|
|
May 7, 2006
Just One of Those Mysteries... For Snow's First DayThe CIA director is forced out after a year and the White House gives no reason at all for it. What will the new press secretary do when asked for an explanation that was glaringly absent on Friday? Monday is Tony Snow's first day on the job. Let's see if reason-giving can make a comeback.
Remarkable, isn’t it? Reason-giving is basic to government by consent of the governed. Very basic. An Administration that doesn’t have to give reasons for what it is doing is unaccountable to the American people and their common sense, to world opinion— even to itself. To pressure the CIA director to leave after 20 months in the job, and to give no reason at all for it—not even “spend more time with the family”—is a big screw you to anyone trying to discern what the President is doing and what the government is up to. This is why we have professional journalists as part of our public life. They are supposed to step in when reason-giving falters, and press for an explanation. And if on Monday, the White House press corps can’t get an explanation for Goss’s departure it will fail some basic test of usefulness. The forecast for Snow Especially after Goss called it “one of those mysteries,” reporters will, I think, be asking lots of CIA director questions on Monday. Most will be about his chosen replacement, Gen. Michael Hayden, but some will be about Goss. The correspondents know how many shocked people there were in Washington on Friday. They know Goss resigned “under pressure,” as the Post said today. Monday is also the day Tony Snow, the new White House press secretary, is supposed to take over in the briefing room. Thus it’s possible we will know right away whether Snow represents a change in White House strategy, or a corrective to the old strategy of de-certifying the press and rolling it back. What will the new press secretary do when asked to provide an explanation that was glaringly missing on Friday? If you’re Scott McClellan, who held his last briefing Friday, you sift through what’s already on the record about the resignation and choose a phrase or two that can be safely repeated, no matter what you’re asked. Rather than dodge the question, you refuse to recognize it, converting the back-and-forth of Q & A into a series of non-sequiturs. The strategy is to add nothing to the public record, no matter what’s missing in the explanations from the White House. Press nullification, I have called this. It’s not like spin. It’s non-communication from the podium, part of a larger strategy for expanding the “black,” opaque or simply unilluminated portions of the presidency. Walking out with answers Snow’s appointment (see my April 28 post on it) was described at the time as a shift in strategy to a more powerful press secretary who has the ear of the president, “walk-in privileges,” a seat at the table when policy is being decided, and a broker’s role between journalists and the White House. We don’t know if any of that is true. But if it is true, Tony Snow will walk in to the Oval Office Monday morning and walk out with answers. He will argue that a complete default in reason-giving is unacceptable, and won’t fly. When reporters ask about the departure of Porter Goss he will have some sort of explanation for the mystery. It will put new information on the record, and he will make news with it. Rather than pretend there’s nothing to be explained, Snow will by tone and manner accept the basic legitimacy of the question— and of the people asking it. The contrast with the last three years will be immediate, and the exchanges during the televised briefing will show that. If things are really going to be different, that’s what we should expect to see. Bag the briefing… It wasn’t much noticed that last week the new chief of staff at the White House, Josh Bolten, told Fox News Sunday that “it may be worth considering whether to end the daily televised press briefings where reporters and the press secretary frequently air disputes in front of the cameras.” He also said he will leave the decision up to Snow. End the briefings! I suppose it would never occur to Bolten that such a decision also belongs to the people being briefed. If Snow turns out to be McClellan with better hair, the press ought to quit the briefing room and give up on getting explanations from the White House. Beat Bolten to the punch, in other words. By “quit” I mean pull your top talent. Send interns instead to occupy the seats without asking questions or filing reports. That means no correspondents at the two daily briefings, none on the President’s plane, none at his public appearances. (Except for foreign trips where other heads of state might speak.) Let the White House publicize itself. Meanwhile, re-deploy your key people, so that they still report on the Bush Administration and what it’s doing, but only from the outside-in. (Which is what the top reporters say they do, anyway. See this portrait of Elisabeth Bumiller.) Outside-in reporting, a practical step, recognizes the futility of trying to get information out of the Bush White House. Quitting the briefing—before Bolten gets to close it down—would be a symbolic step, recognition of how far the contempt for reason-giving has gone under Bush. Will it ever happen? Could it? It could (…there’s nothing to stop NBC from sending a highly-regarded intern instead of David Gregory) but it won’t. As I have said before—most recently on The Young Turks show—Bush changed the game on the press and he knew the press wouldn’t react, or change the game on him. Now we get to see whether Tony Snow will intensify this pattern, or reverse it. Does reason-giving return? Check back. Another possibility: Snow has been called a “movement conservative.” Maybe he listens to his base, and goes on the attack. He charges the press with trying to bring down Bush, and puts reporters on notice that he will call them on it. McClellan wasn’t agile enough to wage culture war from the podium. Snow may think he is. Of course this would do nothing to explain Bush to the country. It would do nothing to re-claim majority support. It would, however, make a national star of the press secretary. Possibly Bolton doesn’t want that. So he tells Fox News: the televised briefing may be going down. (But the decision will be Tony’s.) When reason-giving falters a little, the Republic can handle it. We call it oversight, check and balance. When reason-giving falters a lot, we have instruments for that: public commissions, Senate hearings, special prosecutors, investigative journalism. But when reason-giving disappears from the governing style of an Administration, it’s not clear what we’re supposed to do. Check back Monday after the briefing, and we’ll see what we can see about reason-giving’s return. After Matter: Notes, reactions & links May 8, 5 pm… Well, it’s Monday after the briefing. On Snow’s first day, John Negroponte did the daily briefing on the nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden for Director of the CIA. Tony Snow introduced him, but did not handle questions. (Transcript.) The AP reports: “Snow is expected to give an informal briefing—known as a gaggle—on Friday and hold his first televised briefing next Monday.” Snow taking a pass on this week’s news qualifies for a hmmmm and a half. At Monday’s briefing, Helen Thomas was the only one who asked why Porter Goss was dumped. The exchange: Q Why did you want Mr. Goss fired? And also, does the CIA send detainees to secret prisons, prisons abroad? That will probably stand as the “explanation” for why Goss left. It’s pitiful, but no worse than what we have seen the last few years. At the washingtonpost.com, Dan Froomkin asked his readers for good questions to ask Snow. “I’m not so much interested in smart-aleck, gotcha questions,” he wrote. “What I’m looking for is questions to which the average American would say: ‘Yeah, I’d like to know the answer to that.’” Froomkin will run the answers—I mean the questions—on Friday, May 12. This also ran at The Nation site as Forecast for Snow (May 8). News Corpse comments on this post: Just imagine it. Tony Snow steps behind the podium and gazes out to a room of youthful and unfamiliar faces. He stumbles uncomfortably with his opening statement and then opens the floor to questions….. The Daily News says Goss was ousted after the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board grew alarmed at Goss’s ties to Kyle (Dusty) Foggo, the No.3 official at the CIA, who is under investigation by the FBI in a corruption scandal. (see Tom Regan’s round-up.) The result was the awkward Oval Office announcement Friday at which neither Goss nor Bush gave a specific reason for Goss’ return to Florida. Goss told CNN yesterday his resignation was “just one of those mysteries.” A collective agreement on Goss’s departure that Goss himself calls a mystery? Bush had confidence in Goss but let him go? That’s an explanation that doesn’t add up. A lot of blogosphere attention is focusing—rightly—on how simmering tensions between CIA head Porter Goss and Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte were suddenly discovered by journalists and the “senior adminisration officials” who were sources in Friday’s news accounts. Laura Rozen is skeptical here and here. (Among bloggers, she’s my go-to person on this story.) Says Kevin Drum: For the past several months, the consensus word on Goss has been that he’s loyally protecting George Bush by firing all the CIA’s closet Democrats and aggressively tracking down the leakers who are undermining his ability to torture prisoners in Eastern European prisons. That seems like sterling service. But now, out of the blue, we’re supposed to believe that Bush woke up Friday morning and suddenly decided that some previously unreported bureaucratic turf war finally needed to be stopped? Who exactly is the source for this theory? Whoever it is, he seems to have been a busy boy on Friday. Who indeed? It’s the old problem of confidential sources. Maybe the name of the source is worth more, news-wise, than the information the source is adding. Andrew Sullivan thinks there’s truth in the Negroponte tensions story, but it’s still a diversion: This is how metastasizing scandals are successfully headed off. Cut your major losses early; create a persuasive cover-story to hide that fact; then hunker down and hope you can weather the tawdry details that will doubtless emerge. That’s still not good news for the White House. But it’s surely better than having your CIA director forced to resign in September in “Hookergate”. Karl is refocused. And, of course, the MSM ate it up. At least, that’s my take. Editorial in National Review, William Buckley’s magazine. Porter Goss, a former Republican congressman who once served as an official in the CIA’s clandestine service, was named by President Bush to head up the agency 19 months ago. His primary task was to end its bare-knuckles insurrection and policy interference, and return it to the business of intelligence collection and analysis. His tenure was marked by non-stop turmoil and bickering, as he moved to root out the insurgents and they fought back with a vengeance. And this is Stephen Spruiell, National Review’s media blogger, commenting on this post: Given the amount of speculation about Goss’s resignation and early opposition to Bush’s chosen successor, Snow’s remarks on both should be clear and compelling — not just for the benefit of the public, but for the sake of the White House. See Spruiell’s reaction to Monday’s events: “Tony Snow is a great resource for an administration whose troubles seem to deepen every day. Why are they delaying his debut?” “I’m shocked, I know this has been a lifelong dream of Porter to run the agency.” That is what the former Republican Congressman from Ohio, John Kasich, said Friday. He knew Goss when they were both in Congress. “There’s something behind this story I’m anxious to find out because, frankly, I’m very, very surprised.” Bill Kristol said something similar on Fox: “Certainly people close to Goss did not expect this to happen. Senior congressmen and senators didn’t expect this to happen. I’m not sure the White House expected this to happen…” Lots to explain then. Last week, Jack Shafer published in Slate a pair of columns on the unintended consequences of de-certifying the press and starving the beast. He wrote: “Rather than crying ‘war’ over the Bush-press disputes, I subscribe to Jay Rosen’s more modest idea that the Bushies ambition was to ‘decertify’ the press from its modern role as purveyor of news and portray it as just another special interest.” A starved press corps doesn’t necessarily wither away. In fact, a Machiavellian case for feeding the press corps with stories—even stories that reflect negatively on the administration—can be made. If properly fed such “scoops,” they will remain under the control of their feeders, which is what happened to the press corps orbiting Henry Kissinger during the Nixon-Ford administrations. Starve them and they may well go prospecting for news in the vast bureaucracy where White House feeders aren’t in control. “The best journalists practice judo, using their foes’ brute force against them,” Shafer said in a second colum about how the press can fight back. “Every time the Bush administration cracks down on openness, it creates new sources for journalists inside the bureaucracies.” At one of his last briefings, Scott McClellan gave this clinic in press nullification. He associates a reporter’s question with the opposition party’s agenda, never allowing the question to come on the table. MR. McCLELLAN: As what? Q Havoc, [Bush] used the word havoc today, could he, would he possibly stand under a sign that says “Mission Accomplished” today as he did three years ago?
