first Gulf War were not on the military beat. some of them were local reporters sent to cover their local units, a reporter from the Syracuse paper covering the upstate New York guard unit. ya know, the local angle. these reporters don't know jack about the military. i, too, must be a moron too because i'd never hear d of Schwartkopf until the Gulf War I, (nor his heroics in VN with a land mine until you brought it up today.) and the only *news* those reporters got to cover was back in the rear at the press briefings, hilariously portrayed by SNL. unless you name that reporter, and then we can evaluate whether he should know about land mines or whether he was peacocking. somehow, i don't think we will change each other's minds on this. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 23, 2006 5:02 PM | Permalink bush's jaw -- Long ago and far away, I covered Hollywood and Las Vegas for the Wall Street Journal. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 23, 2006 5:17 PM | Permalink preaching to the choir, Mr. Lovejoy ;-0. i admired journalists who stick it out or excel at it. so much of press criticism come from people who don't understand journalism or what reporters do. that's why i like Jay and PressThink. John Lynch, most newspaper staff don't have the human resources to do what you mentioned. reporters working on more than one story a day, no time for depth. the NYT is the exception, not the rule. one correction Laurence, the money is made in underwriting stocks, maybe more so than brokerage. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 23, 2006 5:31 PM | Permalink BJ I'm totally confused. Are you Harry Shearer? (I loved you in "A Mighty Wind.") Or are you a former financial journalist? If you are the later I'm sorry but you lost me. Your quote was a "WSJ journal reporter covering Coca Cola for 10 years will never have the knowledge of the Coke's inner workings as much as a fund manager..." That, I thought as someone who writes about business, was hard to believe. That's all. Posted by: laurence haughton at February 23, 2006 5:53 PM | Permalink laurence, i'm a former newspaper reporter, last few beats were in business. my last gig was here in 1998, a great regional paper that serves as a step to the WaPo and other major dailies. i think the N&O is a better paper than the much-larger AJC, my current hometown paper. i stand by that statement and i think Steve Lovelady agrees with me more or less. i'm not Harry Shearer, though maybe i should start saying i'm Harry. here's link about not Harry. finally, reading newspaper is a start, but it would not make investment decisions from that. and i don't have an answer to where people should go for investment knowledge -- the best advice you have to pay for, and you can pay and get terrible advice. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 23, 2006 6:14 PM | Permalink Jaw, Steve, Thanks both of you for not ridiculing my suggestion. I am not in the business other than as a consumer of the news, and as such, any suggestion of mine is presumptuous. I cannot speak to the how, or to the structural barriers that may be present. I only speak to the question of why do consumers see the news as less than relevant, or incompetent in coverage of major issues. My suggestions are meant as no more than stimulation. The consuming public will find what they need. They will dismiss those who do not deliver what they need. The alternative sources grow through technology. Reading 'papers' in England, Germany, Tokyo; blogs from first person witnesses; alternative channels; all conspire to offer choices not offered by the fewer and fewer corporations holding traditional papers. The marginalization comes not just from the administration, but from those that the administration wishes to talk to who no longer rely on traditional papers.
Posted by: John Lynch at February 23, 2006 6:21 PM | Permalink Capital Hill Blue has a story supporting the "he was drunk" explanation . . . http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8184.shtml and "fund manager" as in hedge funds, professional traders and investors. not as in strictly mutual funds, though there are great mutual fund managers. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 23, 2006 6:37 PM | Permalink The son of someone famous truly can grow up in an area where distrust of the press becomes part of his upbringing and not just a cynically adapted behaviorism. Great observation, catrina. Let's not forget that the Gulf War was the result of lessons learned at DOD during Vietnam. Powell learned "don't go in without an exit strategy." Cheney apparently learned "don't let them show coffins or actual killing on tv or you'll lose the public and then the war." The Gulf War was press management perfected. The only video we saw, from what I recall, was approved if not manufactured by the DOD -- hence one shot of a "Smart Bomb" blowing up a building (immediately recognizeable as Luke Skywalker blowing up the Death Star by firing into an exhaust port) and one scene of green tracer fire over Baghdad. By the Iraq Invasion, they took it one step further -- using "embedded" reporters to provide a discombobulated picture of what was going on -- and no great context in which to understand what was going on. Only the illusion of being informed. Exactly what Postman calls "disinformation." Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 23, 2006 6:38 PM | Permalink The marginalization comes not just from the administration, but from those that the administration wishes to talk to who no longer rely on traditional papers. John, why would we ridicule? i mostly post here to try to explain to people outside of journalism why the MSM is the way it is. there is no hotline to the DNC. hell, inside most newsrooms, the business desk doesn't know what the metro desk is doing. the MSM is not organized like people think. and i don't fear for the MSM, it's not going away. as Jay pointed out earlier, did the president go to town halls or blogs, or the Caller Times to communicate his veto threat? no, he summoned MSM reporters. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 23, 2006 6:52 PM | Permalink Bush's. Local color reporting or not--and btw many say the best reporting today comes from locals covering hometown units--the moron knew Schwartzkopf was in EFFING VIET NAM. And should have known, if he knew enough to tie his shoes (check for velcro fastenings) that we had a huge number of casualties from booby traps and mines. Steve. I think the ask and ask and ask again thing is terrific, but if I hear somebody say, "help me understand", all bets are off. That's BS. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 23, 2006 7:40 PM | Permalink As an aside, ever notice how some journalists and pundits refer to the Cheney shooting incident by saying, "He shot a guy in the face"? I don't know why, but it sounds so much more malevolent than "shot in the head". Like a schoolyard bully threatens to punch you "in the FACE!". The genius is, it's accurate. But it just seems like that phrase can be used (though not always) to identify one's feeling on the subject - - like when Republicans say "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party". Kinda interesting... Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 23, 2006 7:49 PM | Permalink TA, which is more accurate? shot in the face or mildly peppered. it's somewhere in between. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 23, 2006 8:04 PM | Permalink Concerning the discussion earlier on about the cultural divide between those who understand hunting (and can therefore report on the Cheney incident with context) and those of us city slickers who do not know a damn quail from Dan Quayle... ...speaking as a member of the latter socioeconomic group, I am astonished how frequently those in the know refer to this incident--man shoots friend in the face/head--as just one of those things. One reason for the extensive, what Cheney fans call overextensive, coverage of this story is that it comes as a surprise to the vast numbers of us who are city slickers just how accident-prone hunting with guns is. I guess all those dollars spent by the National Rifle Association on reassurances about responsible gun ownership did their job. I know we seem like rubes to those who understand the gun culture in treating man-shoots-man as an astonishing story. It just seems a little unfair that we are insulted for our lack of knowledge rather than being educated out of it by tjose in the know about the true risks of gun sports. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at February 23, 2006 8:16 PM | Permalink Richard Simon: The GW1 and reporting was an artifact of how the war was fought. For some weeks, it was only air and artillery. Those who were interested could certainly have posted themselves at the targets of the bombs in order to provide in-depth reports. Failing that, we have only gun-camera shots, which you dismiss. People remember the reality, man. What does that make you look like? Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 23, 2006 9:04 PM | Permalink TA, a better way to ask whether to use head or face is: Posted by: bush's jaw at February 23, 2006 9:15 PM | Permalink Meantime, I see our friends from yardg -- RogerA, Neuro, Charles Martin -- have retreated to their clubhouse to lick their wounds. (Although the truculant but ever-game Richard Aubrey is doing his best to fill in.) Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 23, 2006 11:53 PM | Permalink I'm still trying to make sense of David Gregory's experience, actions and words this week, and last. He leads the charge. Loses his patience with McClellan. Apologizes on national television. When I watched him get savaged by Mary Matalin he looked lost. ...I was wrong to lose my temper at Scott McClellan. I've worked well with Scott since we first met during the 2000 campaign... Yet he is definitely angry. He seems bottled up by his own rage and the "no outlet" profession he's in. I didn't find a thing wrong with what he said to McClellan, and so to watch him apologize is like attending some show trial. What goes on inside? If the Daily Nightly ever came alive to that it would be worth having. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 24, 2006 12:58 AM | Permalink Jay, I think some of the reaction may come from the very limited range of emotions reporters are allowed to show during the course of their work. This would be only the work that is done either on-camera or occassionally when questions are overheard by others. A reporter is allowed to ask "happy" question ie: "Isn't it just wonderful that little girl was rescued from the well." They can express anger at inanimate things like weather or patently evil things Saddam Hussien or the 9/11 hijiackers. But there is kind of an unspoken Miss Manners rule when it comes to the tone of voice used to approach politicians. While inevitably all WH press reporters are going to be lumped together in some ways, certain individuals at times are separated from the herd for special attention in order to isolate the effectivness of their questions. Think of Helen Thomas who does not hold back the anger in some of her questions. She's been pretty effectively marginalized by the Bush White House by essentially making her into the looney old lady we all have to tolerate. The action that makes a reporter get separated from the herd is basically whenever they express anger (or emotion). Its like McClellen (and Fleischer before him) *knew* that's when they had them! This is kind of why Greggory has been getting it from BOTH SIDES about this incident, from columnists who are angry McClellen got the best of him and from WH-supporters who get to use it as an example of a repoter-with-an-agenda-who-made-this-personal. Fawning questions are acceptable, angry ones are not. By the way...no comments on Dana Milbank's attempt at "comedy" last Sunday? I agree with Deborah Howell that it crossed the line but it kind of took Milbank's credibility a little with it. If he was on The Daily Show attempting to do that stunt, that's one thing. Right time and place. But he tried to do it on CNN while ALSO giving his professional analysis. Sort of bizarre to see reporters try to add "stand up comic" to their day job. What the hell was he thinking? I wonder if Gregory's thing with Scottie could have been purely due to a perceived personal attack. I think McClellan said something to the effect of "you don't have to do that David, we're not on T.V." When he responded as he did, Gregory seemed almost heroic. But he needed an in-your-face provocation to do so. It's unfortunate we do not see that humanness more often from our press corp, and perhaps his apologies afterwards demonstrate the extent to which they are cowed. Posted by: SpinMD at February 24, 2006 8:13 AM | Permalink Thank you for the response a bit ago, Jay. I can agree with much of what you stated. Checks and balances, for example. I marvel at the processes, the system, laid out in our Constitution. Were the founders thinking specifically of a Bush and Cheney, or Roosevelt, or Lincoln, or all of them collectively? Did they agonize over particular administration characteristics, or were they working off their general understanding of human nature, which stays pretty much the same, unfortunately, through the years? Their system works, still, to this day. Again, my point, the more time spent analyzing Bush and Cheney, and deflecting the issues, the less time spent where I’d prefer to see it spent. (Unfortunately, I haven’t yet figured out how to control the universe, though.) I want the press to be more focused on the Press, so it can develop the remedies it needs. In the meantime, and ultimately, in addition to, regular citizens like me will ask the questions, do the research, and report our findings. I thought the exchange between John Lynch and Steve Lovelady was illustrative of what I see with the current “process improvement strategy,” or lack of, actually, deployed by the Press. John states weaknesses and throws out ideas , Steve says “we’re already doing that,” and the circle continues. Not a slam personally against your view, Steve, just an overall observation that professional problem solvers would say is fairly typical of how people react to critical analyses that highlight problems. I thought John’s #1 idea was pretty good, too. I like talking about possible solutions, not just reasons why things won’t work. BTW, did RogerA., a while back, competently paraphrase you? Do you believe that Bush and Cheney are damaging the free press as an institution? I actually think it’s the reverse; they’re saving it, no? Posted by: Kristen at February 24, 2006 11:25 AM | Permalink For once, I agree with Aubrey. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 24, 2006 12:08 PM | Permalink (Richard Aubrey: People remember the reality, man. What does that make you look like?) Chris Hedges on Gulf War I media restrictions (something for everyone in here).
When we all got off the plane, they handed us a piece of paper that said, in essence, "You'll do everything you're told by the U.S. military, you'll never go anywhere unless we tell you, you'll never report anything…" And it was garbage. It was unbelievable. So I sat in the room and signed it like everyone else, and then promptly ignored it. ... The press is very vulnerable to being stroked by the people they should be very critical of. Washington is a very, very corrupting, and the longer you do it the more corrupt you become — I'm talking about the press — so these were the people who were sent to the Gulf.
Government Censorship Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 24, 2006 1:31 PM | Permalink Richad Simon. I must have been hallucinating. I got the context before, during, and after the war. Or maybe you were hallucinating. The military wants to, and frequently can, control the reporters it is hosting. That does not mean they are not allowed to report context, nor that others, not under the control are not allowed to report context. I recall somebody during the run-up to the war being asked if he'd tell the truth about all that went on, good as well as bad. He wasn't going to be a cheerleader, he insisted. So reporting everything is cheerleading. 'cause there might be something the US does well. Can't have that. Lousy try. First, you pretended that the narrowly-focused embeds were all there were. That didn't fly. Now you pretend that the military's rules were, "no context, please, we're fascists". and to pretend that only what the military wanted reported saw the light of day, as if there weren't a zillion guys not under their control. What, I ask again, are you going to do about all the folks who remember getting the context? Think you can convince them all they're stupid? Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 24, 2006 1:39 PM | Permalink I think you nailed it Steve. (David Gregory seems chastened because, too late, he realizes that McClellan gave him just enough rope to hang himself.) It hard to remember but it's an great old rule I learned in negotiation training, "Smart is dumb and dumb is smart." Posted by: laurence haughton at February 24, 2006 1:48 PM | Permalink Aubrey, do me a favor. Consider for a minute that my intentions are honest. I watched that show on tv, too -- the Invasion of Iraq, that is. And despite all that coverage, I took away very little understanding of what was actually going on from watching it on tv. Which, sadly, is how most Americans get their understanding of what is going on. It was more like: "I'm so-and-so, and I don't know where I am, and if I did I wouldn't be allowed to tell you -- but I'm on the back of a tank and we're moving VERY fast!" In a dust storm. What I am saying is that I watched hours and hours of the television coverage, and came away with no new understanding of anything. I am not trying to fool you. Just telling you how I saw it. I keep forgetting how useless it is to try to have an actual conversation with people who are unwilling to challenge their own assumptions. Here's what Postman had to say about disinformation, from AOTD. [T]elevision is altering the meaning of "being informed" by creating a species of information that might be properly called disinformation. I am using this word almost in the precise sense in which it is used by spies in the CIA or KGB. Disinformation does not mean false information. It means misleading information -- misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information -- information that creates the illusion of knowing something but which in fact leads one away from knowing. I read this as the Iraq invasion occupied every minute of every channel of television I had available at the time, and it fit what I saw too well to ignore. Maybe I am overestimating Rumsfeld. You seem to think he's not smart enough to think of manipulating the media as part of the information war. You may be right. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 24, 2006 2:01 PM | Permalink Another moment I'll bet he'd like back is the time he (Gregory) decided to ask those questions in French. Posted by: laurence haughton at February 24, 2006 2:07 PM | Permalink "...do me a favor. Consider for a minute that my intentions are honest." - Simon, above. We could use more of this kind of thinking; it promotes keen insight and, by the way, helps build sound arguments should one subsequently conclude intentions are otherwise... Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 24, 2006 2:26 PM | Permalink Richard Simon: Okay. Your rules. You didn't learn anything new by watching embeds who hadn't a clue. I learned several things, many things, because I have a background--your tax dollars at work--as a grunt. But, nobody NOBODY expects to get the overview--which is what context is, from an embed. So not getting it from an embed proves squat. So your explanation that you didn't get context from an embed is meaningless. I find it hard to believe in the honest intentions of somebody who professes to believe that embeds were all there were. As I say, it seems so odd a thing for a grownup to claim that I give you more credit for intelligence than for honesty. As in, nobody's that dumb. But I'll play along. The answer to your problem: You weren't paying attention. You look at embeds for one thing. You can get context if you get enough embed reports, but you can get it elsewhere. If you restrict yourself to embeds, which nobody else on this earth did, you might be short of the bigger view. As it happened, I was on a cruise in the Caribbean during Thanksgiving week of 1990. Our ship picked up raw feed from the Gulf--due to its position and that of the satellites--and that went out on the ship's internal television. Still, there was much to be learned. Anyway, the context was available from other sources. Unless you have a new and different definition of context. Maybe we should explore that. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 24, 2006 2:31 PM | Permalink It's hard to remember but it's a great old rule I learned in negotiation training, "Smart is dumb and dumb is smart." Works in reporting too, as I noted above, Laurence. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 24, 2006 5:42 PM | Permalink But, nobody NOBODY expects to get the overview--which is what context is, from an embed. So not getting it from an embed proves squat. So your explanation that you didn't get context from an embed is meaningless. First of all, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, R.A. (thanks, too, T.A. We get farther this way, I think). I didn't mean to imply that I expected context from embeds. In fact, I meant the opposite -- that by saturating television with embedded coverage, we got what looked to be a big picture -- but not THE big picture. I'd say that was on purpose -- otherwise you show the enemy the big picture, which is not what DOD would have wanted to do. In other words, in my estimation, allowing embeds was a tactic meant to: 1. get favorable coverage of the war -- all those reporters thinking of the soldiers as "my unit", rather than reporting as disinterested third parties. 2. Throw sand in the face of anyone trying to get the big picture -- by providing an excessive amount of information, but leaving the perception of the "big picture" to briefings in the high-tech Qatar approximation of the Pentagon briefing room. I think this is pretty expert press management. And I think its use today by the Pentagon and the Administration is the result of lessons learned during Vietnam and the Nixon and Ford administrations. These are the same people running the show, after all. And perhaps it fits in with rollback, in that the press become unnecessary until they become necessary. They you roll them out, use them, and roll em back into the closet again. They are only credible when you say they are. Then you are in control of the message, always -- rather than the press being in control of the message. Which I imagine is what political leaders would want. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 24, 2006 6:29 PM | Permalink Embedding was also seen as a way of controlling the Al-jeezra effect, which is if the Armed Forces were going to have the kind of freeze out of pictures and information networks were going to start turning to Al-Jeezra as a source since they would have more images and stories coming from the battleground. The fact is that 2003 the media picture just wasn't the same as 1991 and everyone was adjusting. What is the point of informing the press when clowns like this just make a story up anyway? "The Texas hunting story is indeed a synechdoche for the larger story, which is what makes it so irresistable to the press. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 16, 2006 05:45 PM | Permalink Jay, Congratulations on the O'Reilly clip. I think that's the 2006 equivalent of getting on Nixon's enemies list. Well done. Posted by: Debbie Galant at February 24, 2006 10:15 PM | Permalink Meantime, I see our friends from yardg -- RogerA, Neuro, Charles Martin -- have retreated to their clubhouse to lick their wounds. Nah, just bored. Posted by: Charles Martin at February 24, 2006 10:41 PM | Permalink Did Dick Cheney call the police and fill out a police report immediately like any hunter is required to do? No. Did he call his boss, the president and inform him he accidently shot a man in the face which obviously was going to be embarrassing for the team? No. Did he call his press office and have them issue a statement? No. He visited Harry, went to dinner, made himself a drink and went to bed. As he said in his interview with Hume he had Armstrong talk to the Corpus Christi paper the next day because he thought the press might not believe the story coming from him. Cheney isn't living in a bubble, his word is worthless and he knows we know it. Posted by: Mark Garrity at February 24, 2006 11:03 PM | Permalink So, Charles, did you ever figure out which Medallin wrote the affidavit: Geraldo or Ramiro? Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 24, 2006 11:21 PM | Permalink Yes, the Nixon enemies list. There was a time when that was the gold standard for journalists. I think Adam Clymer has that spot now. But thanks, Deb. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 24, 2006 11:40 PM | Permalink I do hope Lovelady wasn't one of your students Professor Rosen. No such luck, Peter. I graduated college in 1966 when Jay was still in diapers. (However, I must admit, the boy has come a long way since then.) Jay -- The best -- and funniest -- part of that Salon piece by Jake Tapper on Bush that you linked to is the final two paragraphs. Somehow I missed that the first time around. Priceless. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 25, 2006 12:17 AM | Permalink Meantime, I see our friends from yardg -- RogerA, Neuro, Charles Martin -- have retreated to their clubhouse to lick their wounds. Yes, Steve, I am deeply wounded by the relentless power of your facts and logic. Mirabile dictu! Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 25, 2006 1:15 AM | Permalink Right, Neuro, and the crude characterizations of Steve Lovelady - including allusion to a 12-letter Oedipal act - in your blog is really classy stuff. Right out of an Enlightenment salon. Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 25, 2006 11:13 AM | Permalink Abracadabra Economics. This reality-deficit thing is getting around. People are realizing that the anti-empiricism is, in fact, the new thing about Bush. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 25, 2006 6:26 PM | Permalink The four most powerful words in the English language are "I need your help." Powerful if you trust the person asking the question. There is no sense evaluating the performance of the press and the motivations of the Bush administration to perform rollback without evaluating the motivations of the press. Bush can't decertify a press that has the backing of the American people. Unfortunately, we've watched the press become scandal-mongers, hoping to find the next -gate, become the next Woodward and Bernstein. We watched the Lewinsky glee, we've watched the press demand answers about Jeff Gannon. Each new thing is treated as THE big thing. And so first Clinton and now Bush stopped trusting the motivations of the press. It is one thing to have an uncomfortable truce, the one Jay mentioned began with Kennedy. But I doubt Kennedy every felt the collective press was trying to get his office. And I bet both Clinton and Bush have felt that very thing. (as an aside, I will note that even Kerry during the election stopped courting the press, stopped having press conferences and unlimited conversations with national media). The American people stopped trusting the motivations of the press as well. We don't want all the drama of destruction. So the question is asked of all sides: how do you trust and work with people you (perhaps correctly) believe are hoping to destroy you? Posted by: MayBee at February 25, 2006 7:36 PM | Permalink Re Steve Lovelady's John Kifner story about Homer Bigart: wonderful. Posted by: David Crisp at February 25, 2006 8:03 PM | Permalink I'm told Brit Hume mentioned this post on his "Special Report" last night on Fox, and mis-identified me as being from Columbia J-school, which happens constantly. My source (a TV viewer in her robe) says they called me chairman at Columbia, not former chairman at NYU. This little Hume-gate is fascinating in itself. Jay is told by a witness that his position is mis-identified by Hume. Hume's quote on air is not only the opposite of what Jay has said, but in direct opposition to whatever point Hume was trying to make. The Fox website news blurb includes the word important word 'not'. A mis-identified misidentification, a misquote, a misstatement, and a mis-speak. Posted by: MayBee at February 25, 2006 11:08 PM | Permalink This reality-deficit thing is getting around. People are realizing that the anti-empiricism is, in fact, the new thing about Bush. It raises "because I said so" to a governing philosophy. That's where Kinsley really nails it. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 25, 2006 11:57 PM | Permalink For the uninitiated, Paul Craig Roberts, on Supply-side economics: .... Posted by: village idiot at February 26, 2006 12:31 AM | Permalink It raises "because I said so" to a governing philosophy. "That's where Kinsley really nails it." I think so too. There is no question that wise reporters learn to say, "I really don't know anything about this, can you fill me in? Can you help me write a good story?" Sometimes, they are reporters who know a great deal, but not necessarily what you know. Sometimes they know a great deal, period, but they have a method. In fact, they guy who wrote this article started that way in his first phone call to me. "I don't know anything about Craig or this world." I said: that's an advantage, actually. He said: I know. But it also makes me think: "well, I'll just explain Craig's site to this guy," and I had more of an interest in helping him with his story, trying harder in my explanations, e-mailing him tips. It works, in other words! And by the time his piece came he had Grokked it pretty well. So. I guess what some people are saying is, if you take this reporter ("I don't know anything about Craig or this world") and you put him on TV and watch him ask the questions that follow from that not-knowing, you might get the wrong impression of what's going on. There can be many reasons for asking what looks to us at home like a "terrible" question. You don't have to believe it. But that's what they're saying. The televised press conference may just be a net loser for journalists. In deference they are mocked. In aggression they are mocked. In civility they can be safely ignored. And even when they know what they are doing it looks like they may not. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 26, 2006 12:58 AM | Permalink Jay, here's a Jon Stewart riff that plays on your original point -- that the Cheney thing fits quite well into the larger pattern: "Here's a little story: a firm owned by Dubai's government has purchased the rights to operate seaports in six major American cities, a move the White House approved without telling Congress. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 26, 2006 2:40 PM | Permalink The flip side of the anti-empirical "because I said so" school of administration is the other finely honed skill of the Bush White House "government by talking point." As has been observed here at PressThink, at CJR Daily and at ABC's The Note, a journalism based on he-said, she-said but with no we-said, is particularly vulnerable to a political operation that treats all policy disputes as nothing more than debates between opposed opinions, or talking points, of equal rhetorical validity. In such a world, no policy position gets tested against empirical facts in the objective world, only against the countervailing positions of opponents, which can be dismissed out of hand under the rubric "consider the source." I believe that the political catastrophe that Hurricane Katrina represented for the Bush Administration (beyond the human catastrophe for the population of the Gulf Coast) was that it was a concrete reality that was immune to government by talking points. When Brian Williams and Shepard Smith and Anderson Cooper and Ted Koppel contradicted the statements of federal officials not with rival claims but with facts on the ground, talking points were exposed in their vacuousness... ...and working journalists received an unexpected boost to their morale and reputations. Katrina ushered in rollback of the rollback. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at February 26, 2006 5:24 PM | Permalink Yes, Andrew, Katrina certainly showed the superior accuracy and authority of the media. Did you take an extended vacation in October when all the media myths were being unwound? Meanwhile, the NY Times continues to serve as PR consultant to the terrorists: A Growing Afghan Prison Rivals Bleak Guantánamo. I wonder why Cheney doesn't trust their underlying sympathies? Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 26, 2006 6:38 PM | Permalink Well, at least the phony politeness is gone. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 26, 2006 6:59 PM | Permalink Neuro (love that tag): The New Orleans story you cite is a near-perfect example of a press in error trying its best to be self-correcting. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 26, 2006 7:21 PM | Permalink Neuro-conservative Anybody who thinks that the calamity that was Hurricane Katrina represents a shining success for this White House's style of governing is living in a delusional universe. Of course there were flaws in the news coverage of the disaster...but for you to assert that the existence of excesses and errors in coverage amounts to a vindication for President Bush and his leadership is perverse and callous. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at February 26, 2006 8:05 PM | Permalink Not exactly self-correcting, Steve. My link above was from nola.com (Times-Pic), but I didn't see Shepard Smith shouting or Anderson Cooper weeping about how bogus their week-long emo-fest was. And it was the week-long emo-fest that shaped public opinion (and apparently press opinion as well). Your tax-dollar argument is specious, insofar as it makes no consideration of context or proportion. Would you have wanted to know where your tax dollars were working on June 5, 1944? Would the plight of German POW's have occupied leading Page 1 real estate? You suggest that my "worldview" is blocked by a "mental construct." I suppose, by contrast, you and the New York Times see the world clearly for what it is -- a fundamentally innocent place trampled by the malignant force of US global hegemony and its ethics of torture. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 26, 2006 8:18 PM | Permalink Andrew Anybody who thinks that the calamity that was Hurricane Katrina represents a shining success for the MSM's style of reporting is living in a delusional universe. Of course there were flaws in the WH handling of the disaster...but for you to assert that the existence of excesses and errors in response amounts to a vindication for Anderson Cooper and Shepard Smith's bogus fanstasies is perverse and callous. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 26, 2006 8:20 PM | Permalink Would the plight of German POW's have occupied leading Page 1 real estate? No, because the Nazi soldiers were treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Great question, though, Neurocon. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 26, 2006 8:57 PM | Permalink Neuro-conservative... Fair enough. You caught me in an incompetent paraphrase, as the saying goes. It was wrong of me to read into your response a claim of "a shining White House success" or a "vindication for President Bush." Of course you never claimed success or vindication. There was neither. And only a fool would find it. However you did call the cable TV news coverage a "bogus emo-fest." Are you implying that it is bogus journalism to become emotional when confronted face-to-face by the crisis of thousands of people having their lives destroyed? And when you call the circumstances that they found "bogus fantasies" are you asserting that the desolation of New Orleans and its surrounding region is imaginary? What would you prefer? That the reporters surveyed the scene from thousands of feet in the air through a window of Air Force One instead? Surely it was better for reporters to be on the ground where the disaster was happening, even at the risk of the sight bringing tears to their eyes? And even at the risk of excesses and errors? It was not a "week-long emo-fest" that shaped public opinion. It was concrete empirical reality. A city was wiped out. And its poorest, weakest, sickest citizens suffered disproportionately. That is not an emotion. It is a fact. And it is a failure that belongs to the government not the news media. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at February 26, 2006 9:00 PM | Permalink Surely it was better for reporters to be on the ground where the disaster was happening, even at the risk of the sight bringing tears to their eyes? Better for reporters in Katrina to be embedded in the midst of the chaos, even at the risk of emotion, because it provided more information and concrete empirical reality. But in Iraq, an embedded reporter being in the midst provided lack of context and prohibited a big-picture view. Posted by: MayBee at February 26, 2006 9:31 PM | Permalink It was not a "week-long emo-fest" that shaped public opinion. It was concrete empirical reality. A city was wiped out. And its poorest, weakest, sickest citizens suffered disproportionately. That is not an emotion. It is a fact. And it is a failure that belongs to the government not the news media. -- Andrew Tyndall It is a fact that the city was (largely) wiped out, and many people suffered. But the suffering was (proximally and efficiently) caused by a hurricane and the subsequent flooding. This much was depicted by the emotional pictures at ground level. The relative role of human action and inaction at various levels of government (and even by the individual citizens themselves!) is a much more complicated matter, and one that was obscured, rather than clarified, by the Anderson Coopers of the world. Actually, I see some overlap here with my previous comments about global warming and the naturalistic fallacy. Cooper and the media jumped too quickly and irrationally from the is (suffering) to the ought (George Bush should fix this now!). Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 26, 2006 9:39 PM | Permalink Great point, MayBee -- and way to see the same thing happening in both situations. I was drawn to this quote from the article Neurocon linked to: That the nation's front-line emergency management believed the body count would resemble that of a bloody battle in a war is but one of scores of examples of myths about the Dome and the Convention Center treated as fact by evacuees, the media and even some of New Orleans' top officials, including the mayor and police superintendent. As the fog of warlike conditions in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath has cleared, the vast majority of reported atrocities committed by evacuees have turned out to be false, or at least unsupported by any evidence, according to key military, law enforcement, medical and civilian officials in positions to know. Same deal. Operative phrase here: Fog of War. I posited that in the case of the Invasion of Iraq, this was done on purpose, so as to portray a false feeling of having a grasp on the big picture. In the case of Katrina, blanket coverage was probably intended to convey a grasp on the big picture, some of which turned out to have been false. As has much of the reporting on the Iraq War. Heh. Especially the stuff on Foxnews. In other words: Fog Machine.
Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 26, 2006 9:43 PM | Permalink the Nazi soldiers were treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions As are the Al Qaeda detainees, who are unlawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions and are therefore not entitled to the same protections. But again, all of this is a matter of worldview, and one that is radically different between the NY Times/Richard B Simon on the one hand, and Bush/Cheney/the majority of ordinary Americans on the other. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 26, 2006 9:54 PM | Permalink I posited that in the case of the Invasion of Iraq, this was done on purpose, so as to portray a false feeling of having a grasp on the big picture. I disagree with you on the why. I'm certain the DoD hoped to get out its side of the story in what it considered to be a fair way. It was break-through stuff, and the very definition of open government. Had embedding not existed, it would have been clamored for by the press itself. We see the alternative now, when reporters barely dare leave the green zone, and the stories that come out of Iraq are more or less the stories that walk themselves right up to the reporters' doors. But on the 'what', I do agree with you. Getting emotionally involved in a story rarely leads to objectivity or good reporting. It shouldn't have been celebrated post-Katrina, and I haven't seen a correction that can match the intensity of the original faulty reporting. On this final point I'm sure we'll again disagree: I think the Katrina reporters remain unrepentant because they feel they accomplished something important to them. The rollback of the rollback indeed. Think of how often Ray Nagin's emotional anti-Bush rant played unchallenged at the height of the drama. Who decided that was so important, and why? Posted by: MayBee at February 26, 2006 10:06 PM | Permalink Your attempt to leave no daylight between yourself and Ken Mehlman has, I think, been entirely successful, NC. Here's PressThink on the claim to heroism in the press and the "recovered backbone" meme in post-Katrina coverage. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 26, 2006 10:37 PM | Permalink Neuro, the point you see to wish to avoid on the media's self-correction is that the New Orleans Times-Picayune wasn't the only news outlet that reported extensively on the reporting errors made during Hurricane Katrina. The LA Times, the Baltimore paper, the Times and NBC News, both made similar reports as the New Orleans' paper at roughly the same time. I understand that doesn't fit into the simplistic frame you try to fit around the media. But that's not really my problem. Of course there were mistakes -- horrendous mistakes. The bigger the disaster, the more likely communication lines will be broken, the command structure dislocated and a populace that is frightened and unsure of what's happening. It's a recipe for misinformation. The point isn't that the media didn't get it right the first time - but that the media continued reporting as the facts began to be corrected. The story continued to be refined by fact and detail. In the early days of the storm, they reported the facts as they knew them. The story is still being reported by accounts from the government's own after-action study that But I don't think that's your concern. A faulty, perhaps intentionally bad media is a much tidier fit to your world view than the complexities of reality. Again, that's not my problem. I find the belief that a reporter's emotional involvement in a story is, somehow, suspect. The emotionalish of CNN's Cooper, aside, I can assure you that every photograph, every word written that attempted to convey the scope of a disaster that covered a part of the Gulf Coast the size of Great Britain was etched in emotional response to the human suffering observed. The alchemist's work of journalism involves combining that emotional response to the human story with the facts observed. If there isn't some emotional response, you get a flat, sterile view of the world -- one that lets some people approve of torture because it meets the some narrowly defined legalisms. Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 26, 2006 11:03 PM | Permalink Jay, it is odd that you trot out the tired "talking points" meme rather than actually addressing my points, especially since we are in some agreement on Katrina: Pressthink: An intelligent and nuanced answer to that is worth a lot more to journalists than righteous indignation, because if your rage overcomes your realism you will eventually sound ridiculous even to those who share the feeling. Neuro-conservative: The relative role of human action and inaction at various levels of government (and even by the individual citizens themselves!) is a much more complicated matter, and one that was obscured, rather than clarified, by the Anderson Coopers of the world. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 26, 2006 11:04 PM | Permalink "But again, all of this is a matter of worldview, and one that is radically different between the NY Times/Richard B Simon on the one hand, and Bush/Cheney/the majority of ordinary Americans on the other." -- Neuro. "The majority of ordinary Americans" ?? Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 26, 2006 11:07 PM | Permalink Maybe, best I remember, the media reported statements by both Mayor Nagin, Gov. Blanco, Michael Chertoff and President Bush. Apparently you don't recognize that the Bush administration's frequently reported views that the initial failure of disaster relief in Louisiana was the governor's and mayor's fault as a response to 'anti-Bush rants.' Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 26, 2006 11:08 PM | Permalink Neuro, how exactly does Anderson Cooper define the totality of journalism? Media is a plural now for a reason. Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 26, 2006 11:09 PM | Permalink Quick; somebody please alert the congressional investigators ASAP of the culpability of Messrs. Cooper, Smith, and Rivera for the incompetent response of FEMA to the Katrina disaster. Posted by: village idiot at February 26, 2006 11:21 PM | Permalink Dave -- If I were Jay, I would accuse you of an incompetent paraphrase. It seems that many here would rather respond to a caricature of what they imagine a conservative (or a Rove-bot) to be, rather than address my actual points (see here also). In so doing, they project their own tendency to oversimplify onto me. I really was not intending to get into the details of Katrina, and have been trying to avoid re-hashing that debate, but I found Andrew Tyndall's triumphalism to be absurd (and oddly dated -- I thought even the media stopped feeling so good about itself by late September). Along the way, I noticed a philosophical parallel to another debate that I thought was interesting. Note that I have expressed no opinions about the performance of "Brownie" or the White House. I have even restrained myself from Nagin-bashing, even though there are some media-relevant points to be made about his portrayal. As for the NYTimes/Bagram/torture issue, I again do not intend to use PressThink's bandwidth to fight the substantive policy merits of the case. My point is about PressThink. The NY Times clearly is highly concerned about the welfare of terrorist detainees. They ran, what, 48 consecutive front-page articles on Abu Ghraib? How many other topics have hit that mark? While this may set ACLU hearts aflutter, the average American is much more concerned about killing terrorists, and is more than willing to give our Armed Forces the benefit of the doubt. This article from The American Thinker gives a concise run-down of cultural issues that used to form a relative consensus in this country, that now are at the heart of the culture wars. The article argues that the "traditional" views remain the majority viewpoint. I would extend the point by suggesting that the country is 60%+ on the issues listed, but the press is 60%+ the other way, and this is a major source of the mutual distrust. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 26, 2006 11:37 PM | Permalink Apparently you don't recognize that the Bush administration's frequently reported views that the initial failure of disaster relief in Louisiana was the governor's and mayor's fault as a response to 'anti-Bush rants.' Oh, I recognize Bush's views and how they were reported vs. the way Nagin's views were reported. I also recognize the emotion with which each was reported, and the direction and force of the collective media outrage. Posted by: MayBee at February 27, 2006 12:07 AM | Permalink The NY Times clearly is highly concerned about the welfare of terrorist detainees. They ran, what, 48 consecutive front-page articles on Abu Ghraib? How many other topics have hit that mark? While this may set ACLU hearts aflutter, the average American is much more concerned about killing terrorists, and is more than willing to give our Armed Forces the benefit of the doubt. Do you consider the possibility that the Times is largely giving its readers what they want? The 60% average americans in your example should perhaps sign up for the Moonie Times, or maybe the National Review? Everybody stays happy. Posted by: village idiot at February 27, 2006 12:08 AM | Permalink 1. Bush/Cheney/the majority of ordinary Americans LOL! 2. The NY Times clearly is highly concerned about the welfare of terrorist detainees. Well, speaking for the Richard B. Simon/New York Times, I can tell you that what we are concerned about is the moral authority of the United States of America (the nation formerly known as "shining city on a hill"), and how its diminishment lessens our nation's ability to inspire global leadership by example. 3. terrorist detainees. As it turns out, not all these folks are terrorists. Hence, the problem of treating them all as such. See #2. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 27, 2006 12:09 AM | Permalink vi -- It is fine with me if the NY Times wants to be the public relations arm of the ACLU. Much of Eric Schmitt's reporting over the years is drawn straight from their press releases. Just don't call it the paper of record, or expect it to call the shots for the daily news cycle without challenge. Unfortunately, most of the 60+% I refer to do not have the option of a daily newspaper that reflects their basic worldview. That is why more and more turn to alternative sources. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 27, 2006 12:18 AM | Permalink Go see CSA: Confederate States of America. The society it portrays is the dream of most of the conservative posts linked to in this discussion. No "multiculturalism" -- only monolithic white, Christian, heterosexual, male dominant culture. Everyone else is a slave. I finally understand "modern conservatism." Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 27, 2006 12:23 AM | Permalink Richard B. Simon -- With your disgusting slander, you have taken yourself out of the realm of debate. I will not address you further. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 27, 2006 12:33 AM | Permalink I wasn't talking about your conservative beliefs, Neuro. Or your Rovean leanings. I was talking about your reliance on over-simplified arguments about media coverage and your apparent inability to deal with the complexities of news coveage. Though your detain-them-all-let-God-sort-out-the-guilty defense of Guantanamo does speak for itself. Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 27, 2006 12:41 AM | Permalink Unfortunately, most of the 60+% I refer to do not have the option of a daily newspaper that reflects their basic worldview. That is why more and more turn to alternative sources. In my world, we call that pent-up demand; in other words, a sure-shot business opportunity. I wonder why, in this nation of entrepreuners, nobody has yet taken advantage of it. On second thoughts, maybe they have; these folks' hunger for unbiased news is perhaps fully satiated by RNC 'civil-war-in-Iraq-is-good' talking points repeated hypnotically by "alternative sources". Posted by: village idiot at February 27, 2006 12:45 AM | Permalink ...RNC 'civil-war-in-Iraq-is-good' talking points... -- village idiot In my field, there is a word for this. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at February 27, 2006 12:58 AM | Permalink New topic proposal.... has "Pressthink" outlived its usefulness? This is not a dig at Jay, but as a blog like Pressthink becomes more prominent, it tends to attract people whose ideological goals are at odds with the purpose of the blog itself. (You know you've gone through the looking glass when commenters compare reporters "embedded" with US units in Iraq with reporters "embedded" on the ground in New Orleans during the Katrina disaster. ) The discussion has simply become non-sensical. Posted by: ami AKA plukasiak at February 27, 2006 7:08 AM | Permalink Paul: I would prefer that you post as P. Lukasiak rather than fake name, fake gender "ami," so with a promise to abide by the rules of the forum (no troll behavior or substance-free personal attacks) the ban is lifted, at least until PressThink shuts down, having outlived its own utility. Meanwhile, there's Another White House Briefing, Another Day of Mutual Mistrust by Katharine Seelye in the New York Times. I say most of the ideas in it appeared here first--that's utility!