Posted by Jay Rosen at May 7, 2006 4:08 PM
Comments
I hate to say it, but I don't think anything will change in regard to the nehavior of the press. They will still preen for the cameras and tip-toe around the hard questions. It will be all so carefully managed on both sides and we will know little more than we know now about the real reason Goss left the CIA. The press conference will be about the nominee for his replacement. Posted by: margaret at May 7, 2006 4:53 PM | Permalink Oh goody! Another thread filled with rancor and bitterness. Is this really PressThink, or is this BushThink? Will anyone give Snow the benefit of the doubt, or will everyone retreat into their own private PartisanThink and begin firing salvos before the war is even begun? Posted by: sledgehammer at May 7, 2006 5:41 PM | Permalink I suspect Margaret is correct. The White House press corps (which has the attention span of a 4-year-old) will take a pass on the Goss mystery (yesterday's news) and focus on the Hayden controversy (today's news.) In fact, it's already happened. Here's the lead of the International Herald Tribune's Sunday afternoon story: WASHINGTON, May 7 — The man widely expected to be President George W. Bush's choice to lead the C.I.A. encountered surprisingly strong bipartisan opposition today, with the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee bluntly calling him "the wrong man at the wrong place at the wrong time." That's one more weapon in the arsenal of Rollback, one more way to flummox the beast. Interesting day coming up for Tony Snow for sure. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 7, 2006 6:24 PM | Permalink At one point, Steve, State was under control of the Pentagon--Colin Powell, remember--which didn't seem to get a lot of notice. Keep in mind, journos may have the attention span of a four-year-old, but the rest of us don't. That's why journalists should be having journalists covering them; to ask questions like, You didn't seem concerned when an even higher-ranking officer (with combat experience and large-unit command time) ran an even more important organ of the executive branch. Can you tell us the difference? I expect we will, after a year or so of feverish speculation, find out the real reason Goss is gone. But the problem may be distinguishing it from all the partisan conspiracy theorizing. We may even know it now, but there's no way of telling it from the noise. Time for some reporting. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 7, 2006 8:18 PM | Permalink Don't forget Cheney vs. Russia. wow...that's gonna be a tough first day at the office. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at May 7, 2006 8:22 PM | Permalink Word tween dots and dashes is that he has been practicing tapping a pencil to the podium. "-... .-.. --- .-- , -- . !" Actually I trust that this is a more appropriate message. "... --- ..., -- --- -- -- -.--, ... --- ... !!!" Posted by: gb at May 7, 2006 9:11 PM | Permalink As Jay mentioned above and provided a link, he was on The Young Turks Friday. Listen to the Turks' entire first hour, or Jay starts at the 21:30 mark. When the Goss departure was announced, I thought why would the WH want to have a Senate confirmation hearing (for the next director, Hayden) where NSA warrantless spying might come up. Seems that the WH wants to talk about the NSA program. They also said they would not shy away from a fight with Democrats over what Bush has termed a "terrorist" surveillance program, if that becomes the focus of Hayden's hearings. With the country essentially divided on the effort, which has allowed the NSA to scan the calls and e-mails of more than 5,000 Americans, the president has more support on that issue than most others. Interesting. We'll see, along with Snow. Posted by: bush's jaw at May 7, 2006 9:46 PM | Permalink Tony Snow is probably the "administration official" who started the spin about the "conflict" between Goss and Negroponte. The media is already in his lap. Posted by: jojo at May 7, 2006 10:13 PM | Permalink The Goss firing reveals a fundamental flaw in the rollback theory: It assumes the press is being rolled by the administration against its will when all too often, as the press on Goss' departure illustrates, the press seems to roll over on its own, or on command. This behavior suggests that if there is rollback, the press is complicit in it. In fact, that is why Colbert was so funny; his act was a parody of the press's complicity as much as it was a parody of Bush. All of the mainstream outlets except for the NY Post just typed up the administration's (Snow's) explanation for Goss' departure, ran it through the spell check and then went home and made love to their wives, just as Colbert described. The blogs, meanwhile, were aflame with curiosity and credible speculation (how could a rational, aware person not be). Watch the press play catch up on this one (once again). It suggests, though, that Snow knows how to say "roll over" with authority. They all fell in line behind the admin spin on command and ignored the real story. The press rolled itself back. Posted by: steve schwenk at May 7, 2006 10:46 PM | Permalink If the departure of Goss was related to his #3, Foggo, then why fire Goss? Posted by: Waiting in Texas at May 7, 2006 10:59 PM | Permalink All of the mainstream outlets except for the NY Post just typed up the administration's (Snow's) explanation for Goss' departure, ran it through the spell check and then went home. Snow's explanation? What was that? And who said the press wasn't complicit in rollback? Not me, Steve. I said Bush changed the game, and he knew the press wouldn't react or change the game on him. Isn't that being complicit? Mark Anderson's off topic post.... Off Topic Ron Suskind reopens the "US Military is deliberately killing journalists" debate. He "emphatically" insists the orders to obliterate the al-Jazeera office in Kabul by cruise missile went through proper channels, though he isn't specific about how high up the decision went. He insists it was premeditated and deliberate. It would sure be nice to have an investigative journalist nail this down with verifiable documents or sources. If proven true, does the term "rollback" do justice to this aspect of Bush administration media strategy? What kind of a wacko is Eason Jordan, exactly? BLITZER: One of the other explosive charges you have in the book is that the U.S. deliberately bombed the Al Jazeera offices in Kabul to make a point. You write this: "On November 13, a hectic day when Kabul fell to the Northern Alliance and there were celebrations in the streets of the city, a U.S. missile obliterated Al Jazeera's office. Inside the CIA and White House there was satisfaction that a message had been sent to Al Jazeera. So now its Cheney vs. Russia, Bush vs. Iraq and Iran. We are moving from one extreme to the other - communism to terrorism to communism. Just one more vicious cycle starting all over. The terrorism thing hasn't worked out so well for the PNAC group now has it. Pick your poison, pick your poison. Posted by: Waiting in Texas at May 7, 2006 11:13 PM | Permalink Jay - I like your thoughts on filling the press room with interns that won't ask questions, you could be on to something there. Get the interns to ask dumb questions about WH Christmas Trees, the Presidents favorite vegetables, what time he comes to work, what his favorite colors are and crap like that. Now that would be funny. It would never happen, but a girl can dream, can't she? Posted by: Waiting in Texas at May 7, 2006 11:18 PM | Permalink If the departure of Goss was related to his #3, Foggo, then why fire Goss? It would be safe to say we don't know why Goss was let go, yet. Maybe there will be more about poker games at the Watergate. But according to Schwenk, the blogs have credible speculation. The NYTimes should change that box next to the masthead to, All the Credible Speculation That's Fit to Print. Ahh, Tony's first 'Snow Job'. Posted by: Gary at May 7, 2006 11:57 PM | Permalink Excuse me? Credible speculation. As Bush's Jaw ably notes, that may be fine for blogs and op/ed pages. But it's not reporting. And, not meaning to skip over the significance of the White House firing Goss without an explanation, but the fact that Bush wants to replace him with the general responsible for the NSA wiretaps mess - and GOP Senators aren't too happy about it strikes me as more than a little newsworthy. Whether the WH press corps will follow through is another issue. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 8, 2006 12:02 AM | Permalink Frankly, it would be so much easier if the Bush communication team remembered some of their greatest hits - - the mission that was accomplished in Iraq was regime change, to ensure Saddam Hussein's disarmament. "THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change." Mission accomplished; enough said. Now if we can only go about accomplishing the follow-on missions without our dominant news media painting an unrepresentative picture, we might do some good - - Bulletin to Tony Snow: Less defense, more offense. Posted by: Trained Auditor at May 8, 2006 12:03 AM | Permalink I think what we have here is another "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie," moment. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 8, 2006 12:44 AM | Permalink Steve Lovelady: Does that mean Stephen Colbert is Tony Snow? Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 8, 2006 1:28 AM | Permalink Jay, I think you guys have gotten spoiled. Frankly, I feel compelled to figuratively get out my world's tiniest violin and play a sad song for the poor journos. So the Bush White House doesn't leak much. And even worse, they don't say the usual nonsense when they do something for which they don’t offer the usual nonsense "explanation." This is wrong?? How many times has a spokesman come out and said "We fired the guy because he was a turkey;" or "He was hurting us politically;" or "We were tired of listening to him bitch at our cabinet meetings," or "He has a mistress, and if that becomes public, we will be embarrassed,": or… whatever? As I have said a few times, anonymous leaks, against the chain of command, are fundamentally anti-democratic. There is nothing in our system of government that demands leaks or, for that matter, explanations. The Constitution doesn't set up the press as a fourth co-equal branch in the checks and balances, and nowhere does it anticipate that the press should have access to internal controversies, disagreements, and reasoning. It certainly doesn’t empower unelected bureaucrats to undermine their elected bosses. Or is this latest posting more of your recent practice of bashing Bush instead of dealing with the real issues of journalism? If in theory it is related to journalism, I think you are really stretching it. I was, of course, pleased to see the action. If Goss couldn't clean out the den of bureaucrats in the CIA, maybe a general can do the job. When vital secrets are being leaked anonymously to discredit the properly elected boss, somebody needs to go in and _._ .. _._. _._ ._ ... …! bj's speculation about Bush wanting to pick a fight about the surveillance program (the scare quotes around the word terrorist are rather offensive, btw) is at least interesting. However, the idea that they would trash a CIA to do so seems a bit far out. Gustnado, Who better to expose Bush's illegitimacy than those in possession of the classified truth of his unconstitutional actions? "Don't ask, don't tell" is now the official GOP concept of "democracy." Contra your lack of interest in what he actually wrote, Jay (and members of the administration he quotes) was/were very clear that the Bush administration chose to move from a "we'd like you to view our policies in this way" model to a "take an f----ing hike, you traitorous special interest press" model of public relations. Being opposed to democracy yourself, you stand up in defense of the concept of the last election as a mandate for "whatever the hell it was we voted for last election that they won't tell us about for another fifty years." What could more perfectly express the will of the people than a government that refuses to tell the people what they've actually done before or after the election in which the people supposedly chose their "properly elected" leaders? What could more perfectly express the will of the people than a government that nominates as head of the CIA a general who refuses to rule out spying on domestic political opponents for the purposes of throwing elections? You've convinced me, this administration is clearly all about doing the will of the people and uppity bureaucrats who say otherwise are clearly enemies of the people. Real democracy would involve the type of persuasion Jay is talking about, persuasion of journalists and the American people rather than explicit contempt. Argument rather than dictat. Since you seem to have the idea democracy means standing, saluting, and unquestioningly obeying authority you are very impressed with the current regime. Those of us with somewhat higher standards are less impressed. Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 8, 2006 1:59 AM | Permalink gustnado, i.e. John Moore, (why do people suddenly post under different names?) I shortened my pseud. To clarify, I wasn't speculating that Bush fired Goss to pick a fight about the NSA program. The NSA issue would likely be raised in the Senate confirmation for any new director, not just Hayden. Seems like Goss was fired for reasons that the WH can't said in public, yet or ever. And WH wasn't worried about the NSA issue at the Senate hearing. Over the decades, I seem to remember lots of people, cabinet level and below, who "greatly served their country" and then "resigned," suddenly, with no real explanation offered (health, spend more time with family, yada, yada) This isn't any cabinet level person who greatly served the country. This is the CIA director he CIA who just served for less than two years after the last one fell on his sword. And the CIA is one of the central political figures in this Iraq mess. Do you really expect anyone to accept the no explanation? The WH is inviting credible speculation with the no explanation. Sorry if i got that part of rollback wrong, Jay, but the Goss story brought back to me just how well-trained and reflexive the press can be sometimes. It caused me to wonder whether maybe the theory should be called "roll over" instead of "rollback". I'm glad that 'credible speculation' was so well received, too. But skepticism and speculation were begged by the WH's failure to provide any reason for the departure, and by the rushed, clearly unusual and very secretive handling of the while matter. Those are FACTS the press flatly IGNORED, and they were very newsworthy facts. They provided a legitimate basis to wonder WTF really happened. The WH non-explanation makes no sense. Indeed, the failure to point them out and to instead just run with the WH explanation was a far greater sin than engaging in fact-based speculation (exploring possibilities) would have been. Intentionally looking the other way (ignoring relevant facts) is not what 'printing all the news that's fit to print' is supposed to mean. When the press goes out of its way to kill legitimate speculation or skepticism, as with the 'move on, folks, nothing to see here' bit they did with Goss, they are acting at their very worst, like trained dogs instead of journalists. And while I do not know for a fact that Snow was the one who fed the press the line that this was just part of the president's staff shake-up, many have speculated that it was, and that the press ran with it out of deference to Snow being the new guy, and one of them. That's not unreasonable or unwarranted speculation. Friday was Scottie's last day, wasn't it? Posted by: steve schwenk at May 8, 2006 2:10 AM | Permalink (why do people suddenly post under different names?) Historically, ‘morphers’ morphed to escape killfiles... but anymore, on a blog that lacks a killfile facility, morphing just does not really manage to rudely convey the utter contempt for others that it used to. Posted by: nedu at May 8, 2006 2:22 AM | Permalink As I have said a few times, anonymous leaks, against the chain of command, are fundamentally anti-democratic. That's funny! Did Colbert come up with that? Posted by: steve schwenk at May 8, 2006 2:23 AM | Permalink You won't see me complaining that the White House doesn't leak much. I don't know where you got that, gustnado. But it isn't anything I have said. The White House leaks plenty. What makes the no explanation extraordinary in this case is that the nothingness comes fom two sides. Uusually the White House gives no explanation and the dumpee says "it was time for me to move on to other things." Private sector. Time with family. I had always planned to... Here the dumpee says, "you know, it's a mystery, why I left," and neither the White House nor the man forced out even tries to explain it. If you tell me that's a normal pattern, I'm sorry to hear it, because it's not. You're snowing yourself or trying to snow me. [T]he nothingness comes fom two sides. The “nothingness” has a “somethingness” to it. Consider— • In the fifth paragraph of the Linzer and Pincus story (Washington Post): But senior administration officials said [...] • Then in the sixth paragraph: [...] said a senior White House official [...] Another senior White House official said [...] • In the second paragraph of the CNN story: [...] intelligence sources have told [...] • Then in the ninth paragraph (under the subhead): An intelligence source with detailed knowledge of the discussions surrounding Goss' departure told [...] •And in the eleventh paragraph: A senior administration official said [...] I could go on with examples, but I think there's enough there to support a contention that “nothingness” is not coming from both sides. Instead, as others have noted elsewhere, it appears to be at least a reasonable hypothesis that the White House is intentionally communicating its explanation via programmed leaks. Posted by: nedu at May 8, 2006 4:18 AM | Permalink Nedu, Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 8, 2006 5:11 AM | Permalink [T]he "both sides" Jay was referring to were the administration and [...] Mark, And I am suggesting that there is reason to believe that one side—the administration—has settled on a strategy of treating the American press as a hostile intelligence service. A hostile intelligence service run by idiots. Posted by: nedu at May 8, 2006 5:25 AM | Permalink Besides asking Snow about Goss, I'd love to hear someone ask Snow how much Bush was actually depositing into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), a program Bush stated two weeks ago that he was temporarily suspending until after the November elections. Several points: 1) Bush never mentioned how many barrels of crude oil he was actually depositing. My guess: Bush was "depositing" over 1 million barrels of crude oil a day into the SPR, which would be required if he planned on topping it off by the end of the year. 250 million barrels is a whole lot of crude oil. And if Bush was diverting over 1 million barrels of crude oil a day from our nation's crude imports, then this would have definitely had an impact at the gas pump. Right? Hopefully, someone will grill Snow on exactly how much Bush was depositing into the SPR each day. With gas prices as high as they are, we all deserve to know. Posted by: The Oracle at May 8, 2006 6:07 AM | Permalink 250 million barrels is a whole lot of crude oil. According to Wiki, Bush announced in 2001 that the SPR would be filled to its 700 million barrel capacity. The highest prior level was reached in 1994 with 592 million barrels. At the time of Bush's directive, the SPR contained about 545 million barrels. Since the 2001 directive, the capacity of the SPR increased by 27 million barrels due to natural enlargement of the salt caverns in which the reserves are stored. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 has since directed the Secretary of Energy to fill the SPR to the full 1 billion barrel authorized capacity, a process which will require a physical expansion of the Reserve's facilities. Don't think the physical expansion has occured. It took 5 years to add 100 million+ barrels to the current 688 million. Plus, Bush isn't saying he will halt deposits until November, and increase the capacity by 250 million barrels. It is important to note that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is almost exclusively a crude oil reserve, not a stockpile for refined petrochemical products, such as gasoline, diesel and kerosene. Although there are small-scale (2 million barrels) heating oil reserves in Connecticut and New Jersey under the aegis of the Department of Energy, the Federal government maintains no gasoline et al reserves on anything like the scale of the SPR. Consequently, while the US enjoys some protection from disruptions in oil supplies, it has little to no protection from any major disruption to refinery operations. Since no new refineries have been constructed in the US for thirty years, there is little reserve capacity. This was illustrated during Hurricane Katrina, when many of the Gulf coast oil refining complexes were disrupted for some time. 7000 to 70,000 barrels are reasonable estimates. It would take 680,000 barrels a day to reach 250,000 million barrels in a year. To all I had no intention of posting as gustnado. Somehow when I went through the TypeKey process I ended up invoking that persona, which I didn't even know would ever appear as a posting name. I am at work and will try to avoid the temptation to respond otherwise. I just wanted to make sure Jay and others knew that in fact I am the "gustnado" poster and did not intend to mislead. John Moore Posted by: John Moore at May 8, 2006 10:37 AM | Permalink I am the "gustnado" poster Ok, it's you, John. You sounded like Colbert there for a second. Posted by: steve schwenk at May 8, 2006 11:46 AM | Permalink Hey Jay - I liked it better when your comments were in a separate window. Oh well, onto the Snow Job. It would be too much to ask to expect anything to get better in this lame duck administration. They have no choice but to continue stonewalling and hope to make it another two and a half years without being impeached, removed from office, put in jail or killed by "terrorists." The legacy press has no choice but to continue doing what they are doing, kissing up to power, to keep that 20 percent profit rolling in. Nothing will change until the Democrats take back Congress newspaper circulation drops to a point where publishers take the drastic step of actually hiring the best reporters, paying them real money, and realizing that their future depends on regaining the trust of readers. Newspaper blogging will not save them because they are no good at it and people trun to blogs for something alternative to the same old cheap syndicated BS. Posted by: Glynn Wilson at May 8, 2006 11:49 AM | Permalink What question could be dumber than "Do you think the President could stand under a "mission accomplished sign today?" At least when directed to someone you KNOW can't answer that - it's not even his job to answer questions like that. You might reasonably pose that question to an independent analyst or historian. But to the White House press secretary? It's idiotic. A waisted opportunity. That reporter is not asking questions for the benefit of enlightening his readers/viewers. He's transparently posturing for the rest of the pack of jackals in the WH press corps. We'd be better off with interns than with people who ask questions like that. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 8, 2006 1:19 PM | Permalink He's transparently posturing for the rest of the pack of jackals in the WH press corps. Yes, calling the president on his photo ops, no matter how opportunistic and dishonest and disasterous they may be is the height of rudeness, and reporters should be polite above all else, just like satirists. Asking the president in the fourth year of an invasion and ocupation that three years ago he proclaimed a success and a mission accomplished, asking him whether the mission is accomplished yet is just flat out uncivil and silly posturing for the cameras. It smacks of accountability, and we all know that those who seek to hold this president accountable hate him. Accountability isn't written anywhere in the constitution. Indeed, those who seek to hold the president accountable are fundamentally undemocratic. Could there be a dumber question? How about, "Sir, now that we are nearing 2,500 US soldiers killed in Iraq, do you still wish the insurgents to "Bring it on?" Posted by: steve schwenk at May 8, 2006 1:51 PM | Permalink Is there really anything more to be said about rollback? That is, anything that's useful? Posted by: whyaskwhy at May 8, 2006 2:51 PM | Permalink Whether Rollback will be continued or not is, I think, an important matter. To those who find PressThink's coverage redundant, there's not much I can say. Hopefully your suffering will be over soon. It takes a long time to get an idea into public debate, a very long time, and many more repetitions than you would believe. I was unable to find the briefing on TV today, and haven't seen any reference to it at all on the Web. Normally it happens around 12:30-12:40. Not sure there was a Snow briefing today. This piece is also up at The Nation site, sans After Matter. And it was discussed at National Review's Media Blog, where conservatives go for their press critique. Stephen Spruiell agreed that Snow ought to explain the resignation, or it could hurt the White House: Given the amount of speculation about Goss's resignation and early opposition to Bush's chosen successor, Snow's remarks on both should be clear and compelling — not just for the benefit of the public, but for the sake of the White House. Whether elements in the Bush coalition begin to argue for a reversal of rollback and strategic non-communication is, to my mind, an important political question. Well, on Snow's first day, John Negroponte did the briefing. It was on the nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden for Director of the CIA. Tony Snow introduced him, but did not handle questions. (Transcript.) Maybe Snow's turn will come Tuesday. Helen Thomas was the only one who asked why Goss was dumped. Their exchange: Q Why did you want Mr. Goss fired? And also, does the CIA send detainees to secret prisons, prisons abroad? That will probably stand as the "explanation" for why Goss left. (Surely replacing Goss with a uniformed general has nothing to do with a CIA analyst having stepped to the mic four days ago and excoriated Donald Rumsfeld quite publicly -- catching him in several lies, including the one he told in his own defense: "I'm not in the intelligence business.") Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 8, 2006 5:25 PM | Permalink You meant to say retired CIA analyst, I'm sure. Maybe Poker, Hooker & Spooks rolled Tony back. AP: Snow is expected to give an informal briefing _ known as a gaggle _ on Friday and hold his first televised briefing next Monday. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at May 8, 2006 6:01 PM | Permalink When I was in journalism, the AJC was not considered a good paper, not a stepping stone to the major dailies. Now I live in Atlanta, and was surprised by its blogging ranking. Simon. You mean McGovern? If so, you should try to keep up. McGovern had written at least one memo asserting the existence of WMD. Not to mention having been out of the agency since 1990. Again, presuming the people you talk to don't know jack makes you look bad. Since they do. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 8, 2006 9:57 PM | Permalink Richard Simon: Good catch. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 8, 2006 10:49 PM | Permalink Richard Simon: Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 8, 2006 10:52 PM | Permalink From UPI, but no Snow in sight.