--but you be the judge. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 27, 2006 8:32 AM | Permalink Neuro-conservative: Let me comment on your comment: "I found Andrew Tyndall's triumphalism to be absurd (and oddly dated -- I thought even the media stopped feeling so good about itself by late September)." I did not acclaim a press triumph in Katrina coverage. I merely noted an "unexpected boost in morale and reputations" when reporters changed their style. Instead of countering a "he-said" with a "she-said," they responded to the "he-said" with "what I observed." You are right that their observations were vulnerable to error. I never said that the virtue of the method was freedom from error. Its virtue is that it offers an escape from the rhetorical hall of mirrors of dueling talking points. I took Jay's advice and returned to PressThink on the claim to heroism in the press and the "recovered backbone" meme in post-Katrina coverage. It too emphasized the improved method of coverage and criticized simplistic claims of a triumphal newly-formed backbone. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at February 27, 2006 9:11 AM | Permalink this has been a truly amazing thread. a sociologist could write a dissertation on this thread. Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 27, 2006 9:36 AM | Permalink I believe the Augusta Golf Club got more NYT ink than Abu Ghraib. That must be what the public wanted. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 27, 2006 10:00 AM | Permalink What would be the subject? Good question. Out of curiosity, how many of your posts have collected 500+ comments? What's your record? Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 27, 2006 10:13 AM | Permalink (Neurocon, sorry if I offended your sense of political correctness and self-righteous indignation. I have been alerted to several posts during this discussion which were intended to explain to me why conservatives look at the major news outlets and see "liberal bias" and "culture war". The one word I noticed in common, among most of them, was "multiculturalism." This was defined as the problem with "the media" and with "Liberals." The opposite of multiculturalism would be monoculturalism. You can use all the euphemism you want, but it is pretty clear that monoculturalism is no different from "white supremacy." [As to the gender part -- see Richard Aubrey's underhand complaint above, about the ink awarded to a dispute over a national golf tournament being played at a men-only golf club.] As I now understand the "bias war", it will continue until the New York Times portrays a world in which "all men are created equal" does not extend to non-caucasians or non-Christians who do not conform or convert to match the dominant culture of Fargo, North Dakota. How else do you explain the common bias warrior complaint of "multiculturalism"? From the article YOU LINKED TO: The American mainstream upholds the American cultural tradition. The liberal-Left shills for multiculturalism. To go on topic, for a moment, is the Vice President, when he supports his daughter, undermining the traditional American family as the "American Thinker" purports, when it accuses Liberals of undermining -the natural complementarity of the two human sexes; by supporting his daughter and whomever she choses to love? (I'll tell you, fellow American. I teach at a public college in which caucasian faces are rare. Students here are from Afghanistan, Japan, China, Mexico, Russia, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, and on and on. Many are not citizens. They are Muslim, Christian, atheist, Buddhist, you name it. Some of them are gay. You know how they refer to the America that is fighting in Iraq? "We." Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 27, 2006 10:33 AM | Permalink Richard Simon's been having a hard time. First, he confirms the maxim that a racist is one who's won an argument with a liberal. As a part of that, he deliberately--oops, make that accidentally and delusionally but honestly--figures I wanted the August Golf Club to continue its men-only policy when I was remarking about the "public wants to know" schtick which was promoted as the reason for All Abu Ghraib All The Time, instead of some other reason. Then, through no fault of his own, seeing as he's honest, he set up the embedsbadinIraq so that it could be compared to the equivalentofembedsgoodinNOLA. And he accidentally to be sure finds the primary concern of conservatives to be "multiculturalism", which he equally accidentally and inadvertently compares to "monoculturalism" which he also figures must mean straight white guys rule. Wrong on all counts. However, seeing as "multiculturalism" means all cultures are perfectly wonderful except ours which is perfectly vile, his point might make some sense. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 27, 2006 10:44 AM | Permalink Daniel: This is the record. The only 500 comment post so far. But that's partly because I have posted less frequently because I am working on Blue Plate Special (first one due this week) and because John Harris quit on me. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 27, 2006 11:01 AM | Permalink Dan and Jay: How about "The Media as Magic Mirror: Seeing what you want to see"? There could be one chapter just on Richard alone. Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 27, 2006 11:03 AM | Permalink Neuro -- My question, and it's a serious one, is, why would you -- or anyone -- want "a daily newspaper that reflects their basic worldview" ? You would just end up with a print version of all those partisan blogs whose content consists mainly of self-reverential backpatting amongst likeminded contributors. As Dave notes, it's so much easier (and less time-consuming) just to look in the mirror. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 27, 2006 11:35 AM | Permalink TA wrote: Simon: You might start with these journalists' explications of our dominant media's liberal bias and political correctness: From the "Bias" article: A much more extensively researched and annotated report on rampant political correctness in journalism—at The New York Times and The Washington Post, among other papers—is William McGowan's Coloring the News.(emphasis added) This from "Coloring the news": America is at a demographic and public policy crossroads. But just when information about its changing national identity needs to be robust, knowledgeable and honest, the ongoing media crusade for diversity has made American journalism weaker, particularly on complex stories involving race, gay rights, feminism, affirmative action and immigration. Encouraging a narrow orthodoxy that restricts debate and affirms identity politics, this crusade has fostered a journalistic climate in which important reporting is often skewed; facts that call into question a preconceived, pro-diversity script get short shrift; and double standards that favor “oppressed” groups over others become the norm.(emphasis added) This from Neurocon's "American Thinker" article: The American mainstream upholds the American cultural tradition. The liberal-Left shills for multiculturalism. (emphasis added)(emphasis added) Given this evidence (yes, this is only part of it), what other conclusion should I draw about the point of view of "conservatives" who decry the "liberal media"? It's pretty clear, friend. Some of you guys are afraid of changing demographics. America's identity as a white, Christian nation is threatened. You want to see that old identity reflected in the NYT and Washington Post. Otherwise, it's liberal. But the Washington Post is the Washington, D.C. paper -- and Washington, DC is a mostly black city. And New York is the most ethnically diverse city on earth. Its local paper is the New York Times. I'm sorry that the newspaper is not telling you what you want to hear -- that the American Way is white and Christian and threatened. It's more complex than that now. I understand that that is hard to deal with -- and I'm not saying that means you're a racist. It means you're a conservative: you don't like change. Dictionary definition. You could look it up. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 27, 2006 1:59 PM | Permalink "It means you're a conservative: you don't like change. Dictionary definition. You could look it up." So in terms of the media would you be considered a conservative since you hate the breakup of the Left's monopoly of the news business? Posted by: joe at February 27, 2006 2:15 PM | Permalink Not exactly OT, but backing up for a better look: There are many journalists who, if we hear of them at all, it is only through their work product. It would be silly to say, "journalists seem to think" or "journalism thinks", so I won't. I will say that the journalists who have been most outspoken--that I have heard of--missed the big, big story. It wasn't the rigged-to-explode pickup truck. Most viewers know that the TV magazine shows merchandise outrage and expect to find, charitably, little nuance. This was just more of the same except they got caught this time. You don't seem to realize what a big hit journalism took over the fake memos. Not only did somebody forge miltary documents--generally considered a no-no--but they did so in a transparent effort to throw an election in a time of war. And CBS, after availing itself of the freedom to fire the consultants who tried to tell them the stuff was dicey, ran it. Somebody suggested that, had the story not been caught until after the election, and had Gore won--whether or not it would be pinned on the forgery--CBS would swap its opening theme music for a gotcha-scornful laughtrack. You can tell yourselves and each other whatever you wish, between yourselves. On the outside, guys, this is huge, and ruinous. You can't say a single thing that bothers a viewer or reader without having Rathergate come to mind. "They're putting us on again." You're so far down the well.... What Anderson Cooper did or didn't do in NOLA is just chocolate sprinkles on the Titanic. Whether the NYT deliberately or only accidentally cuts soldiers' letters to make them look bad and at one-eighty from their obvious intent is practically meaningless. Getting caught at this stuff no longer elicits surprise from the general population. Back to mixing metaphors, when things get really, really scary, being concerned about how the deck chairs are arranged can be comforting. But you're still going down. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 27, 2006 2:46 PM | Permalink Simon: I don't think you have conservatives correctly pegged. In my view, the bulk of conservatives' resistance to so-called "multiculturalism" is less a desire to preserve one group's ideals to the exclusion of others - - it's more a resistance to having another group's ideals elevated to the exclusion of conservative values. Although there are exceptions, I believe many conservatives simply would settle for both groups of values being allowed to compete freely in the "melting pot" approach, instead of the former torn down and supplanted by the latter. So I guess the subject title I would offer for Conover's sociologist dissertation on this thread is: a) don't understand each other,...but they think they do." Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 27, 2006 4:07 PM | Permalink Conservative values are being excluded by multicultural ones? On what planet? I fail to see how recognition that this nation is made up of myriad cultures and beliefs is an exclusion to conservative values - whatever those may be. And please don't say love of God and love of country. I know too many non-conservatives doing God's work or whose names are inscribed on the Vietnam Memorial. Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 27, 2006 4:31 PM | Permalink Thanks, TA. At least we're trying! My read is that this is exactly what is happening -- that these ideas ARE competing on the field of ideas, and that the ideals of multiculturalism -- that America is strongest when it is a melting pot, and absorbs and reflects the flavors of the many disparate cultures that its immigrants bring -- is winning. Culturally speaking, that is. And that that is why cultural conservatives are upset. They are used to (culturally) being the only game in town. It was not too long ago that every face on tv was white, and every family on tv was understood to be Christian. That's not so anymore, and it's not reflected in "the media" -- whether you're talking about film, tv, or the news -- or music. Still, that any "one group's ideals" are being "elevated" to the exception of conservative values sounds very bizarre at a time when the White House, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court are controlled by conservative majorities. I guess the conservative read is that someone has taken control of the culture and jiggered the discourse in favor of "multiculturalism." But if "multiculturalism" is opposed to "conservative values", then my question is what are conservative values? Come to think of it, a real multiculturalism would include conservative culture as one of those disparate cultures. And, in fact, it does. So, again, I'm not sure how competition of ideas in a melting pot is the opposite of multiculturalism. It sounds to me like the exact same thing, actually.
Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 27, 2006 4:44 PM | Permalink But you're still going down. Dream on, Richard. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 27, 2006 5:18 PM | Permalink Simon: The problem is that it seems we're not exactly getting "a real multiculturalism" as you describe. Instead we too often get virtual monocultures, a kind of ideological-masquerading-as-intellectual bigotry and apparent religious discrimination. Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 27, 2006 6:01 PM | Permalink RBS, I would agree with you that "So, again, I'm not sure how competition of ideas in a melting pot is the opposite of multiculturalism. It sounds to me like the exact same thing, actually." You ask the question, what are conservative values? I believe that Conservative and Liberal values are not really all that far apart. The major American Value is that they do now want the government poking around in their lives. Liberals do not want them worrying about cultural matters, conservatives are more worried about property matters. Another major American Value is that no one group should have too much power. That is the overriding concern in the Constitution. That is the imputus for all the corporation bashing among liberals, and the government relaxation of morals among conservatives. However, both sides seem to have a problem with the press. This is where a blog like PressThink helps everyone understand the press's relationship with politicians, news and the public. My major concern is how to control and harnass the power of the press, in the current environment to improve itself in resisting the attempts by corporations(both profit and non-profit), government and individuals to "game" the system. I believe that the Press is being "gamed" by everyone else. I am just concerned that they have no idea that it is going on. Interesting, TA. Here's my response. 1. You do see the irony of linking to a Washington Post article here, right? 2. re: shortage of conservatives in academia. The James Miller article is a refutation of Krugman's piece. Krugman's argument is that the current anti-science trend in Republican Party politics may have alienated scientists. I would have to agree. This hearkens back to the core message of this post -- the Rollback not of the press -- and also of all the traditional American fields of reality verification. The press, science, academia, and the judiciary stand out as the targets of the current crop of Republican leaders. Not conservatives, mind you. Republicans. If I were a Republican climate scientist, and I found that my party had become the party of naysaying and donothingism on climate, I would defect. I think that's Krugman's point. Just like if I were (say) a Republican counterterrorism chief, and my party had become the party of using terrorism for political advantage, rather than fighting it smartly, I might defect. 3. As to WHY there is an overall political imbalance on campuses, I have not seen any objective, empirical research done to answer the question. My guess (as a poorly-paid adjunct professor at two colleges, one public and one parochial) is that it may have to do with economics. My read is that economic conservatives are not going to go into fields that pay poorly after spending serious time and fortune on advanced degrees. That's not an accusation of greed, but an acknowledgement that fiscal conservatives do what makes fiscal sense. And I'll tell you from first-hand experience, going into teaching does not make good fiscal sense. Especially not if you have educational loans to pay off. I'll tell you that in my (public school) division, some of the people I know to be conservatives teach speech. In that field, there are no papers to grade, so you can teach a 6-course load, rather than maxing out at a 4-course load. That makes fiscal sense. That's fiscal conservatism. 3. re: menorah vs. creche, I see and understand the court's decision -- and I understand how people could take this the wrong way. The court held that the Christmas TREE -- as a non-religious holiday symbol -- could stay, while the creche -- a religious holiday symbol -- had to go. The menorah -- really the only symbol of Hanukah -- could stay. That's because Hanukah is NOT A RELIGIOUS HOLIDAY. It IS a Jewish cultural holiday that celebrates a minor military victory, elevated to central status so that minority Jews would have something to do on their state-mandated Christmas vacations. I absolutely understand how Christians could take this the wrong way. But what I am understanding is their misunderstanding of what a menorah is, and what Hanukah is. A Hanukah menorah is not a religious symbol, because Hanukah is not a religious holiday. Glad you said "apparent" religious discrimination. Apparent, yes. Discrimination, not quite. This was only an issue because it was being paid for with muncipal tax dollars -- hence triggering the establishment clause. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 27, 2006 6:43 PM | Permalink (sorry -- meant to preview. The municipality didn't pay for the creche here.) Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 27, 2006 6:48 PM | Permalink p.luk/ami- Posted by: MayBee at February 27, 2006 6:56 PM | Permalink Tim: That was a remarkably succinct summation, and an excellent one. Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 27, 2006 6:57 PM | Permalink regarding eyewitness reporting: let's not confuse being on the ground, away from the press briefing room, seeing things with your own eyes, as being the same thing as being "embedded." to wit: an embedded reporter in the IraqWar 2.0 sense was someone who was assigned to a unit. that unit was responsible for providing that reporter with the basic necessities of life in the field, including transport and security. An embedded reporter in IW 2.0 was, in essence, beholden to his/her unit. a reporter covering Katrina might be up close to the suffering, but he/she had independent freedom of movement and action. different animal. There's a great tradition of frontline war correspondents, and it didn't stop with Ernie Pyle. There was some great reporting from Vietnam, and I think John Sack's IW 1.0 book "Company C" rang incredibly true. But as Robert Young Pelton said in Danny Schecter's movie, the problem with the 2003 embed program was that in many cases we got Stockholm Syndrome reporting, or thrill-seeking reporting, or career-building reporting, or cheerleading reporting. It was great TV, great newspaper storytelling, but was the end result a pointilistic portrait or a distortion? I really don't have a problem with embedding. But you can't stop at embedding, and if you're making too many deals for access, you've got a problem. Do reporters sometimes identify emotionally with the people they're covering? Of course. They're human, and we want them to be. To me the issue isn't what occurs at the embed level, it's what happens at the decision-maker level. How do you draw from the various info sources at your command to produce the best, most meaningful, real-time picture of what's going on? The press got hoodwinked by the military in IW 2.0, but it wasn't embedded reporters who bought the Jessica Lynch propaganda. Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 27, 2006 7:20 PM | Permalink Daniel- I completely agree with this: To me the issue isn't what occurs at the embed level, it's what happens at the decision-maker level. How do you draw from the various info sources at your command to produce the best, most meaningful, real-time picture of what's going on? Excellent question. It is the decision-maker level that seems to be falling short. Posted by: MayBee at February 27, 2006 7:41 PM | Permalink i noticed how the conservation drifted to Katrina ... Posted by: bush's jaw at February 27, 2006 8:20 PM | Permalink Someone asked if the blog I participate on had any (I think the thrust of the phrase was) corrective information on Katrina and New Orleans--In fact, it did: There were reports from the DMAT (Defense Medical Assistance teams deployed shortly after the hurricane struck, reports from those resonsible for the deployment of the Strategic National Stockpile into sites in Louisiana, and the first hand observations of one of the logistic coordinators who participated in the recovery phase of Katrina and is also a blogger. Thanks for asking! My major concern is how to control and harness the power of the press in the current environment to improve itself in resisting the attempts by corporations (both profit and non-profit), government and individuals to "game" the system. Tim, in my role as a press watchdog (what a dumb term; my wife has started calling me Fido; but that's another story), I get lots of emails from the serfs who make up the working press. And if the entreaties I receive are any indication, they know exactly what's going on. But they don't know how to combat it (see Gregory, David) -- and that is what drives them fucking crazy. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 27, 2006 10:49 PM | Permalink you only need to stray a few blocks from the French Quarter or Garden District to see the devastation - trash, boarded structures with X marks, no street lights in some downtown intersections, high rises with busted windows. everyone in and around New Orleans is pleading for help from the federal government or anyone, anyone. Sorry, B.J.; Mayor Nagin overstated the problem and made us in the Administration look bad. He and his city needs to be punished; they are on their own .... Posted by: village idiot at February 27, 2006 11:13 PM | Permalink The minions of multiculturalism: .... Posted by: village idiot at February 27, 2006 11:44 PM | Permalink Village. Ref Minions, etc. True enough. And there seems to be no particular felt need to be sensitive to the offended. Some reports are that they are insulted as being---racist, homophobe, misogynist, the usual litany, for the crime of being offended while white, straight, and male. All this in the midst of sessions supposely designed to reduce the general level of offensiveness. Actually, it's a sign of too many buttheads in positions of power. I know that Hannukah is not originally a religious holiday. It celebrates a military triumph. Which is why a common Hannukah present could be an embossed, leather-bound volume of "The Rifle Company in The Night Attack", or "Battalion Defense of A Riverline and Related Operations". Or plastic swords and little bows. Whatever its origin, it seems to have morphed in the way it's treated. When I was going to an elementary school in near northwest Detroit in the Fifties, the admin would take a count to see how many kids would be gone for the next Jewish Holiday(s). There were so many that the school would have a holiday--so to speak. We gentiles, in solidarity with our Hebraic brethren, raised our hands for the count, as well. That way, the Jewish kids would be assured of the required time off. Nice of us, I thought. And Hannukah seemed to be treated as if it were a religious holiday. I suppose we could change that....? Back to journalism: When discussing various stories with reporters and being thanked for the input, I have been asked if I minded being contacted again in case of a story in the same general area. I presume this is the standard ego-stroking put-off. You journos can let us in on that, I expect. However, if a paper really was interested in avoiding some of the howlers that affect daily reporting, they could certainly, in this day of instant retrieval and so forth, have a list of sources who could be contacted by robot phone to look at their e-mail for a story on which they might like to provide input, if only to point out potential pitfalls. Bigger papers could even pay the folks. Fifty bucks a pop for comments, more for a bit of research. That way, the NYT wouldn't have to sully itself by having, say, veterans on the premises, but could still find ways to avoid what they continually claim are mistakes. If I can figure this out, so can these hard-nosed, seen-it-all editors who are constantly striving to improve and all that jazz. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 28, 2006 7:49 AM | Permalink Wow, over 500 comments and no Hitler-style flame war. Cool! I'm also interested in Steve Lovelady's comment that people in journalism complain to him about corporate manipulation of the news, or something like that. I'm curious what types of things they're complaining about? Is it mostly young kids being told what to do by their elders, or do you feel they really have a legitimate gripe? Posted by: Tony at February 28, 2006 7:57 AM | Permalink Steve, If you know you are being "gamed" and you continue to do tha same old thing, how can you expect different results? In a thread a couple of months ago Jay asked the question "Can the NYT learn anything?" In my view, the press is gotten itself in a box, that they are unwilling (or unable) to escape from. They are still responsible for resisting (or not resisting), all the gaming that is going on. At the end of the day it is the press that decides what is in the paper or shown on TV, not the government, not corporations (profit and non-profit, not politicians. Right now many people do not believe it has been up to that task, either in their reporting or their delivery methods. Just to keep things as accurate as possible, Tony.... I would say that although in general personal attack-based debate techniques, which generally trigger those "Hitler-style flame wars," are usually absent here, Roger B Simon felt it was particularly important in this case to lend credence to his analysis by saying that: "Go see CSA: Confederate States of America. The society it portrays [CSA] is the dream of most of the conservative posts linked to in this discussion. No "multiculturalism" -- only monolithic white, Christian, heterosexual, male dominant culture. Everyone else is a slave." This was directed at all those "conservative" voices here (what, the maybe 5 or 6 that sometimes post?). On the one hand, comments like that make me chuckle knowing my own personal history, for example, but on the other hand, it makes me sad because it demonstrates the why of why it's so hard to solve actual real-world problems. Posted by: Kristen at February 28, 2006 8:29 AM | Permalink Richard Simon asks to be taken as being honest. Simon, however, is honest. He actually believes this stuff. Too bad he looks exactly like the other crew. "Disagree with me and I'll call you a racist." Doesn't he know that wore out years ago? BTW. ref Hannukah. When do we Christians get to take Tours-Lepanto Day off? Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 28, 2006 9:57 AM | Permalink re: gaming. what's sad is that the press created the rules of the game, and we cling to those rules even though the other players have clearly figured out how to change the game. but because we've defined those rules in such high-minded terms, now we're stuck with them. In modern terms, the rules say that journalists must always bring a knife to a gunfight. We know this is crazy, but we can't figure out how to change. My opinion, anyway. Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 28, 2006 10:28 AM | Permalink Kirsten--you may be mixing names up a bit--understandable after a particularlly long thread: There is Richard B Simon, to who's post you referred; there is Roger L Simon, who has his own blog; and there is me, rogera. While I have nothing to do with the CSA, I am happy to report my sainted grandmother and great aunt were both United Daughters of the Confedaracy--what is that: two degrees of separation? PIMF: conderarcy = confederacy Posted by: RogerA at February 28, 2006 10:37 AM | Permalink Tony -- Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 28, 2006 10:41 AM | Permalink Rogera....who are you talking to? "Kirsten--you may be mixing names up a bit--understandable after a particularlly long thread: There is Richard B Simon, to who's post you referred; there is Roger L Simon, who has his own blog; and there is me, rogera." First off, it's Kristen, not Kirsten, if you're indeed referring to me. I think Jay made that mistake earlier, too, but no big deal b/c you're right, it's understandable in long threads, and Kirsten and Kristen are close. But....oookay...... I already was aware that there's a Roger B Simon, a Roger L Simon (both with blogs actually, I believe), and you, rogera..... What am I missing here? I'm confused. Posted by: Kristen at February 28, 2006 10:53 AM | Permalink Sorry Kristen nee Kirsten--in your 8:29 above you cited Roger B Simon rather than Richard B Simon. Posted by: rogera at February 28, 2006 11:11 AM | Permalink My apologies, to you, too, rogera. My bad on poor transcribing. Thanks for clearing that up for me. roger and richard, kirsten and kristen, too funny.... :) Posted by: Kristen at February 28, 2006 11:18 AM | Permalink PressThink - - bringing you insight before it's news (link is to Drudge report of Bush's view on "Rollback"/Self-Delegitimization... Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 28, 2006 11:18 AM | Permalink (Kristen, et al -- I knew that post was inflammatory. Interesting to see those opposed to "political correctness" get all bent out of shape by some words ... but the point is that I was referring not to all the conservative posters here, but to the general opposition to "multiculturalism" that I found to be the common thread in the articles that a few folks linked to above as examples of why conservatives see the media as hopelessly and incorrectly "liberal". My logical leap was to guess that people opposed to multiculturalism then must believe in monoculturalism. (I'm pretty sure Tim -- and Trained Auditor -- were willing to meet me halfway with a discussion here. Thanks for that -- and for tying it back to topic, Tim. No intent to start a flame war, and have been pleased to see instead a reasoned discussion continue here. (Love that story from 1992, btw, VI -- though for a Princeton senior, the woman ain't much of a writer. That was the peak of the identity politics thing. I found it annoying, too, to be honest -- but I understood why it was happening. This was merely subjugated minorities of all stripes asserting themselves through language and study. Sometimes you guys forget that the vote came to women during the lives of people still alive, and that black Americans weren't guaranteed the right to vote in the USA until 1964. That's like yesterday, in the adult lives of many of the folks in the room. Get over it, right? (I guess it's no less understandable, then, that conservatives are still bent out of shape about something that happened in 1992.) But as far as the Press is ocncerned, I think what's done is done. You're not going to put multiculturalism back in the bottle by brutalizing the "liberal media" -- because this reflects the face of America. Or did you not see the olympics on tv? Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 28, 2006 11:41 AM | Permalink Steve, Posted by: Tony at February 28, 2006 11:47 AM | Permalink Oh, for chrissake. Posted by: Tony at February 28, 2006 11:52 AM | Permalink “There is so much ugliness and viciousness and fundamental untruths that the blogosphere transmits,” he lamented. “It also is a vehicle for ugly rumors, for scurrilous personal attacks, an avenue for the creation of urban legends which are deeply corrosive of the political system and of people’s faith in it.” Says Karl Rove!!! Unbelievable. You know, in my neck of the woods, the "Alternative Press" was writing in 2002 about Halliburton's private army.
Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 28, 2006 11:53 AM | Permalink depends on the definition of "gamed." Posted by: bush's jaw at February 28, 2006 11:54 AM | Permalink If a tree fell in the forest and no one was around to hear it, would the Leftwing media blame the Bush Administration? Posted by: andrew at February 28, 2006 12:26 PM | Permalink What I mean by "gamed" is the ability to get you to report what I want you to report whether it makes any difference or not. I do not use "gamed" as a negative verb. Everyone does it for an advantage in every industry. The Chaney reporting is an excellent example. This incident in the grand scheme of things is rather unimportant and will be forgotton by most of us within 5 years. I really affects only a few people, except those who have an axe to grind. But guess what, the press was "gamed" to have it be the headline story for an entire week. The delay in reporting kept off of Saturday Night Live. The initial report went to a local outlet to leave the Sunday morning talk shows mostly in the dark. These are all steps one would take to use the press to their advantage. Guess what, the critic did the same thing. Accusations were made with little or no basis in fact that were valid because information was not available from good sources. The result was the WH corp was mad and reported the accusations with little or no basis. Everyone won, except the press. They were made to look like they were after a scalp(Cheney's), which led to accusations that the press was biased. Anyone could have planned the actions, anticipated the reation, and "gamed" the press. It is really too easy. Is this what happened? I haven't the foggiest idea, but this is what it looked like. The real question Daniel and Roger, is what should have the reporting been to eliminate this confusion, or do I have it wrong. The very profitability of newspapers appear to play an essential role in their decline. Profits trump information gathering everytime. From the State of the Media 2005 report: "As businesses, newspapers are strong, highly profitable and resilient. In good times and mediocre, the industry now boasts operating margins in the low-to-mid-20% range, a bit less than Microsoft and Dell but higher even than pharmaceuticals." The report makes clear that to bolster those profits, media operations have cut back drastically on newsroom staffs and budgets. * Between the recession of 1991-2000, newspaper advertising revenues climbed 60 percent with profits rising 207 percent. Increases in newsroom personnel were about 3 percent, “most of which then got wiped away during the 2001 downturn.” * Newspapers have about 2,200 fewer newsroom employees today than in 1990 with “work once done by printers and composing room workers” migrating to the newsroom, adding more jobs “related to production rather than news gathering.” It's no prettier on the electronic side. A study by Joe Foote, Gaylord chairman at the University of Oklahoma School of Journalism, indicates the number of network correspondents “since the 1980s has been cut by a third,” with workload increasing by 30 percent during the same period. * In local television, “average workload increased 20 percent between 1998 and 2002,” and “59 percent of news directors reported either budget cuts or staff cuts in 2002.” Newsroom staffs are doing more with much less while the respective boards of directors can brag to Wall Street that it continues to meet the 20 percent profit margin they love. Just how much longer the profits can last while managers undercut the people producing the news is, of course, another question. Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 28, 2006 12:41 PM | Permalink Tim, turning the Cheney shooting story into the Gregory/WH press corps story is a red herring, a brilliant diversion. now did news consumers see it as a Cheney story or WH press story? Posted by: bush's jaw at February 28, 2006 12:47 PM | Permalink Here is what I got from the poll. For the most part no one cared. 70% of the resondents said the incident did not change their opinions of the Vice President. But what did it do opinion of the press? There are no answers in this poll. I am sure that the responses would reflect a partisan split. Jay would say that it shows a continuing rollback, many would say it shows a lack of accountability of the administration, many would also say that the lack of communication is justified because of the incomplete accusations. I am saying the the press is looking worse for wear because of instances like this. Oh for heaven's sake, there is no mystery why the Cheney's shooting incident was reported. The vice president of the United States shot someone. Whether it was Cheney or Gore or Millard Fillmore, it didn't matter. When the President or Vice President speaks, has a cold or wears a sweater during fireside chats, it gets covered. It's no more complicated than that. What fueled the continuing coverage wasn't the White House Press Corps pique at not being notified. The questions arose when the vice president's party didn't make public announcement of a shooting incident for nearly 24 hours. Does anyone truly believe that the public should not be aware as soon as possible when the vice president of any political persuasion is involved in shooting incident? Or have we finally taken partisanship way to far around the bend? Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 28, 2006 1:09 PM | Permalink I am saying the the press is looking worse for wear because of instances like this. Tim, i haven't read all of your comments carefully. but that statement always seem subjective to me. anyway, if there is a poll about the public's view of the press, i'd think the press would be below lawyers and probably politicians. the messenger is often the bearer of bad news. as one of my former editors said, "planes landing on time at the airport is not news." that is suppose to happen. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 28, 2006 1:26 PM | Permalink Tim's explanation of "gamed" is not necessarily the only one, but it fits here. If the press is telling us the runways are full of potholes, the pilots routinely drunk, and the maintenance guys fumble-fingered and unqualified, then telling us a plane landed safely at the airport would indeed be news. So I don't buy that excuse for not reporting progress in Iraq. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 28, 2006 2:14 PM | Permalink It all depends on your definition of "progress in Iraq," Richard. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 28, 2006 2:27 PM | Permalink Right, richard. There were only 41 Iraqis killed in car bombs yesterday, compared to the 45 killed the day before. Which is better than the 1,500 killed in the sectarian violence that erupted following the destruction of the Shiite shrine last week. Progress is, I suppose, where you find it. Look, there have been reports on the good things happening in Iraq: the elections, the rebuilding of schools, efforts to repair the factional and tribal rifts. But this is a difficult war in a difficult place. Terrorists move with almost total freedom. Car bombs, IEDs and mortar attacks go off every day in the 'safe' Green Zone. Kidnappings for ransom grow expotentionally. That's news too. You're irritated that the media focuses on the negative? How can you ignore it? Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 28, 2006 2:36 PM | Permalink it's another brilliant tactic/roll back to label Murtha's stategy as "cut and run." Liar Liar Lawrence O'Donnell has posited that this administration will follow closely Murtha's strategy on Iraq this fall, and it won't be called cut and run. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 28, 2006 2:42 PM | Permalink My concern is that the Press doesn't even KNOW what it is doing to itself. I am shown a poll of how the Cheney's approval rating has changed because of his misfiring. I understand that it is news. It should and needs to be reported. But is the White House news corps being mad at the lack of communication news? And should it be? The reaction to the snubbing is more important than the snubbing. The press has no control over the snubbing, but has all the control over its reaction. I gotta quiz for everybody. If George Bush shot lightning bolts out of his fingertips and killed 99% of al-Qaeda in one second what would the Leftstream media headlines be the next day? a. Bush Administration fails to destroy AQ b. Environmentalists claim lightning bolts cause global warming c. Bush Administration fails to catch kitten caught up in tree Posted by: andrew at February 28, 2006 4:07 PM | Permalink But is the White House news corps being mad at the lack of communication news? And should it be? It wouldn't have been news 20 years ago, Tim, but it is now. What happened in the interim ? The press started covering itself, as a beat. It's open for debate whether that was a smart thing or not, but it happened. These days, at the bigger newspapers, the media beat is considered a choice assignment, and one much sought after. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 28, 2006 4:08 PM | Permalink andrew -- I can think of a couple of others. On the down side: On the up side: Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 28, 2006 4:13 PM | Permalink Since it hasn't happened, Andrew, and Osama bin Laden remains free, we don't have to worry about it. Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 28, 2006 4:19 PM | Permalink mr. Lovejoy, and we all get to comment on the criticism of reporters reporting on the reporters who report on reporters. and Tim is worried for the press, which doesn't know it's been gamed. bless his heart ;-0 Posted by: bush's jaw at February 28, 2006 4:22 PM | Permalink As to progress in Iraq, some days are better than others. It's the latter that you guys salivate over and the former which never see the light of day unless a blogger blows your cover. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 28, 2006 4:29 PM | Permalink That's your little perception, Richard. That doesn't make it true. I don't know anyone who salivates over more carnage in Iraq. But then, you're the mind reader.
Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 28, 2006 4:46 PM | Permalink If George Bush shot lightning bolts out of his fingertips ... f. what is W doing the WH with Powder-like power? and is that evolution or intelligent design? Posted by: bush's jaw at February 28, 2006 4:49 PM | Permalink Not bad, Jay, but at 575 posts, when lightning bolts appeared out of the President's fingertips, this thread finally jumped the shark. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at February 28, 2006 4:55 PM | Permalink (f) Why couldn't you have done that at Tora Bora in 2002? (hint, it's the same 34% that includes folks who say things like: "As to progress in Iraq, some days are better than others. It's the latter that you guys salivate over and the former which never see the light of day unless a blogger blows your cover." Though most probably don't have the rhyming skills of Mr. Aubrey. Who, I must say, could stand to to toe with Eminem. Read it out loud.) Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 28, 2006 4:57 PM | Permalink Maybe Richard can take his complaint to Farnaz Fassihi of the Wall Street Journal. She just ended three years covering the war in Iraq. She might say: If there were five car bombs going off in New York and 50 people kidnapped a day, I'm sure that metro reporters would be writing those stories and not talking about the school that was painted. Or: When you're sitting in Iraq and putting your neck on the line to try to bring as balanced a story as possible, it's very frustrating to hear criticism like that, because you know, as a professional reporter, that the only reason you're there is because you want to convey the truth. And I can say that everyone is trying to go out their extra mile to find out exactly what's happening there, good or bad, to try to find progress, obstacles, frustration. Posted by: Dave McLemore at February 28, 2006 5:09 PM | Permalink bush's jaw: I saw that movie. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 28, 2006 5:21 PM | Permalink
I think Big Media needs to explictly acknowledge that it's a powerful institution with financial interests, not just a disembodied observer with the "view from nowhere." Everybody knows this, but our stated journalistic ethics tend to sound like something from a gee-whiz 5th grade civics lecture, even when you're working for a publicly traded company that's lobbying congress for deregulation, or, heaven help you, Rupert Murdoch. Next, I think you gotta come out and say that politics is Kabuki theater. Stylized. Little gestures convey big meanings. And not only are we going to cover it, explicitly, from that perspective, we're going to try to account for our role in the stage play you're witnessing there at home. We do this now -- sort of -- but then we go back to stenography. And I'm cool with stenography. It has its place. It's just not the same thing as telling people what's actually going on. Which means, maybe, that you've got to think about what qualifies a person to be a stenographer, and what qualifies people to be Kabuki theater reporters. And once you've figured that out, try sticking to it. Posted by: Daniel Conover at February 28, 2006 5:28 PM | Permalink "(f) Why couldn't you have done that at Tora Bora in 2002?" Probably because it's hard to cordon off a mountainscape when you don't even know the exact coordinates of the target while a military campaign is ongoing throughout a landlocked country with an infrastructure that goes back to the Stone Age.
(h) Leftstream media comes out with poll that undersamples Republican by 10-12% "Not bad, Jay, but at 575 posts, when lightning bolts appeared out of the President's fingertips, this thread finally jumped the shark." Actually the Leftstream media jumped the shark before I was even born which is why my parody quiz doesn't seem all that out of touch with what actually goes on.
Posted by: andrew at February 28, 2006 5:38 PM | Permalink mr. Lovejoy, so Katharine Armstrong was wrong? "Harry was in the line of fire and was powdered pretty good. ... This is something that happens from time to time. You know, I've been powdered pretty well myself." a little routine powdering, 2 days in intensive car, a silent heart attack. and we have those whinny WH press jerks who don't know they've been played. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 28, 2006 6:03 PM | Permalink This Iraq news coverage theme (i.e. Is most of the Iraq news reported by the dominant media fair, appropriately balanced and, most importantly, representative?) is interesting. It almost deserves its own post - - oh, wait... Posted by: Trained Auditor at February 28, 2006 6:04 PM | Permalink Dave: Here's an example. In the late fall, there was a list of Iraqi units ready to go either equal with us, in the lead, or by themselves. So, the blown-up cars versus painted schools issue, while accurate itself, is a deliberate distraction. To return to the blown-up car versus the painted school: The school issue points to the future. The kids see the Americans, or now their own guys, taking care of them. They get real educations instead of the Saddaam worship they used to get which had the obvious effect of infantilizing a good number of Iraqis. Now, if we had five bombs going off in New York, we'd have the NYT flooding the zone, but there would still be the school-painting reporters hanging out. As it happens, even in Baghdad, the papers report on other stuff than bombings. Maybe they're gutsier than the NYT--not a high bar. Posted by: RIchard Aubrey at February 28, 2006 7:02 PM | Permalink (neat trick, andrew. You're making excuses for the Bush folks that they didn't even make for themselves: The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge. You might read those articles. Not sure where your undersampling data comes from. my bad: Tora Bora was in Dec.2001, not 2002.) Posted by: Richard B. Simon at February 28, 2006 7:06 PM | Permalink "The real question Daniel and Roger, is what should have the reporting been to eliminate this confusion, or do I have it wrong." Sports fans--I have no idea why the name Roger keeps appearing--Kristen (nee Kirsten) and I had this conversation much earlier this morning--According to some, I have been back in my own blog licking my wounds :) After 600 posts, would someone drive a stake in the heart of this thread? Please? village idiot, anyway, Jane was on the Young Turks last Friday, and on the radio St. Jane was very bright and reasonable. so i don't know what to think now. i also enjoy Hugh Hewitt whose interviews of Lawrence O'Donnell and Helen Thomas are priceless. talk about Kabuki theater. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 28, 2006 7:38 PM | Permalink "The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge. A little shy on details here. Who in the "Bush Administration"?
The poll itself. Posted by: andrew at February 28, 2006 7:49 PM | Permalink "The real question Daniel and Roger, is what should have the reporting been to eliminate this confusion, or do I have it wrong." it's not Richard Simon that is confusing first names. priceless, a post complaining about this thread being too long. Posted by: bush's jaw at February 28, 2006 7:51 PM | Permalink We're not talking about "blown-up cars" versus "schools repainted" here, Aubrey. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 28, 2006 9:13 PM | Permalink Quick question for Jay, the blogger: If you posted something like this, and it is no secret that you are a buddy of Mr. Summers, would you consider the reader's comment paraphrased below offensive and delete it? Cronyism and racism are the two subliminal themes in your post; you are destroying your own credibility with this post, not Mr. Matory's. Given the controversy about deleted posts by WaPo (something Mr. Delong was quite critical of, incidentally), I am curious as to whether there is a reasonable standard for a comment to qualify for deletion. Posted by: village idiot at February 28, 2006 9:55 PM | Permalink I have to admit, I'm intrigued by andrew's fantasy of lightning bolts from Bush's fingertips. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 28, 2006 10:05 PM | Permalink B. J.: If there was ever a situation that justified name calling, the current one would do it for me. I suspect also that some of us have a thing for trash talk, especially when it comes from an extremely smart woman.:-) Posted by: village idiot at February 28, 2006 10:19 PM | Permalink Actually, Steve, we were talking about blown-up cars versus painted schools. That was the point of the reporter, Farnaz Fassihi, quoted by Dave M. Now, if you want to talk about the last week, that's another story. But I was responding to Dave M, including addressing the reporter's point that the NYT wouldn't be doing anything but bombing if that were happening in NYC. By, among other things, pointing out that Baghdad papers where the bombing is really happening are doing better than the NYT would supposedly do. I suspect you mean the Iraqis want us to get out after things are stable. Naughty, Steve, to say something you ought to know can be found out. Or perhaps the poll was weighted like the recent CBS poll where a third of the respondents were independent, and of the rest, the dems were about half again the republicans. Don't try to kid a kidder. You're not good enough. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 28, 2006 10:28 PM | Permalink |
|
Print