CIA Director Porter Goss' No. 3 man at the agency, facing investigation as part of a congressional bribe probe, quit Monday, an official said. Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, the CIA's executive director, announced his resignation in an e-mail message to agency staff, a U.S. official told United Press International on condition of anonymity. It seems that damage control has overtaken the need to fill Scottie's big shoes. Snow has been put on ice until next Monday. Karl seems to be running things press wise, and that means the press is given only what is needed to shape the news/message to karl's liking. Bush could soon find himself with approval ratings as low as Nixon's lowest. Bush's disapproval rating of 65% is already only 1% shy of Nixon's highest disapproval rating (66%) right before he resigned. No way is Tony Snow going to reach out to the press, except perhaps in the most superficial manner. These people are fighting for their political survival and view the press primarily as a tool to be exploited in that battle. Selective leaking and tight tight controls on info are what they have been doing and will likely continue to do. Tony will just be a sideshow. Posted by: steve schwenk at May 8, 2006 11:06 PM | Permalink Jay writes: Here the dumpee says, "you know, it's a mystery, why I left," and neither the White House nor the man forced out even tries to explain it. If you tell me that's a normal pattern, I'm sorry to hear it, because it's not. You're snowing yourself or trying to snow me. I never said it was a normal pattern - you misread my comment. I simply said that there was nothing wrong with it, and furthermore it was more honest than the usual approach (which has now been taken, so I hope all you guys are happy) of saying a few sappy words, giving an explanation that people rarely believe, all for the sake of form. So please explain again, why is it important for the White House to stand up and emit some meaningless pap about a change in personnel? Or is there some actual information that such actions convey that I am missing? As I see it, on the surface you are looking for the White House to use the canonical approach, regardless of whether any actual facts are transformed. In its lack of doing so you read a nefarious motive of some deep and dark sort. Below the surface, this thread (and increasingly this blog) seems less about journalism that to winnowing out more and more proff of the already made conclusion that Bush is a toad, a nasty liar and fascist who disses the press, and therefore should be summarily drawn and quartered, figuratively if the literal action is not possible. Or something like that. Posted by: John Moore at May 8, 2006 11:23 PM | Permalink I wouldn't under-estimate what can be done from that podium. It's an extremely powerful position, depending on how it's used. Bruce Reed, who used to work in the White House, wrote about Snow for Slate: Obviously, the press secretary shouldn't step to the podium and pronounce views that are directly at odds with the president's. But press secretaries make policy all the time, simply because, unlike other policymakers in the White House, they have to answer questions all day long. Every sentence in the briefing room becomes official administration policy, which gives a press secretary ample leeway to influence its direction. If he throws a few extra qualifiers into the official talking points, he can turn a veto threat into a mild statement of disapproval. If he rolls his eyes or barely suppresses a giggle, he can wink at the press corps that today's official position will be gone by tomorrow. Let's edit that last paragraph and try again... As I see it, on the surface you are looking for the White House to use the canonical approach, regardless of whether any actual facts are transmitted. In its lack of doing so you read a nefarious motive of some deep and dark sort. Below the surface, this thread (and increasingly this blog) seems less about journalism that to winnowing out more and more proof of the already made conclusion that Bush is a toad, a nasty liar and fascist who disses the press, and therefore should be summarily drawn and quartered, figuratively if the literal action is not possible. Or something like that. Posted by: John Moore at May 8, 2006 11:26 PM | Permalink John: I was trying to think of a reply to your post, but I couldn't. Then I realized why: I already wrote it in After Matter. It will have to do for now. The quotes and the links. Jay, In all seriousness, I just don't see any significant issue about how the eplanatrion was or was not handled. Certainly it wasn't normal, but "normal" is hardly anything interesting. And perhaps it was clumsy, but that isn't all that interesting either. Was the change in DCI's interesting - yeah, of course it was. But that doesn't seem to be the heart of the grinching, and furthermore has nothing at all to do with issues of journalism (as opposed to being a valid subject for journalism to be applied to). So I will quit speculating until someone actually writes why anyone should give a damn about how information flow about Goss was handled. So what the heck is the problem? Posted by: John Moore at May 9, 2006 12:28 AM | Permalink Sorry, John. Best I can do. Maybe people who haven't already made up their minds that Bush should be shot can speak to you. These are the editors of National Review, William Buckley's magazine. Porter Goss, a former Republican congressman who once served as an official in the CIA’s clandestine service, was named by President Bush to head up the agency 19 months ago. His primary task was to end its bare-knuckles insurrection and policy interference, and return it to the business of intelligence collection and analysis. His tenure was marked by non-stop turmoil and bickering, as he moved to root out the insurgents and they fought back with a vengeance. And this is Stephen Spruiell, National Review's media blogger, and a conservative: Given the amount of speculation about Goss's resignation and early opposition to Bush's chosen successor, Snow's remarks on both should be clear and compelling — not just for the benefit of the public, but for the sake of the White House. Did you hear that, John? For the sake of the White House. What's that phrase doing there? Why would a conservative magazine come to the same conclusion as your deranged Bush defiling one-step-from-Michael-Moore press blogger-- that Snow better speak to this. Why? Oh, never mind... In John W. Dean's April 21st column, the former presidential counsel wrote: Bush has never understood what presidential scholar Richard Neustadt discovered many years ago: In a democracy, the only real power the presidency commands is the power to persuade. Presidents have their bully pulpit, and the full attention of the news media, 24/7. In addition, they are given the benefit of the doubt when they go to the American people to ask for their support. But as effective as this power can be, it can be equally devastating when it languishes unused - or when a president pretends not to need to use it, as Bush has done. Apparently, Bush does not realize that to lead he must continually renew his approval with the public. He is not, as he thinks, the decider. The public is the decider. Posted by: nedu at May 9, 2006 1:33 AM | Permalink Jay, there are things I don't like about Bush, and things I do like about National Review. And vice versa. Citing a couple of conservatives is hardly dispositive. Why, Jay? Because conservatives urge all sorts of contradictory ways for the White House to deal with the raving pack of deranged mad dogs... Many realize that it's a waste of effort, just like we did in our reality based anti-Kerry effort. Perhaps the tactics don't matter. If the foaming beasts are hydrophobic, it makes no difference what flavor of beverage they are offered. For that matter, John O'Neil found a way to "rollback" the press. First, his efforts were completely stonewalled. So he went around you and it worked (sound familiar?). From all appearances, the MSM including its representatives here hated his guts, and did its very best to disprove every jot and tiddle of his assertions. Too bad it didn't work - enough Americans, including many Vietnam veterans like myself, discovered just what kind of pig you guys were painting lipstick on. Sometimes, a bit of asymmetric tactics is the most effective way of speaking truth to MSM power and arrogance. So... I don't see the slightest reason why the Bush administration should consider the MSM as anything other than a partisan enemy - one to be dealt with by whatever (legal) means work - whether the enemy likes it or hates it. My only objection is they maybe they should have tried harder to win that battle, whether it involved ass kissing or ass kicking. In any case, rather than argue by even conservative authority, Jay, why don't you just tell me why the White House owes you or me an explanation, or even why it is in their best interest? A couple of column inches should suffice. Of course, I'm just a mere citizen. I should worship at the feet of the media from now on. As an engineer, I couldn't possibly survive in a "reality based" world. Posted by: John Moore at May 9, 2006 2:10 AM | Permalink John, Your comments here remind me of my paternal grandmother who just kept telling the same three stories about her childhood once she got past seventy-five years old. I was her favorite because I was the only one who had the patience to sit and listen to her story loop. I'm running out of patience with your obsessive, undermotivated, looping comments. I feel like we should send you a bill. Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 9, 2006 5:09 AM | Permalink "Mission Accomplished." "We're on the way to accomplishing the mission and achieving victory." Isn't there a complication here involving temporality? Or does the Gregorian calendar have a well-known liberal bias? What would Tony do? Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 9, 2006 5:23 AM | Permalink Steve writes: "No way is Tony Snow going to reach out to the press, except perhaps in the most superficial manner. These people are fighting for their political survival and view the press primarily as a tool to be exploited in that battle. Selective leaking and tight tight controls on info are what they have been doing and will likely continue to do. Tony will just be a sideshow." You don't seem to recognize the possibility that there is an argument within the Bush coalition itself about "fighting for political survival," how best to do that, and what's the proper use of the press "tool," as well as the White House podium. No careful observer--left, right or middle--has any illusion that the Bush White House has some newfound respect for the press, and decided to "reach out" and mend fences, or give the press a break after being so mean for so long. No way. Not on the table. Never gonna be. You can argue against that kind of sentimentalism if you want, but you're boxing with a phantom. The argument is entirely about how to pull up from the 31-35 percent approval ratings, and what sort of "communications" strategy might do that when the wheels are starting to come off the second term. Lots of people who support the White House and hope for a Bush comeback have noticed that the Administration is paying a price for "never apologize, never explain, always attack, and discredit who said it." And they think Bush is not being given a vigorous enough defense by the practice of non-communication. There was a nod to those people in the reactions to Snow's hiring. These are the quotes I used to show that in my April 28 post. Jim Rutenberg in the New York Times: "Mr. Snow's appointment has been described by Democrats and Republicans as an acknowledgment by the White House that it needs, among other things, a whole new approach to dealing with the national press corps after years of trying to keep it at a distance." Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher in the Washington Post: "White House aides said there is now broad agreement that the first-term strategy of largely ignoring the mainstream Washington media was a mistake." Mike Allen, Time: "A Republican official familiar with the selection process said Snow, 50, was chosen because Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and Counselor Dan Bartlett want 'an informed and successful advocate' who can spar with reporters and make the White House case more aggressively — both off-camera and on." The phrase "make the White House case more aggressively" is the key to what I'm talking about. I'm not saying there will be a shift to a new strategy (I'm skeptical) but I am saying there's disagreement about what to do, and it has nothing to do with "maybe we should be nicer to the press." In fact there may be some sort of struggle within the White House over the briefing itself. Bolton's suggestion that it may be time to do away with the televised briefing looks to me like an internal tension. Snow's decision to sit the week out might be part of it too, though that's just my speculation and I could be wrong. What gets me is this: If you're Tony Snow and you deliberated long and hard about stepping in for McClellan; and before you're even on the job your boss--or the man between you and the boss--wants to take away your main source of power, your performance space, and your chance for a star turn... what would you conclude? Snow taking a pass on this week’s news qualifies for a hmmmm and a half. I wonder if Snow took a pass or the WH on Snow's non-involvement with Goss. If Snow were in the media, his boss would have thrown him out there yesterday, making him prove his mettle on a big story. Mark A That's the second time in a row you have egregiously mischaracterized my comments. The troll bait (Swift Boats, Mission Completed, etc) deserve the same treatment. I'm just commenting so you know why I am not bothering to debate you, or even tease you as I did Jay last night. Yes, Jay, the language of a few of those posts was meant to tease, and because it was fun to write - the intended meaning could have been stated more sedately. Jay writes:"
In other words, it's a foregone conclusion that the reason for Bush's popularity numbers is that tactic. While that may be true, it is a supposition, a hypothesis, not a known fact. If the press is likewise reporting supposition as fact, that’s a problem - and an actual topic related to the behavior and practice of journalism, unlike the current one which seems to be to Bash Bush for something or other. This particular supposition also ignores a couple of other related explanations that it now requires: why are Congress's and the Press's numbers also so bad? I happen to be believe there is a significant amount of truth to the hypothesis. It has long been my *opinion* that the White House should try different tactics in the hope that they might work - no guarantees because the diagnosis is not a certainty. It is not my opinion that they should change their strategy from political warfare to appeasement on the domestic front. Furthermore, it is clear, especially with the lessons of Vietnam always in mind, that psychological warfare is a very important part of World War III, and the administration clearly has done very poorly in that regard, both domestically and abroad. Vietnam was lost through a change of North Vietnamese tactics from Maoist guerilla warfare to psy-war, as a result of Giap's twin surprises from the Tet Offensive: battlefield conflict, in the form of guerilla warfare, could not win due to unexpected lack of support by the populace; and, the facts of the war in Vietnam were far less important in defeating America than the perception and "spin" of those facts in America. That message has not been lost by many of our enemies. It does not, however, appear to be adequately understood by the Bush administration. It is my *opinion* that the only way a White House can get favorable coverage is to both adopt the ideologies and related policies favored by the majority of the intelligentsia and the press, and to treat journalists in a manner that flatters them, makes their jobs easier, and helps advance their careers. Posted by: John Moore at May 9, 2006 10:44 AM | Permalink (It is not my opinion that they should change their strategy from political warfare to appeasement on the domestic front. Furthermore, it is clear, especially with the lessons of Vietnam always in mind, that psychological warfare is a very important part of World War III, and the administration clearly has done very poorly in that regard, both domestically and abroad. That's an interesting juxtaposition, John. The connection you may be missing is that the Bush team confused the gas with the brakes here. They used the psy-ops expertly against their domestic opponents, and as a result, they alienated half the country -- on purpose. To me, one of the crucial lessons of Vietnam is that a divided America does not win wars. These folks used the war to divide America. That is why they are paying the price politically, and why we all are paying the price in blood and treasure.) (On that note, -- great comments from John Dean on persuasion, nedu. Wolfowitz has said that the WMD argument was only one of many reasons to invade Iraq, and that it was the only one the whole team could agree on. The problem is that it also happened to be the argument most easily disproven -- and seemed insincere from the get-go (("we can't show you the evidence because it's classified...")). Had they made a real persuasive case, we would not be in the mess we're in today -- and we'd likely have Europe on board. But these guys would rather use peripheral than central-route persuasion. It is their nature.) As for Snow, much of the early word on him was that he was occasionally a voracious critic of the Administration. If Snow speaks to that ever-narrowing base, and Snow is consistently telling the base that the Administration is way off-course, then they hire him to be their man on tv -- and then cancel the show -- is it possible that part of the Administration's plan was to co-opt him? To get him off the TV in order to stem the hemmorhage of Fox-base supporters?
Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 9, 2006 12:15 PM | Permalink S. Schwenk: Could there be a dumber question? How about, "Sir, now that we are nearing 2,500 US soldiers killed in Iraq, do you still wish the insurgents to "Bring it on?"
So that question, 'do you still want the terrorists to "bring it on,"' actually raises some interesting issues, and has the potential to move the football forward - and does not rely on faulty underlying assumptions. If a reporter actually asked about that, I would think maybe this is one of the rare people on that beat who's been paying attention. But when people ask about the "mission accomplished" banner, I pretty much consider them ill-informed nitwits who have a soundbyte understanding of the war, and an high-schooler's understanding of their jobs.
Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 9, 2006 12:19 PM | Permalink Jay, you are right that the way I phrased that sentence suggests I have not considered the possibility that the WH might determine that the most effective way to use the press as a tool would be to engage it via Snow since their rollback strategy is not working in this environment. But actually I intended that statement as an expression of my opinion/conclusion that they have apparently rejected that option. What led me to that conclusion are the events since Goss' departure was abruptly announced, including the after-leaks explaning it, the choice of Hayden as Goss' replacement, putting Snow on ice for a week, the latest polls, they all suggest to me that things were seen as spinning out of control over there. It's impossible to know for sure yet, but the hand that has reached to steady the ship does not appear to favor reaching out to and engaging the press. It appears the strategy, at least for now, is more of the same, even tighter control on information, more manipulation through leaks, nothing of substance offered up front. I think you are right that Snow probably did not agree to be a sideshow when he signed on, and was led to believe he would not be. But plans can change, and when has that ever stopped this group from doing what they think they need to in order to survive? Look at the humiliations they have forced others to endure, including Powell, the generals, Christy Todd Whitman, etc. Given the significance of the events of the last week, and how they handled them, I am very skeptical that they will attempt anything more with Snow than window dressing and lip service. My prediction is that he will be deployed as a fancier, fiestier Scottie, and he will pander to the base on the wedge isues even more than Scottie did, but he will play the same game. It might be different if they had something good to sell, but they don't. They are not going to convince people through engaging the press that Iraq is going well, that $3.00 a gallon gas is cheap or that indicitments of high ranking officials are a good thing. Posted by: steve schwenk at May 9, 2006 12:19 PM | Permalink Furthermore, it is clear, especially with the lessons of Vietnam always in mind, that psychological warfare is a very important part of World War III... Oh drats, you mean we all have to go out and buy new magnets for our cars that say WW III now? That's expensive, John. Why do they keep changing the name of this war? First it was the short war, supposed to be over in weeks. Then it became the war that we won but kept on fighting and dying for anyway. And then it was "The Long War." Now it's WW III per Bush's recent speech. It sounds like it's getting worse, are you sure we're still winning/won? 'do you still want the terrorists to "bring it on I follow you, except for one thing, Jason. Which side in the Iraqi civil war is comprised of terrorists? Posted by: steve schwenk at May 9, 2006 1:11 PM | Permalink Richard Simon writes:
Richard, come on now! Contrary to your apparent belief, America has been strongly divided about 50/50 for some time, with the division dramatically visible in the reaction to the very close 2000 election. Obviously the administration did not have it in its best interest to amplify that division. Politically it would have been better and far easier not go to war, hence avoiding the political risks. That they did so anyway is a strong indication that intent was other than political led- perhaps something shocking like trying to actually do the right thing. They may not be good at domestic politics, but they sure aren’t dumb enough to intentionally commit political seppuku. And then… Wolfowitz has said that the WMD argument was only one of many reasons to invade Iraq, and that it was the only one the whole team could agree on. The problem is that it also happened to be the argument most easily disproved -- and seemed insincere from the get-go… Once again, I must express amazement. You are implying that the administration was dumb enough to use the "most easily disproven" argument as justification. Again, that would have been terminally stupid. Furthermore, it is belied by the behavior of Bush’s political opponents, who also believed and proclaimed the same reasons (before they were allowed, by an uncritical press, to flip). Contrary to your belief, the advocates used an argument they strongly believed would be verified. Had they actually known that there were few WMDs, why pay the terrible political price of having the issue thrown in their faces when vast stocks of chemical weapons were not found? Both of your statements suggest you have a not-expressed opinion of their "real" motivations - one that drives you to otherwise remarkably absurd conclusions. As for Snow, much of the early word on him was that he was occasionally a voracious critic of the Administration. Yeah, we Republicans actually allow diversity of our political and policy views. Steve The "short war?" Hmmm… never heard that one. The war (as opposed to the campaign in the Iraq theatre) was originally called "The Global War on Terror." Bush said it would take a long time - maybe generations - and largely be fought in the shadows. He said it would be difficult. The name has been in flux lately, since the original one was criticized for its weirdness and the odd idea of making war on a concept. So now we have seen floated "the long war" and one mention of "World War III". I have long preferred World War IV myself, but the difference merely involves a quibble over whether the Cold War deserves a World War designation. Note that this war is being fought around the world, from in our homeland, to most of the Sahel desert, to Iraq and Afghanistan, to Pakistan, to Indonesia and Thailand, to the Philippines You ask if I’m sure we are winning or won. No, it is way too early. I think the GWOT/WW3 could be better prosecuted. I especially think the psy-war aspect has long been given short shrift. Whether invading Iraq was an appropriate part of the war is still an open question. However, Bush critics seem to ignore the administration’s early assertion the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, which applies in Iraq. So far, it has indeed pre-empted further WMD development by Iraq. Is there anyone here who doubts that Iraq, perhaps by now, would have restarted its WMD programs - especially nuclear, biological weapons, and delivery systems? The cost of the Iraq operation in particular has been high - primarily in domestic and international political capital (although the actual supply of that was pretty small). It might have made the Iranian situation worse - who can tell? Or it might make it easier for use to stop Iran than if we did not have them surrounded by American troops and airfields. This is a complex war, highly asymmetrical, with an enemy created by a viral ideology and hence widespread and with a varied structure and nature - from individuals performing acts of terrorism (like the El Al attack at LAX), to shady groups doing actual (9-11) and attempted (WTC 1993, etc) mass casualty attacks, to nations (e.g. Iran) using both terror and potentially state military WMD forces against us or our interests. It has vague enemies, clear enemies, allies (GB, Australia, eastern Europe), partial allies (western Europe), and partial enemies (Russia, France, China, etc). Hence I predict a bull market in car magnets. Posted by: John Moore at May 9, 2006 2:45 PM | Permalink John, wish I could share your confidence, but from here, it appears that the war on terrorism has a lot more in common with the war on drugs than it does with WW II or WW I. And if Iraq is the central front, we're not doing very well by most any standard. Time for new leadership? I know you're almost there, but for your loyalty as a former military guy and all you personally put on the line for Bush. We better get back on topic, though. Posted by: steve schwenk at May 9, 2006 3:02 PM | Permalink John Moore: next time you take a subject at hand and turn it into a Swift Boat post the post will be killed. Enough is enough. And that goes for Form 180 too. Stephen Spruiell of National Review returns to the subject: During yesterday's press conference, Helen Thomas asked DNI John Negroponte why Goss was fired. He responded: The problem with "don't apologize, don't explain" is that it leaves even your allies baffled. Here's first the Weekly Standard and then the National Review trying to make sense of it all: "Goss is a political conservative and an institutional reformer," writes The Standard. "He is pro-Bush Doctrine and pro-shaking-up-the-CIA. At NR, brows are even more furrowed: "The reasons for Porter Goss's abrupt departure as CIA director are shrouded in mystery," writes the magazine. "But its effect is not. It gives the impression that there has been a coup by the CIA insiders who have waged a covert policy war against the Bush administration for five years. The White House must act quickly to correct the impression that the renegades have won." Calling Tony Snow ... calling Tony Snow ...
Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 9, 2006 3:53 PM | Permalink Froomkin today leads with my post, and asks readers for Snow questions... Tony Snow, the new White House press secretary, is expected to hold his first full-fledged press briefing next Monday. Jay. I'm interested in what you're interested in. But you didn't specify whether the conference would be televised. If it will be, the chances of your winning the journo lotto are about zilch. If it isn't, maybe 50%, among the folks present at the conference. The answers from the folks hereabouts will no doubt be disappointing. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 9, 2006 5:04 PM | Permalink Jay, But hey, Jay, it's your blog. If you won't let me use my best example, fine. It fit the subject and the point I was trying to make, so I'm not going to apologize for it. It was not an attempt at thread hijacking or anything other than an example. I certainly hope, however, that you apply the same standards to the people baiting me with exactly that subject (not to mention the "Mission Accomplished," another one which I chose to ignore to avoid thread drift). For example, Mark Anderson deserves such a rebuke if I do - he has been baiting me throughout the whole thread (or maybe terribly poor reading comprehension explains some of his assertions). In other words, if you want to be fair, you should apply the standards to my correspondents that you apply to me. Beyond that... hey, I don't get paid for this, so I'm back to work. Maybe I'll look in this evening. Posted by: John Moore at May 9, 2006 5:13 PM | Permalink National Review: The reasons for Porter Goss's abrupt departure as CIA director are shrouded in mystery. But its effect is not. It gives the impression that there has been a coup by the CIA insiders who have waged a covert policy war against the Bush administration for five years. How can a coup end with an abrupt resignation? CIA insiders are the deciders? Isn't the decider the decider. The CIA has always had a leftist bent, well represented in its upper echelons even under directors of staunchly anti-Communist and pro-national-security orientation. The House of Spooks is filled with lefties? John Moore, FWIW, Jay has tangled with PressThink commenters on the left also, and with Mark Anderson. I'm only sticking my nose in here to say it's not ideology driven. John Moore is the perfect example of how lying propagandist smear artists obsfucate the truth. If the press doesn't learn how to juxtapose facts with liars' bogus claims it will happen again. Posted by: George Boyle at May 9, 2006 5:34 PM | Permalink And it seems to me Colin Powell wasn't a commissioned officer while at State like this new recruit is at CIA so I don't get yet another Richard Aubrey pearl of wisdom. Nothing new there. Posted by: George Boyle at May 9, 2006 5:38 PM | Permalink Colin Powell wasn't a commissioned officer while at State like this new recruit is at CIA Exactly. How can someone who wears the uniform claim independence from the Pentagon chain of command, which tops out at Rumsfeld? That's the question I would like to see Snow answer. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 9, 2006 5:52 PM | Permalink Powell was indeed a commissioned officer while at State. Commissions are for life unless sooner revoked or resigned - and officers are subject to recall. (E.g., Gen. Schoomaker). Powell was simply on the retired list. Really, journos ought not to speculate about military matters, of which they know next to nothing. That's how we got that genius, CNN senior Pentagon correspondent, to refer to an M249, the lightest commonly fielded automatic weapon in the military, as "a very heavy machine gun, with a heavy trigger pull." I don't know where CNN gets it Pentagon correspondents from, but competence sure isn't a factor. After all, the old CNN Pentagon correspondent once argued - last August, in fact - that a humvee would have had a better chance surviving a directional IED than a 31-ton armored vehicle. And CNN can't figure out why its ratings are down. Well, when its two top war reporters are drooling idiots who don't understand their beats, and they make the rest of their franchise off of perky 20 something newsreaders, some of us don't have a hard time figuring it out. They also managed to replace Aaron Brown with the one-man mockery of journalism at Katrina - and now it turns out that Cooper's ratings are lower than Brown's. At least Brown had a brain in his head. Apparently that doesn't get you too far at CNN these days. Anderson Cooper's finest moment was getting the story wrong in Sago. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 9, 2006 6:11 PM | Permalink jaw Thanks for the info. Appreciate it. Boyle You provide a perfect exmple of someone trying to pick a fight by ad hominem attacks - i.e. a troll. Ciao. On the subject... I'd like to hear the press ask Snow: 1) Why was the announcement of the Goss replacement not handled in the usual way? 2) What policy roll to you expect to have, if any? 3) If we ask you questions that you don't have a ready answer to, can you get the ear of the president and find us an answer? 4) In the past, you have criticized the president's policies in the past. Do you still hold those criticisms and, if so, what will you do about them. 5) Is the larger scale war no officially to be called "World War III?" If so, does the name change mean that the war is viewed differently than when it was called the "War on Terror?" 5) Do you have any kind words for Helen? Sorry, I was not serious about #5. Posted by: John Moore at May 9, 2006 6:11 PM | Permalink Jason, And if Hayden retires, the Air Force will recall him while he runs the CIA. You ought to put up an 800 number for journos to call you All Military Legalese. That is not a Black Hawk, it's Lack of Light in the Spectrum Hawk. S.Schwenk: Please provide a cite for a senior administration official declaring the war on terror or Al Qaeda, etc., "would be over in weeks," and what he was referring to specifically. I follow you, except for one thing, Jason. Which side in the Iraqi civil war is comprised of terrorists? If, after all this time, you have to ask, you're probably not equipped to understand the answer.
Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 9, 2006 6:36 PM | Permalink "Beyond that... hey, I don't get paid for this, so I'm back to work. Maybe I'll look in this evening." Ah, the ultimate fallback position of the troll dispatched to any website -- "I don't get paid for this." Hmmm. Why is that so hard to doubt ? Posted by: Ann Kolson at May 9, 2006 7:14 PM | Permalink "Beyond that... hey, I don't get paid for this, so I'm back to work. Maybe I'll look in this evening." Ahhh, the ultimate fallback position of the troll dispatched to any website -- "I don't get paid for this." Why is that so hard to doubt ? Hmmm ? Posted by: Ann Kolson at May 9, 2006 7:16 PM | Permalink So Powell was a uniformed officer? Retired is retired. Your distinction is meaningless. I think lying has to called what it is no matter who does it. It Posted by: George Boyle at May 9, 2006 7:43 PM | Permalink Who's calling it WWIII? Anyone legitimate? Posted by: George Boyle at May 9, 2006 7:45 PM | Permalink Bush did: May 6, 2006 US President George W Bush has referred to the "war on terror" as "World War III" during a television interview. Posted by: steve schwenk at May 9, 2006 8:09 PM | Permalink No, George. Powell was, and is, a commissioned officer, on the retired list. "Your distinction is meaningless." No it's not. Rather, your lack of distinction is ill-informed. The claim wasn't that Powell was a uniformed officer. The claim was that Powell was no longer a commissioned officer, by virtue of the fact he's retired. That view is 100% wrong. Many officers have been called off the retired list. The current C of S of the A is one of them. All officers are subject to recall for life, if the President wants, unless they resign their commissions. As another illustration - when a new lieutenant takes the oath of office, it can be administered by any commissioned officer. The one who administered mine was my grandfther, 1LT William Arnold Van Steenwyk, who was given a battlefield commission in 1943, and left active duty in 1945 or 46. He never resigned his commission. He was still a commissioned officer in 1992, and therefore as a commissioned officer, he was authorized to administer the commissioning oath. So, not incidentally, is Powell. Before you want to try to split these hairs with me (I've been a Battalion S-1, or administrative officer on three separate occasions), you might want to do a little reading about what hairs you're splitting in the first place. (Part of the S-1's job is dealing with the press. The ones who gave me a call got a good fact-check and all the background they could eat. The ones who didn't routinely made idiots of themselves.)
Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 9, 2006 8:13 PM | Permalink jaw, if you'd tear yourself away from the lefty hothouses at TPM, DU, Kos and fdl, you would have heard about the VIPS---Veteran Intelligence Professionals for You can either call me a liar or google it---it's all the same to me. Posted by: nonpolitical intelligence official at May 9, 2006 8:42 PM | Permalink What was Stansfield Turner's situation? Jason. You ought to know by now that knowing military stuff is so icky that it's okay to spout off about it without knowing anything at all. In fact, knowing it means you're icky. Had a go 'round with a Detroit News reporter about a lousy article during GW1. Brought up something and her remark was, "Oh, I don't know anything about that." Her intonation implied that it was good for her not to know and my knowledge indicated I was somehow defective. But, whether I misread her intonation or not, she was forthrightly admitting she knew nothing of the subject on which she was pretending to report. I figure that if she'd been bothered by being ignorant, she'd have tried to hide it or something, rather than telling me up front. But, keep in mind, Jason, that not only does knowledge and military experience not impress those reporting on military affairs, it makes you look a little strange Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 9, 2006 8:49 PM | Permalink From Rumsfeld in November 2002: There will be no World War III starting with Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared Thursday, and rejected concerns that a war would be a quagmire. ... "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," he said. "It won't be a World War III." * Feb. 7, [2003] Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." But this is now way off topic, so I'm through with it. Posted by: steve schwenk at May 9, 2006 8:51 PM | Permalink Oops. Forgot. Although born and bred a grunt, I had the misfortune to be S1 of an Air Defense Group (Nike Hercules, to date myself). I am told I'm supposed to trust these people. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 9, 2006 8:55 PM | Permalink nonpol intel offal, Why don't you ID yourself Kilgore. You start out about sites I don't read TPM, Kos or fdl. And I don't know what DU stands for. Then you assume I would call you a liar. I have been reading PressThink archives. You've made fool of yourself so many times. And I just wasted my time replying. Yeah, I'm hiding in plain sight jaw, and I knew you'd punt and whine rather than google VIPS and debate the facts. Predictable, typical and pathetic. Posted by: undomesticated intelligence at May 9, 2006 9:09 PM | Permalink Kilgore, You can't have a coup when you can't come to power or decide who will be your director. Saying the CIA is a liberal oasis is not a fact worth debating. I might as well debate with Lts Aubrey and Van Steenwyck. Hell, I'll stipulate that for you, undomesticated. VIPS supplied Bush with faulty intel for Iraq to get rid of Tenet, who Clinton appointed. Then VIPS purged Goss so Negreponte and Bush can put Hayden in charge. Makes sense to me. You wing-nuts fight strawmen like the MSM and CIA insurgents. Typical, pathetic. Yeah Jason that's a straw man. The distinction may be real for you but it's irrelevant to the question: the concept of a uniformed currently commissioned and NOT retired officer taking command of a government agency wearing the uniform. You may not think that's pertinenet but it is. My family fought in the Amercian Revolution and in WWII with distinction if want to flail history around without knowing whom YOU are dealing with. Posted by: George Boyle at May 9, 2006 10:07 PM | Permalink And Bush's delusions as to what constitutes WWIII aren't exactly an appeal to a knowing authority. A handful of nutballs is hardly the threat that Soviet Russia was. I don't this current fantasy. Posted by: George Boyle at May 9, 2006 10:11 PM | Permalink Schwenk, don't waste your time. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 9, 2006 10:21 PM | Permalink What can Snow do as the press secretary for the Titanic or the Hindenburg, which brings us back to Colbert. Chris Satullo doesn't get it? Anyone who claims Colbert isn't funny is just wrong. If a panel of satiric greats from Aristophanes to Swift to Will Rogers caught The Colbert Report, they'd give thumbs up. ... Before you want to try to split these hairs with me (I've been a Battalion S-1, or administrative officer on three separate occasions), you might want to do a little reading about what hairs you're splitting in the first place. Ah .... no wonder you keep insisting that we should brush up on military trivia .... If you are as smart as claim you are, it must have occured to you by now that some of us are not so interested in dissecting the military's innards. They are doing their job and getting paid for it, as is everybody else in the country. I, for one, am pleased that somebody feels passionate about the army (and even more pleased that it is not me). My interests lie in a different direction, so please spare us the outrage and the minutiae .... If you promise to curb your enthusiam on all matters military, maybe one of these days Jay will be encouraged to post on the 'military in the media' theme and let you vent .... I don't know about everybody else, but you can certainly count on me to stay away from it. Posted by: village idiot at May 9, 2006 10:38 PM | Permalink The distinction may be real for you but it's irrelevant to the question: Actually, the appropriate response would be "Oops...Jason, you were right. I stand corrected." Then you could say, "but what about the issue of a uniformed officer at the helm of a civilian agency?" To which I would say "why would that be an issue?" After all, we've had a number of uniformed CIA directors already and they didn't seem to be a problem. The law already specifically allows for a military CIA director. You just can't have a military director AND deputy director. Regardless, the CIA director still reports to a civilian, John Negroponte, anyway. So you would still have civilian control, regardless. No one has bothered to explain why a military CIA director would be problematic if it wasn't problematic before. I'm sure some CIA people were hoping one of their own would get the nod (and one did, for deputy director.) But if Bush wants to clean house, and it's clear he does, why on earth would he want an insider to do that? Now, some might not want the CIA cleaned out. But if that's the case, then they should get themselves elected president. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 9, 2006 11:07 PM | Permalink If Hayden wants anther star, it won't be until Rummy is gone--unless Condi convinces him to stay on--so sucking up to Rummy won't do him any good. Are you trying to tell us the right will actually agree to put Condi up as a candidate in 2008, .... and the confederacy will actually vote for her? And we will then be treated on nightly TV to the pyrotechnics of burning crosses on the White House lawn .... Posted by: village idiot at May 9, 2006 11:08 PM | Permalink Its only ad hominem if untrue False. You're confusing ad hominem fallacies with defamation. Not at all the same thing. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 9, 2006 11:14 PM | Permalink My family fought in the Amercian Revolution and in WWII with distinction if want to flail history around without knowing whom YOU are dealing with. Perhaps true. But definitely irrelevant. Honestly, I couldn't care less. I brought up my own commissioning to illustrate a particular point. You're bringing up yours to no end whatsoever. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 9, 2006 11:18 PM | Permalink Richard Aubrey: If Hayden wants anther star, it won't be until Rummy is gone--unless Condi convinces him to stay on--so sucking up to Rummy won't do him any good. No good whatsoever. He's already got four stars. Rummy can't give him anything he doesn't already have, other than a Chief of Staff position (which he probably doesn't want) or a combatant command (which he is not going to get). Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 9, 2006 11:21 PM | Permalink Steve, I was just curious to see if the self-infatuated would take the bait and start screaming that the Iraq occupation is not the same as the war on terror. But yes, it's clearly a waste of time, like arguing with your cat. No wonder Jay is pissed. These junk posts take up way too much of the thread. As far as what Snow can do, not a whole lot. At best, he can help improve the overall image of Bush and pander to the base. Without a change in policies or events, his reach is very limited. Posted by: steve schwenk at May 9, 2006 11:48 PM | Permalink Anne K, Your content-free ad hominem attack was actually a back-handed compliment. You mean people would actually pay me to do this? Hmmm… who do I contact? Are you always this paranoid? Is there a Republican behind every bush… err tree? Steve Regarding your bait... we've been over that many times. The answer is obvious to those with critical thinking abilities, and unexplainable to those without. So why bother? Richard Aubrey You are quite right about knowledge of military affairs. There are some journos who are ex-military, but the percentages of influential ones is pretty small. How interesting it is that those who criticize the press here seem to be ex-military. Gee, I guess the military experience addled our brains. Or maybe we learned something that civilians will never truly know. jaw… You haven’t lived if you haven’t experienced TPM, which was (and probably still is) a Usenet Group (talk.politics.misc), not a site. ….. I suspect a lot of ex-military share the distrust of the press and personal negative experiences related by several of us here=. But members of the press also maintain a determined ignorance in many other areas. Only once have I been involved in a situation where the reporter even cared enough to try for the truth, but the result was an outstandingly good feature article (and before everyone leaps... it was a totally non-controversial subject - severe storm research). I blogged a story a couple of years ago by a local reporter who accepted egregious lies by an environmentalist opponent of an oil refinery. She never fact checked any of it. A short drive to the site disproved most of the narrative, and an on-line peek at census data quickly nailed the rest. Anne, can I get paid for blogging that, too? I have been active in the mitigation of a number of disasters (including Katrina) and find the reporting shallow and ignorant, or inappropriately sensational (for example, the TV coverage of the 1985 Mexico City Earthquake, which focused on the *only* hotel that completely collapsed in the *only* block that burned). So the MSM is populated by know-nothings in a lot of areas… but do they actually does know something about politics and government? After all, they have a lot of experience dealing with the players. I suspect that they do - at the minutae level, which may explain the tedious details they seem to think newsworthy, such as many in this thread. Folks, nobody really cares that much about Tony Snow’s press style except political players, journos, and the few of us who actually watch (after taking anti-emetics) White House press conferences. America may care about whether the CIA will regain any capabilities (it certainly couldn't lose what it doesn't have). But really - how the announcement was made? Wonk and journo stuff of little if any meaning. Posted by: John Moore at May 9, 2006 11:58 PM | Permalink Schwenk, I think you may be confusing the time table for the primary mission accomplished in Iraq (regime change and consequent disarmament of Saddam) with the time table for the war on terror: "Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen." - [emphasis added] the President, Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, September 20, 2001. Remember, Iraq is an important front in War on Terror, but it is still a subset of The Long War. Posted by: Trained Auditor at May 10, 2006 12:15 AM | Permalink Yes, and as Austin Bay (Weekly Standard writer, NPR commentator, Iraq War vet, Colonel in the Army Reserve, Republican, conservative, blogger with a lit PhD) said in a guest post at PressThink (Aug. 19, 2005): America must win the War On Terror, and the poisoned White House—national press relationship harms that effort. History will judge the Bush Administration’s prosecution of the War On Terror. A key strategic issue for the current White House—perhaps a determinative issue for historians—will be its success or failure in getting subsequent administrations to sustain the political and economic development policies that truly winning the War On Terror will entail. Needs more than 32 percent support too. He also said the press has to drop its Vietnam and Watergate templates and "roll forward." Moore, I'll have a looksee at talk.politics.misc. I need more distractions and addictions. I think Kilgore was referring to Talking Points Memo, right senor wences? This has been said. Lots of righties come here to vent about the press. The military, Iraq coverage and culture wars are central to their complaints. If you take those topics away, they have little to say. Speaking of the Vietnam template, notice that most major news outlets avoid this story, in which captured internal documents reveal that A-Q in Iraq believes they are losing on the ground: "every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin’s control and influence over Baghdad." What would AQ in Iraq say about Rollback? It seems that they are more honest about their media strategy than the Press would feel comfortable admitting: "The policy followed by the brothers in Baghdad is a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other word, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the American and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them... This direction has large positive effects; however, being preoccupied with it alone delays more important operations such as taking control of some areas, preserving it and assuming power in Baghdad..." Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 10, 2006 1:05 AM | Permalink jaw I first came here a couple of years ago to learn about the press, because I was an activist on the [redacted] issue and wanted to better understand why the press's behavior towards the [redacted] was so bizarre. And learn I did. That learning helped [redacted] have partial success in countering an otherwise inpenetrable press barrier. It is still amazing to me. It is always interesting to learn a bit more about the various emotional and cognitive patterns of members of the press fraternity and the Bush bashers (non-disjoint sets). More recently, the site has provided rich material for understanding the epidemic of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Furthermore, one can pulse the system and observe the response - something engineers like myself use to characterize black boxes and other poorly defined systems. And, it's fun. However, your list is beside the point. Our fundamental issue is press bias (and yes, the topics you mentioned are a few in which we observe and comment about it) and the characteristics of the irrationality of its practitioners. The surprising ignorance of many in the press about important facts (including military ones) is also worth probing. Re: talk.politics.misc. I was a regular there in the late eighties and early nineties. It makes almost any blog seem pretty tame. It also frequently had threads that go totally out of hand. I have no idea what it is like these days. But you should be able to find it in Google Groups. Enjoy, Posted by: John Moore at May 10, 2006 1:24 AM | Permalink Moore, I edited out a line from my last comment about how I thought your politics was ... (let's not go there) but I find your watercolors, storm chasing and tech/software inviting. Only an engineer would think TPM was a Usenet Group. I bet you used Fortran punch cards ;-0 My list was a generality, but you felt the need to respond. I almost wrote a list about lefty venters, how the WH press corps are stenographers/lapdogs, as if there were no Woodward or Miller, there would be no war in Iraq. Is it possible to learn about how the press operates (or the understand reporters) by merely reading a website? Folks, nobody really cares that much about Tony Snow’s press style except political players, journos, and the few of us who actually watch (after taking anti-emetics) White House press conferences. Exactly! And why do you think we are here? If you are as smart as claim you are, it must have occured to you by now that some of us are not so interested in dissecting the military's innards. The term "willful ignorance" springs to mind, yes. The thing is, the story of the decade is war. If the news media cannot do a decent job covering war, you might as well hang up your spurs. We're left with Ehrenreich covering the latest from Tom Cruise. Some of you - meaning journos at large - are paid do do exactly that: Learn about and report on the military. And we still have the CNN senior pentagon correspondent making excuses for Zarqawi by pointing out, falsely, that the lightest automatic weapon in the inventory, and the ONLY machine gun in the inventory that is served by an individual not a crew, and which is routinely issued to 120 pound females who don't have a problem with it, is "a very heavy weapon, with a very heavy trigger pull." Not only is that 100% wrong, but the faulty analysis from the top defense man in CNN leads the viewer to the wrong conclusion about Zarqawi - that the issue is that he's on a difficult weapon and not that that this fatso who sends other men and boys to die in battle can't even clear a double feed by himself (and, incidentally, has no concept of muzzle awareness.) Other times, you must have a basic understanding of things military to report on other stories, such as the new CIA chief nominee. You can't even report on the reporting of the war without doing some homework on the institution that fights the war. No, no one expects you to become weapons experts yourselves. That's what they pay me for. But it's not too much to ask that if you don't know what you're yapping about, and don't bother to ask, that you keep your traps shut and just go find someone who does know and interview that person. Honestly, if after nearly five years of war, CNN's Jamie McIntyre is that ignorant, he should be sacked. He's worthless now - along with the dweeb producers who tolerate this poorly informed coverage - and replaced with - ooh, I don't know - a live body. Is there really such an absence of veterans at CNN that McIntyre could have checked with? "Hey, you were in the Army. I presume you've qualified on the M249? What do you make of this?" Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 10, 2006 2:43 AM | Permalink Journalism: A profession whose business is to explain to others what it personally does not understand. - Lord Northcliffe Jay-- I concur when you allude to the problem as two-sided. When we ask about the relationship between Tony Snow and the press corps, we are really asking two questions. What, out of principle or expediency, should the White House do? What, out of practicality and professionalism, should reporters do? Your introduction of the concept of accountability into the discussion--“Reason-giving is basic to government by consent of the governed. Very basic. An Administration that doesn’t have to give reasons for what it is doing is unaccountable to the American people and their common sense, to world opinion— even to itself”--muddies these waters, a little, I think. It falsely implies that the news media are on the front line of enforcing, or at least documenting, an administration’s reason-giving. In Constitutional theory, of course, holding the executive branch accountable is first and foremost the responsibility of Congress, not the press. I would submit that many of the phenomena of Decertification and Rollback discussed here at PressThink over the past couple of years derive from an historical aberration of one-party rule inside-the-Beltway. They are problems of the body politic as a whole, not specifically of the power of the press. This November may or may not see that aberration removed. Time will tell. In the meantime (and even subsequently) the second problem--“what should reporters do?”--remains. In this context, the coverage of the firing of Porter Goss that you cite is both illuminating and cautionary. Consider the two favored angles: the Whiff of Scandal (Dusty Foggo and those Watergate parties); and Turf Wars (infighting with Negroponte). If this were an election year, PressThink would decry such lazy formulas. Whiff of Scandal is nothing other than the equivalent of Gotcha! journalism; Turf Wars a non-election version of Horse Race journalism. They amount to insider gossip and palace intrigue. This is the journalism of the court not a republic. As an antidote to celebrity-style courtier journalism, republican journalism--that which nurtures civil society--must focus on public policy and illuminate democratic decision making. In the case of the Goss story, what is at stake is the role of the CIA and intelligence generally in government and foreign policy. This is where Steve Lovelady’s quotation of the National Review is invaluable, since it discusses the CIA not only in terms of palace intrigue, but also in terms of ideology and policy--although the idea that the CIA “has always had a leftist bent” seems to misunderstand the term “leftist.” At this stage ideological coverage of left-vs-right or Democratic-vs-Republican seems to amount to nothing more than the he-said, she-said repetition of vacuous message-of-the-day talking points. The fruitful ground, by contrast, appears to be the quarrels going on within coalitions, in particular quarrels between so-called conservatives. Neocons vs Intel looks like a great story (not the palace intrigue angle but the policy angle). So does Nativists vs Corporate Libertarians on the immigration story. I suspect that the Rollback vs Engagement dispute within the administration is another aspect of these fissures. The Republican coalition since the Gingrich Revolution has been a stool with four legs: the born-agains, the military culture, financial capital and libertarians. The fissures in this coalition are newsworthy. Perhaps the White House press corps is well situated to cover them (or perhaps only interns should actually be inside the White House doing it). But anyway, the story here is not what Tony Snow may or may not say. It is what the White House’s decisions--and its political allies’ responses--tell us about what is at stake in the debate over the future of conservatism. Phew! Got a little prolix there. Thanks for your patience. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at May 10, 2006 8:20 AM | Permalink I watched Gen. Michael Hayden on C-Span Monday night, in an appearance at the National Press Club in January where he defended the NSA special authorization for domestic wiretapping. He gave long opening remarks--a lecture, really, and a clinic in how the NSA works--and then there was Q and A with journalists. I was completely impressed with Hayden, though I did not buy all his arguments. Then again many of his arguments couldn't be explained well because he had to also not reveal anything that would help you know who... I thought he did a brilliant job of arguing his case, but he also did a brilliant job of conveying his passion for his job, his extreme professionalism, the care with which he made sensitive judgments, his total sense of mission and focus on Al-Qaeda, his subtlety of mind and superior sense of irony, and a better grasp of the Constitution, compared to a reporter who kept misstating what was in the 4th amendment. There was a lot of anger in what he said too. Inches below the surface he was seething at what he felt was a misportrayal of the NSA "domestic" program, and when he wasn't seething he was shaking his head at wonderment. It was quite a performance. I noticed that he never--despite some provocation--tried to deny legitimacy to the question the press person just asked. Not once. He didn't whine or cry because someone tried to play gotcha. He answered everyone, and when he couldn't for security reasons he apologized. In many cases he thanked the reporters for their questions: "Gives me a good opportunity to explain how we..." he said. And--this was the impressive part for someone joining the Bush team of anti-communciators--he did explain stuff. I learned a lot about the NSA, the law, the political nature of the judgments they have to reach, the jurisdictional subtleties. Stuff the press doesn't tell me, usually. You can save the auto-snark... gee, Jay, you sound surprised that anyone in the military could know what he's talking about. How pathetic, and typical... because I don't need it, and I was not surprised. The word I used was impressed. My take: This guy just has too big an ego, too well grounded, to be run over by Rumsfeld. They're not going to touch him in the confirmation hearings, either. He's too good. Jonathan Alter wrote a rather sleazy, fake-savvy "web-exclusive" commentary for Newsweek, purporting to advise Bush on how to get better press (is that the job of a journalist?) but really just a way to plug his book on FDR. Consider this section: The only way for a president to transform the news media’s view of him is to provide more of the commodity they crave the most—access. For decades, smart presidents (and candidates) have understood that most reporters can be bought off cheap with a little face time. They won’t become pussy cats—and some will go out of their way to prove their independence. But it is much harder to twist the knife into someone who has just called you by name in a small group and listened patiently to your long-winded question. This was one of the keys to John McCain’s early success in the 2000 Republican primaries. Alter writes, "The president who pioneered the personal touch with reporters was FDR." False. It was TR, who picked out a group of reporters who could watch him shave, toss him questions and listen to his jokes. The president about whom Alter has written a book is FDR. That's what he meant to say; it just came out wrong with the "pioneer" part. What transformation effects can be expected if president Bush follows Alter's brave advice? These sessions gave Roosevelt a chance to get off (not terribly funny) one-liners, play practical jokes and, as one reporter put it, make every person assigned to cover the White House feel as if he was Walter Lippmann. This is doable for any president willing to undertake the effort. Even a deeply unpopular chief executive can seem charming in a small setting, as Bush has repeatedly proven. And to "seem charming" in a small setting with reporters contributes to Bush's political success and the governing of the Republic... how? How's this for self-involved advice? The Bush White House has already launched a series of small off-the-record sessions for selected reporters and pundits. But to make a real difference, these sessions should be done at least weekly, put on the record, and expanded to a larger, rotating pool of reporters, talk-show hosts and bloggers. I thought Alter was a smart guy. He doesn't get that a "web exclusive" (with no links, of course) like this is anything but. He isn't adding enough value. He hasn't gotten the word that standards in opinion writing have gone up. His history is wrong, his advice is lame, his view is blinkered; I can't imagine who is supposed to be impressed with his column. Finally, listen to Mr. Savvy: "Most reporters can be bought off cheap with a little face time." Is that the way things should work? And is that the way they do work for Alter's colleagues at Newsweek who report on the White House? Should columnists be advising presidents on the cheapest way to buy off the press? Alter doesn't know. He knows he's got books to sell. Village: You seem to dismiss the importance of knowing about military matters. If you are a reporter, would you be interested in including that in each report you did on military issues? "You're supposed to believe this because I said so, but I have little to no knowledge of the issues involved." In fact, you wouldn't have to, since the first time anybody saw your byline, it would be clear, and the second time, they'd skip the article entirely. But as a matter of truth in advertising.... Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 10, 2006 10:24 AM | Permalink Village: Ref Condi: Yup. You ought to look at some conservative sites. She's hot--politically speaking. Doesn't hurt that she's good-looking. I hope the republicans nominate her--considering the alternatives currently in view who else would they nominate--because I look forward to inquiring of liberals why they are afraid of a strong woman, of color, moreover. When I studied subSaharan Africa in college, we learned that Arabs took three to five times as many blacks from Africa as went west to the Americas. Where, in the ME, or the littoral of the Indian Ocean, is any analogue of Jamaica, Haiti, or even Alabama? Something horrible happened. Anti-black racism is vile in the ME, as, it goes without saying, is oppression of women. Besides, she's smart, and she hasn't got the professional politician's habit of pandering. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 10, 2006 10:51 AM | Permalink Nah, it'll never work. She's a pianist. She can't delegate, and will try to do everything herself. That's what pianists do. That and those damn flourishes. I swear, if pianists could add vibrato, we'd have to line them up and shoot them. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 10, 2006 11:23 AM | Permalink Andrew: I would agree that Congress is a far superior instrument for questioning the president's reasons for things, and certainly the Constitution expects that. Scholars who study the press constantly make the point that there is a limit to what journalists can do in "challenging" the president if there is weak or non-existent opposition in Congress. But I didn't say any different in my post. I think some of the rage directed at the mainstream news media from the left neglects this point. The watchdog press without a watchdog Congress doesn't work very well. Sure, the narratives for why Goss was let go are lazy and cliched, but if the White House decides it won't even try to explain it, while Goss is calling his leaving a "mystery," the responsibility begins there, seems to me. I guess non-communication has become so routine with the people there that they have lost track of their own self-interest, which hasn't been served by the choices they've made on the Goss departure. That's what National Review is saying. I agree completely that the most interesting part of this story is the internal tensions within the Bush coalition. That's the biggest story in the presidency overall too. When only 52 percent of conservatives approve of the job Bush is doing, there's going to be continuing debates and conflicts over the listing ship. At least until November, what the Democrats do is meaningless; what the left says is political popcorn. The action is on the right. Jay. The dems' prospects with conservatives who disapprove of Bush depend on what it is the conservatives disapprove of. Some think Bush is insufficiently aggressive in the WOT. How will the dems use that? Some think he spends too much domestically? Can the dems promise to spend less? Some think he ought to be impeached for not enforcing immigration laws and for related issues. Can you picture the dems trying to capture that group? Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 10, 2006 11:54 AM | Permalink Richard, some other categories-- Hispanic Catholics who sided with Karl Rove on gay marriage who may now side with their bishops on an immigrant's path to citizenship. Military families who followed their Commander in Chief in 2004 are now given reason to doubt him by the likes of John Murtha and Anthony Zinni. Moral values conservatives who switched to the GOP over Bill Clinton's indiscretions who see corruption and cronyism in the Congressional GOP. Conservative retirees who voted their values last time being persuaded to vote their pocketbooks this time because of a President who wanted to rollback their Social Security and an administration that is making their Medicare coverage unnecessarily complicated. Suburban motorists who trusted a pair of former oil executives to keep their gas tanks affordable who now find that energy policy, shall we say, ineffectual. Libertarians that switched to the GOP over issues such as the Branch Davidians, Ruby Ridge and the Clintons' overreach for a nanny state who now fear the Patriot Act, FCC fines and a vast Homeland Security bureaucracy. Pragmatist conservatives enraged at the incompetence of a Corps of Engineers that cannot build levees to withstand floods and a FEMA that cannot rescue the homeless citizens that the levee breaks created. Who knows if these groups switch to become Democratic voters? But how on earth do they remain in the Republican column? I suppose that's what Mr Rove is working on as we speak. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at May 10, 2006 12:21 PM | Permalink Andrew. And the first person to claim that 2+2=5 will be a visionary. You weren't the first to imply that Bush let the Corps screw up the levees and pass over the local corruption. Or the local response to Katrina--which seemed to be just fine in Mississippi and Alabama--or that presidents have anything to say about gas prices. Murtha, by the way, is on record as saying that there is a danger of withdrawing so slowly that it might look as if we won. Think the military families would like that? We don't all think 2+2=5, Andrew. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 10, 2006 1:01 PM | Permalink I think Andrew was simply trying to tell you that your analysis of potential Republican/conservative disfavor with Mr. Bush ran the gamut from A to B. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 10, 2006 1:29 PM | Permalink Those categories that Tyndall listed for Aubrey started to peel off after Katrina, when the I-word (incompetence) was first mentioned with the Bush machine. They couldn't spin those TV images. (You don't hear conversatives brag about how they win every election as much now.) From that more and more people used the I word with Iraq and everything else. The fracturing of conservatives started with Harriet Miers. Mother Nature pulled back the curtain, then one scandal after another, Plame, Abramoff, were expose. Most of these Bush wounds were self-inflicted. Did Rollback make them worse? The blogo left seems to think it pushed the press, which got Bush's numbers down to 32. The WH sank on its own merits. Although the idea that the CIA “has always had a leftist bent” seems to misunderstand the term “leftist.” If Dems can't win one Congressional chamber this fall, then what kind final two years will we have? Dems will eventually win the WH and Congress (if not in 06 or 08). It will be intriguing to see if Kos et al will turn into cheerleaders. What will that anger turn into? If the Right served as the recent guide, then the left will be angry victims while in charge. Richard-- You tell me that I am not “the first to imply that Bush let the Corps screw up the levees”… First, I made no claim to originality so no offense taken. Anyway I was speculating about what some “pragmatist conservatives” might think. I did not address whether those thoughts might be accurate--or “visionary” even. Second, your choice of the word “let” is unusual. I have none of your military background so perhaps you can elucidate. The army fails in an essential function in time of crisis causing the deaths of hundreds of civilian and countless billions of dollars in damage…and what is the responsibility of the Commander in Chief? Is it not to have the proper systems of command, control and supervision in place to make sure that those under him were doing what they were ordered to do? Doesn’t he have an affirmative duty to ensure that they succeed--and, if not, suffer the political consequences? Would you say, for example, that Bush “let” the military police sexually humiliate the prisoners at abu-Ghraib? No, you would say Bush’s command failed to ensure that the police were doing their job properly, and punished them accordingly. Jaw-- You ask me to read the mind of National Review: "Although the idea that the CIA 'has always had a leftist bent' seems to misunderstand the term 'leftist.' Do you think that was a misunderstanding by NR, or a deliberate attempt to blame political opposition?" My initial reaction is that political discourse has found itself so stuck in a binary left-vs-right rut, that it is the knee-jerk response of a conservative, confronted with any opposing opinion, to characterize it as “leftist”--and vice versa. There is clearly an ideological contest being waged between neocon idealists and intelligence realists over foreign policy. This is a contest being conducted among conservatives. This breakdown of conservative discipline is a new thing and the antagonists have not developed a vocabulary yet--so they resort to the only labels of political disdain they know: the CIA disagrees with me; I am conservative; the CIA must be leftist. QED Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at May 10, 2006 3:03 PM | Permalink Although the idea that the CIA “has always had a leftist bent” seems to misunderstand the term “leftist.” Tyndall, do you think that was a misunderstanding by NR, or a deliberate attempt to blame political opposition? E. Howard Hunt, in a 2004 interview: Slate: What led you to leave the CIA? Hunt: I found out the CIA was just infested with Democrats. I retired in '70. I got out as soon as I could. I wrote several books immediately thereafter. Posted by: nedu at May 10, 2006 3:16 PM | Permalink Andrew, thanks, I understood all your points in the morning post. I was trying to determine if I misread NR's leftist thing. It was a minor quesion for me. I get the knee jerk left-right responses. I get (but don't necessarily agree) with the accusations of leakers being leftist. But the entire CIA with leftist bent? That was a good one. Posted by: jaw at May 10, 2006 3:20 PM | Permalink Hey, I'm with Tydall---how dare the army cause the deaths of hundreds of civilians. If only Democrats ruled the world, we'd have an army that could fight and defeat a Cat 5 hurricane. Attention Hillary----this is your talking point---if I'm elected President, no one will ever die in a hurricane or other natural disaster---Gaia (the Almighty, G_d, Allah, etc)is in my Rolodex! Posted by: animal intelligence at May 10, 2006 3:24 PM | Permalink Animal Intelligence-- Hurricane Katrina was downgraded to a Category Three by the time it hit New Orleans. The specifications on the levees was to withstand storms up to a Category Five. When the National Hurricane Center warned that Katrina might still be Category Five when it reached New Orleans, the Center worried about waters topping the levees not breaching them. The President himself said no one had imagined the levees would be breached. The storm was weaker, yet the levees failed to hold. Are you claiming that the levees were properly built? Cheers Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at May 10, 2006 3:43 PM | Permalink I could be wrong, but it appears to me that it is not just those crazy liberals who are angry. Either that, or the "angry left" commands a super-majority in this country. In the latest CBS/NYT poll, 65% of the country disapprove of bush, only 31% approve, and only 29% view him favorably. Nearly 70% think the county is on the wrong track and 68% believe that Bush will fail in Iraq. 68% think the country is worse off than it was six years ago, before GWB took office. Bush's numbers are now so bad that he is among the most despised presidents of the last century. His disapproval rate of 65% is 1% lower than Nixon's was when he resigned. Given these numbers, it would seem that there are plenty of angry conservatives, angry independents and angry moderates out there, some of whom are perhaps more angry than liberals. (They feel betrayed, and that bush has thrown away tremendous opportunities.) I have never seen a poll showing that 60-70% of Americans are leftist liberals. Here's an angry conservative, for example: TONY JONES: Can I ask, when did you first come to the conclusion that the invasion of Iraq was the worst ineptitude in governance, decision-making and leadership in 50 years? Anger suggests irrationality. But the reality is that the angry people, liberals, moderates and conservatives alike, are angry for rational reasons, while those who smear and sneer at them display an irrational devotion to a failed president and his failed policies. Posted by: steve schwenk at May 10, 2006 4:14 PM | Permalink Cat 5, Cat 3, whatever, but when you present such overwrought hyperbole as the army causing "the deaths of hundreds of civilians", you have forfeited your right to be taken seriously. Furthermore, you have become what you denounce, to-wit: "political discourse has found itself so stuck in the binary left-vs-right rut, that it is the knee-jerk response of a conservative"...but in your case, it's the knee-jerk response of a liberal. Hoist on your own petard, so to speak. Nice try with the Cat 3 diversion, though. Change the subject, don't address the charge. Posted by: emotional intelligence at May 10, 2006 4:22 PM | Permalink I don't know if Andrew thinks Bush could have suspended the laws of aeronautics so that helicopters could fly in a hurricane instead of waiting to fly into its remnants, or if he thinks Bush should have invaded Lousiana and stopped the local corruption that reduced the effectiveness of the levees, or if he thinks Bush should have parachuted some airborne bus drivers into Nagin's bus park, or.... Anyway, if Andrew is serious, it's because he's stuck at age four when authority is Daddy, supposed to take care of everything and if something is not taken care of it's because Daddy hates you. That, as far as I can tell, was the view, so to speak, of the Weather Underground Linda Evans when I knew her in college. I don't think she's grown out of it either. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 10, 2006 4:43 PM | Permalink ..To say nothing of the difference between "overtopped" and "breached," which is significant. Then there is the small matter of the Louisiana Governor's responsibility as Commander in Chief of the LA National Guard, whose primary mission was disaster response. It is not a mission for the active component of the Army, but you will find MSCA (missions in support of civilian authorities) on every Guard unit's Mission Essential Task List. The Active Army went above and beyond the call. The LA National Guard tried, but because of the myriad planning failures at the state and local level, they simply weren't up to it. You will not get the same response from part-time soldiers who themselves live and work in the disaster area as you will from people outside it, regardless. As for the CIA, I never thought of it as being infested with 'leftists.' It is, however, infested with realists - and Bush and his neoconservative policies are something quite different. Mary McCarthy, however, is clearly a partisan, motivated by politics, and her sabatoge of executive policy through unauthorized leaking was reprehensible. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 10, 2006 4:43 PM | Permalink Richard and Jason-- Both of you were telling us ardently earlier in this thread that we civilians know too little about military matters and that if we only had the courtesy to ask you would be happy to inform us. So I ask a simple question about whether it is appropriate that conservative pragmatists should hold the Commander in Chief accountable when his Army Corps of Engineers fails to perform the task it has been ordered to do, namely to prevent deaths in New Orleans by constructing levees. In response, you, Richard, insinuate that I am a Weather-Underground fellow traveler with the emotional age of four. You, Jason, imply that I do not differentiate between overtopped and breached, when that was the very point I did make: the Corps' specifications were supposed to prevent breaching, but not topping, at a Category Five level. Yet at Category Three, breaching happened. Please do not offer to enlighten civilians of things they do not understand and then insult them when they ask for enlightenment. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at May 10, 2006 5:00 PM | Permalink Mary McCarthy says she didn't do it. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 10, 2006 5:01 PM | Permalink More incompetent reporting on the CIA director issue - this time from the Pentagon press Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 10, 2006 5:13 PM | Permalink If Mary McCarthy, whose household contributed $10,000 to Democrats, and who worked for Rand Beers on the National Security Council under Bill Clinton, and Beers being the senior foreign policy advisor for John Kerry in the '04 presidential campaign, says she is non-partisan, then dammit----I believe her! Posted by: emotional intelligence at May 10, 2006 5:21 PM | Permalink The "end" is who cares what your family does Jason. I mean really I don't care who your captain was. Your distinction is what's irrelevant. Others have standing when it comes to the military besides a self-professed know-it-all like you. Posted by: George Boyle at May 10, 2006 5:21 PM | Permalink When Newsbusters referred to "say whatever they want whenever they want with total disregard for factual content or historical accuracy," I thought for a moment it must be referring to Rumsfeld lying to Ray McGovern. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 10, 2006 5:23 PM | Permalink Scholars who study the press constantly make the point that there is a limit to what journalists can do in "challenging" the president if there is weak or non-existent opposition in Congress. ... I think some of the rage directed at the mainstream news media from the left neglects this point. So the press did it's job and did it well over the last 6-7 years? It maxed out it's ability to hold government accountable and to inform the public so they could hold govt. accountable? No room for rational anger, just irrational leftist rage? Posted by: steve schwenk at May 10, 2006 5:30 PM | Permalink "False. You're confusing ad hominem fallacies with defamation. Not at all the same thing. " Well fair enough on defamation, but in Internet discussion ad hominem can be anything besides name-calling for no reason on its face. A liar proven to be a liar will still call it a false accusation and thus a personal attack only. I suppose the general insult would trump actual truth in some circles. Not in mine. Truth is always relevant. Posted by: George Boyle at May 10, 2006 5:33 PM | Permalink If you cite newsbusters that tells a tale in and of itself. Posted by: George Boyle at May 10, 2006 5:36 PM | Permalink George, I was specifically addressing the notion that commissions are not held for life by using an illustration of a WWII officer commissioning me in 1992. That was relevant. Your own family's faithful service on behalf of the Crown ca. 1775-1783 is wholly a red herring.
Sure they do. They just don't get hired by the news media for some reason. besides a self-professed know-it-all like you. Well, now you've abandoned reason and have just been reduced to ad hominems. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 10, 2006 5:42 PM | Permalink what the left says is political popcorn. The action is on the right. Yes, predictions of disaster often precipitate a lot of action. And the action is on the right because 60-70% of Americans have had enough of the right and how they have governed the country. They are unhappy for the same basic reasons that the "left" is. Posted by: steve schwenk at May 10, 2006 5:43 PM | Permalink If you cite newsbusters that tells a tale in and of itself You're committing another fallacy. I'm citing a transcript and a video link. The fact that I found it on Newsbusters or anywhere else in no way excuses the reporter for his ineptitude. The fact that you think it does - or the fact that you try to avoid the issue by raising another oblique ad hominem against me, tells me quite a bit, too - specifically, that you're desperate for any shred of nothingness to attempt to discredit me, and equally desperate to avoid engaging on the facts. Nevertheless, the underlying point remains, and is illustrated in the transcript and accompanying video. The host is actuall immaterial. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 10, 2006 5:48 PM | Permalink Boy, speaking as an English teacher, it really burns my butt when these know-it-all Pentagon types spout off without knowing the difference between a fallacy and an incorrect assertion! Don't these militaryindustrialcomplex types have anyone in their briefing rooms who is a veteran of a liberal arts education? Or at least a critical thinking class? That's the problem with the world today. Everyone should be an expert in my chosen field! Otherwise, they're all idiots! Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 10, 2006 5:52 PM | Permalink I suppose the general insult would trump actual truth in some circles. Not in mine. Truth is always relevant. Again, false. It sounds nice to say, but it belies a sloppiness in your thinking, which is biting you again and again. Basic logic applies: 1.) 2+2=4. But while the second statement is true, it bears no relationship whatever to the first, to say nothing of the third. No, truth is not always relevant. In fact, most "truths" are not relevant to a given question. Irrelevancies, ESPECIALLY when true, are called "red herrings" and generally regarded as fallacious. The very fact of their existence falsifies your assertion. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 10, 2006 5:56 PM | Permalink Richard - Care to be more specific? Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 10, 2006 5:58 PM | Permalink RUMSFELD: Even though the premise is fallacious. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 10, 2006 6:13 PM | Permalink Jay, You clearly state that Hayden demonstrated an understanding of the legal issues superior to that of the journalists questioning him (in addition to your evident surprise that he is simultaneously a member of the Bush administration and both willing and able to practice the art of persuasion). Does that imply you now find the position of the administration and Hayden himself on this question is actually constitutional? Does it rather imply that they are very aware of the precise constitutional status of the laws they nevertheless continue to violate on a daily basis? That the issues at stake are more complex or nuanced than we have previously been told? You make it quite clear that to your mind Hayden's strength of character argues against the concern stated by several GOP senators that Hayden's appointment suggests a Pentagon takeover of the CIA (given that perhaps 70-80% of intelligence funding already goes to Rumsfeld's Pentagon, taking that concern seriously would clearly require much more far-reaching congressional action than the publically discussed opposition to the nomination of a particular CIA director anyway). Bill Kristol and others seem equally concerned that Hayden's appointment might signal an end to the purge of the foreign policy realists they like to think of as anti-Bush liberals, especially given the announcement that Kappes will be rehired as part of a package with Hayden. Did you find Hayden's talk to shed any light on that score? Clearly, you were deeply impressed by Hayden's apparently extraordinary competence and rare (for this administration) recognition of the legitimacy of questions from the press and public, by his willingness to take questions seriously enough to actually try to answer them, his willingness to "play the rational persuasion card" as it were. Is there anything else you would have us take away from your account of the speech? Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 10, 2006 6:17 PM | Permalink Is the Bush administration sending us a larger message by nominating perhaps it's sole truly effective, resourceful, and persuasive spokesperson as director of the CIA? The first issue the Bush administration has gone out of its way to make a rational political case for is the legitimacy of covert operations that they and their party systematically refuse to expose to public oversight? Does anyone else sense a paradox here? Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 10, 2006 6:29 PM | Permalink Then there is the small matter of the Louisiana Governor's responsibility as Commander in Chief of the LA National Guard, whose primary mission was disaster response. Except, of course, that one-third of the Mississippi National Guard and nearly half of the Louisiana Guard were mobilized and serving in Iraq. Which made it a little hard for them to do flood duty. Indeed, Louisiana's 256th Inf. Brigade - the state's largest - were finishing up a year combat tour. When they did get home in September, just in time to join the clean-up, their vehicles were still in Iraq. The National Guard did get called in - something like 58,000 from all 50 states - to preserve order, conduct rescues and provide aid. But the Louisiana Guard had a good excuse for being late. Thought a military man like yourself would know that, Jason. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 10, 2006 6:31 PM | Permalink OK, Richard B. Simon, English Teacher, what's the difference between a false premise and an incorrect assertion? I'm especially interested in the context of a journalist composing a question. In fact, let's your example: Secretary Rumsfeld Media Stakeout after CNN Late Edition (Sunday, May 4, 2003) Q: My question is about ultimate acceptance of the Iraqis of the designs or ideas for Iraq or on how this government is now being discussed and planned. (Inaudible.) Whether there is some possible or is concern in the U.S. government about acceptance of this unitary idea among the barriers or interest groups in Iraq?I actually think this ties in well with Jay's non-communication thesis and how Snow might approach the press differently. Jay Rosen, I am curious how Education Reform, Medicare Reform, Social Security Reform, the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the National Intelligence Director, the 2002 Use of Force Act, the 2002 UN Presentation by Bush, the 2003 UN Presentation by Powell, etc., fall within the Bush administration governing by assent rather than persuasion? Heh. I figured I'd get an "OH YEAH, SMARTYPANTS?" on that one from someone smarter than I ... I was actually referring to Jason's link, above, to newsbusters, sis. The nit herein picked is the difference, to my ear, between "false" and "fallacious" -- "fallacious" generally connoting a failure in logic. Which this was not. It was an assertion of fact that was not, in fact, factual.
Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 10, 2006 7:01 PM | Permalink I think some of the rage directed at the mainstream news media from the left neglects this point. Steve: "So the press... maxed out it's ability to hold government accountable and to inform the public so they could hold govt. accountable? No room for rational anger, just irrational leftist rage?" Maxed out? No room? All irrational? Where did you get this imagery? Didn't say anything like that. I said some of the rage neglects to consider that some of the weakness of the press reflects the weakness of opposition within a government that is a one-party state at the moment. Have a quarrel with that assertion? If I phrase something in a non-categorical way, and it comes back paraphrased in sweeping or categorical terms, I trust the commentator that much less. Kapeesh? The first issue the Bush administration has gone out of its way to make a rational political case for is the legitimacy of covert operations that they and their party systematically refuse to expose to public oversight? Does anyone else sense a paradox here? And Schwenk, when one says anger on the left it is a shortened generalization doesn't mean every single person one the left is irrational. It would take a rather long sentence with some and other hedge words to address whether the anger is rational, irrational, realistic, useful yada yada yada. The fact that such statement riles you so is telling. Mark: Hayden didn't himself make the legal case; he said he relied on opinion. I don't have a clear view on whether it's legal. I would have to study it more, but my own opinions on the law don't interest me much. The dialogue with journalists was different depending on how much pre-existing knowledge the reporter had, and how much confidence. Sometimes Hayden knew way more-- he's boss of the NSA. Sometimes it was more even footing. The event resisted easy generalization. Thinking back over Ari and Scott and now Tony, I was simply remarking that if a "briefer" wants to explain and has knowledge and knows his stuff, the back and forth is different, even with some gotcha questions and some dumb ones. The dialogue in the press room is, in fact, an artifcat of the underlying knowledge map on which we find the participants and briefer. When we call someone "out of the loop" we are recognizing that. If I were Snow, I would probably try to perfect what he did Monday: bring a participant in the decision to do the briefing. You alter the knowledge dynamic that way, possibly giving the edge to the White House. The dialogue in the press room is, in fact, an artifcat of the underlying knowledge map on which we find the participants and briefer. When we call someone "out of the loop" we are recognizing that. If I were Snow, I would probably try to perfect what he did Monday: bring a participant in the decision to do the briefing. You alter the knowledge dynamic that way, possibly giving the edge to the White House. Very interesting point, Jay -- are you saying that Snow picked Negroponte to do the briefing? If that is so, then Snow is programming the podium, like a program director. Would that be a new tactic altogether? Instead of the stone wall, bring out the most appropriate official who actually knows something or appears knowledgeable and therefore credible. (It actually seems like what the Pentagon does.) Not only might that be good for the White House, it might actually be good for discourse -- and therefore for the country. Or it could be same talking points, different talking head. Depends on how and if questions get answered. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 10, 2006 7:35 PM | Permalink Richard B. Simon: The nit herein picked is the difference, to my ear, between "false" and "fallacious" -- "fallacious" generally connoting a failure in logic. Completely understandable. :-) emotional intelligence (nice tag, by the way) -- First rule of thumb at Press Think: Try to pay attention.
Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 10, 2006 7:44 PM | Permalink Andrew: The Corps of Engineers does some of the work, the locals do other work, particularly in Louisana. The latter isn't very useful for the ostensible purpose, but it does spread money around in all the wrong places. I suppose you could hold Bush responsible, but then you'd have to hold every president in office since the levees were built, as well, with Bush being the guy who happened to be there when the thing happened. You might also try to convince us that you'd be just fine with the trampling on local authority which would be necessary to clean up the Louisana levee situation before anything happened. Imagine all those politicians cut off from their money. Imagine Andrew taking their side--it's easy if you try. I am not sure what the problem with overtopping versus breaching is. Bush encouraged Nagin to order an evacuation, all Bush could do at that time. Hardly matters by which method the water was going to get into the town. I am also convinced that Andrew would not hold Clinton to the same standards. In other words, NOLA is a tool, not a concern. Had it happened on Clinton's watch, it would be a non-event. Dead people notwithstanding. Responsibilty requires authority. By habit and custom, the authority of the president over Corps construction and the later maintenance of various projects is attentuated. I rather doubt liberals would prefer to see it become straightforward, robust,and ignore the locals. Can you imagine Bush saying, three years ago, I'm going to order the levees massively rebuilt and nobody besides myself and the Corps commander will have jack to say about it? I'm sure Andrew would love it. Not. Anyway, Andrew, you should know how obvious it is that your concern is bogus. The disasters you point to are tools for partisan hackery, not concern for others. I did not equate you to a Weather Underground anarchist in terms of your actions, since I don't know about your actions. I was saying that your views, if you state them honestly, remind me of a Weather Underground person I knew who was a sadly and largely incomplete person. On the other hand, if you're not like her, the views you state are not honest. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 10, 2006 7:52 PM | Permalink If I were Snow, I would probably try to perfect what he did Monday: bring a participant in the decision to do the briefing. You alter the knowledge dynamic that way, possibly giving the edge to the White House. I'll bet you're right, Jay; that's the new M.O. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 10, 2006 7:57 PM | Permalink Lovelady, you know that's Kilgore right? Yes, jaw, I know. ;-) Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 10, 2006 8:02 PM | Permalink If I phrase something in a non-categorical way, and it comes back paraphrased in sweeping or categorical terms, I trust the commentator that much less. Kapeesh? What, you never heard of Socrates? Your comment as phrased was too mushy and ambiguous to mean much. Still is. But since I am deemed untrustworthy, I no longer care. Posted by: steve schwenk at May 10, 2006 8:20 PM | Permalink Are you saying that Snow picked Negroponte to do the briefing? Could be. Could be a team decision in which he joined. If that is so, then Snow is programming the podium, like a program director. Would that be a new tactic altogether? Yes. Instead of the stone wall, bring out the most appropriate official who actually knows something or appears knowledgeable and therefore credible. Exactly. Not only might that be good for the White House, it might actually be good for discourse -- and therefore for the country. Possibly. Something different is what the Bush team needs. Their arrow is going down right now. Or it could be same talking points, different talking head. Yes, surely. But you can't count on everyone being a puppy dog like McClellan. Some people will turn out to be very good at it. Natural eloquence cannot be programmed out of them. If the policy worked, briefers have to be ready on short notice. There may not be time to prep them all. You have to go with their knowledge, not your message. This strategy--if it ever got in gear--would have a number of advantages. If Snow appeared rarely, every appearance he had might command more authority. Then he would sorta be like the DA who takes the big cases himself. That's one, there are others. Steve Lovelady: Have you interviewed Mary McCarthy? Has anyone? We've heard from Ty Cobb, her lawyer, and Rand Beers, her friend, but have we heard from McCarthy herself? Do we need to hear from McCarthy? She was only days away from retirement when she was thrown under the bus. I think Mr. Simon threads the issue appropriately, and is correct - Rumsfeld misused the term 'fallacious.' A premise can be true, false, or uncertain. But it cannot by itself, if self contained, be fallacious." It is fallacious, though, to build an argument on a premise that can be shown to be false or uncertain. So the premise was false. The question, or point, was fallacious. Not that it matters all that much. The reporter still wound up with egg on his face. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 10, 2006 8:32 PM | Permalink If I say to you: "some." And you say to me: "you mean all?" The name we give to that is not Socratic. Dave, I'm fully aware that the 256th was in Iraq when Katrina hit. What I'm not sure of is what you're implying: That the National Guard enhanced infantry Brigades which have been sucking up federal dollars for all these years should be stripped of their federal mission? Should we throw more than a century of experience out the window, along with the Abrams Doctrine and the Total Army Concept, not to mention the operational and administrative doctrine we've been developing since the Spanish American war? Shall we not rely on the Guard during a time of war? That's awfully Jeffersonian of you, since any capabilities and missions we remove from the Guard will have to be absorbed by a much larger active duty Army. You willing to pay for a much larger Army? Indeed, the number of combat formations in the Army would have to double in order to make up for the Guard, in order to maintain its present capabilities. Where are you going to do the recruiting? And how are you going to pay for it? I don't think you really understand what you're arguing. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 10, 2006 8:42 PM | Permalink " ... not to mention the operational and administrative doctrine we've been developing since the Spanish American war?" --Jason Hel-lo ? Since the Spanish American war ??? Posted by: Ann Kolson at May 10, 2006 10:32 PM | Permalink Ann Kolson is a Rove-inspired troll, right? She sneers at booklearning. Or perhaps she is pretending that lefties can't read at all or know anything they haven't actually seen. Interesting post. Sure makes the left look bad, so bad that they can't possibly be that bad. Has to be counterfeit. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 10, 2006 10:55 PM | Permalink I'm not implying anything, Jason. Certainly nothing as silly as your argument that I want to do away with the Guard's federal role. Where do you get this stuff? No, I'm implying nothing. I'm saying, clearly as I can, that your comments about Louisiana's governor and the guard is so much hooey. The Active Army went above and beyond the call. The LA National Guard tried, but because of the myriad planning failures at the state and local level, they simply weren't up to it. - Jason I agree the LANG tried its best. But with half of them away in combat, the governor could hardly call them out for flood duty. Which makes your statement above nonsensical. Clear enough? Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 10, 2006 11:06 PM | Permalink "How often does that happen?" As a 53-year-old non-grandfather, I say not often. "No, truth is not always relevant" Really? It's not always "relative" if ever, but it's always relevant. What IS irrelevant still is the concept of invisible commissioning and no distinction of current and retired status. That's toast no matter how far you bend over to kiss yourself. Posted by: George Boyle at May 10, 2006 11:38 PM | Permalink "Your own family's faithful service on behalf of the Crown ca. 1775-1783 is wholly a red herring." Nope not the Crown, against it. Herring, we pickled. Now isn't that appropriate? Posted by: George Boyle at May 10, 2006 11:53 PM | Permalink jaw Yep, exactly - Fortran on punched cards (and paper tape). My first computer was MANIAC (vacuum tubes, etc). It lived across the street from my childhood home on the UNM campus in Albuquerque. Anne I know this will come as a surprise to you, but military officers study military history in depth. Jason is a military officer. QED. Andrew The binary labeling exists for good reasons. The nation is pretty well cleaved into two sets. If one knows a person’s views on a few major issues, you can often predict a high percentage of their other opinions (disclaimer: usually and high percentage are used with intent - the labeling is by necessity never perfect).. I am "right". Many on this blog are "left." It’s merely shorthand, the natural progression in any community. In information theory terms, the more frequently something is mentioned, the shorter its label becomes. This is illustrated by the reduced number of syllables in words (mostly related to agriculture) heavily used through much of the development of our vocabulary - "cow," "pig," "sword," "gun," "hat," etc. ……….. Many of your examples regarding disaffected conservatives fit into the "2 + 2 = 5" field. They are incorrect or exaggerated as facts, but as political assertions, especially given the anti-conservative press, they may still carry the load. In particular, since you twice cited Katrina, some reality based reporting is in order. Although Katrina was cat 3 when it hit New Orleans, the storm surge remained cat 5, because water carries lots of inertia. The slackening of winds in the last few hours was insufficient to remove that energy. Hydrologically this was a cat 5, not a cat 3 event, as evidenced by the extreme storm surge damage in Mississippi and Lake Pontchartrain - with heights well over 20 feet. Furthermore, the floodwalls were not overtopped, they were undermined. This was probably a result of inadequate construction and/or maintenance, and cannot possibly be blamed on FEMA, Bush or Bush’s management of the Corps of Engineers (despite your attempts). The levee system in New Orleans was governed by many local fiefdoms, rank with corruption in the most corrupt city in the nation. Federal money was sporadically dispatched by Congress, as pork, and improving the levies and flood walls would have taken many years to do. Also, FEMA guidelines for disaster preparedness require that local government be able to handle the situation with no outside assistance for 72 hours, and to be the primary agency throughout the emergency. New Orleans was not even able to gain FEMA certification, and its Hurricane Disaster Plan (on its website until it became embarrassing) was not activated during Katrina. New Orleans public safety agencies lost radio communications quickly because of lack of backup power and no way to charge hand-helds - as if designing the system to survive power failures and flooding was unimportant. At one point, Nagin and staff were chased by a local gang from their lower floor hideout in the Hyatt, with the police chief standing off the gang with his service postil. In spite of all this, Bush's Department of Homeland Security was rescuing people in large numbers the moment the weather allowed helicopters to fly, ultimately saving thousands of those abandoned by Mayor Nagin. There are many other local factors of which you are apparently unaware. This lack of domain specific knowledge, shown here, is leading you to inappropriate conclusions, all of which miraculously put the blame on Bush (who does deserve *some*). I don’t mean to pick on you… it's just that you have nicely illustrated the modern journalistic tendency to report without adequate knowledge, and without seeking it from those more knowledgeable. Posted by: John Moore at May 10, 2006 11:55 PM | Permalink Ann, Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean the rest of us are under any obligation to be. Historically, the Spanish American war was a watershed event in the history of the National Guard. It was problems in mobilizing the various state militias for that war that resulted in a modernization of the force, its integration into the reserve component of the U.S. Army, and the creation of the National Guard as we know it today. I don't expect you to know this stuff. But the eagerness with which you embrace your ignorance and attack people who DO know what they are talking about is dismaying to see. Incidentally, if you're curious to know about the origins of the institution of the US Army, the best book to read is one called "Minutemen," by former Senator Gary Hart, who is an excellent military and political historian and thinker. Well, maybe you're not curious, because as someone else posted - knowledge of things military is an "icky thing." But other people who actually value knowledge and education might find it interesting.
Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 11, 2006 12:10 AM | Permalink After reading and rereading all the tripe that is endlessly repeated by the Bushites here, a simple pronouncement from somebody who actually rooted for Bush in 2000* .... INCOMPETENT .... THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES .... SORRY. So troll elsewhere, please. * and shame on me, in retrospect. Posted by: village idiot at May 11, 2006 12:10 AM | Permalink And Schwenk, when one says anger on the left it is a shortened generalization doesn't mean every single person one the left is irrational. It would take a rather long sentence with some and other hedge words to address whether the anger is rational, irrational, realistic, useful yada yada yada. The fact that such statement riles you so is telling. It is so telling? Well what does it tell you, Bush's Jaw? By all means, spell it out if you are able to, which I doubt you are. The truth is, Bush's Jaw (idiotic name, BTW), you know nothing about me or my politics. I could just as easily be a conservative republican as a liberal democrat. In fact, I am more conservative than Bush on many issues. Not all of the 50+% of the US population that strongly disapprove of Bush's performance are liberal democrats, as noted above. A lot of them are conservatives. Only 51% of conservatives approve of bush in the lstest poll. And thanks for your brilliant explanation of the term "angry left." But unfortunately, your explanation is feeble and entirely misses the point. The "statement" is not a statement, but a pejorative term intended to discredit the 'left" and paint it as irrational, unstable and hysterical. It is a device used to inoculate against reasoned criticism. "Oh, that''s just more ranting and rage from the looney left, we don't even have to listen to it..." Richard Cohen, Deborah Howell, Jim Brady, Bill O'Rielly, Rush Limbaugh, Joe Klein, Tom Delay and Joe Lieberman are among the people who rely on this rhetorical device to avoid answering legitimate criticism and to discredit legitimate critics. The WaPo used it as well in its front page smear story on those angry liberal bloggers after Jim Brady's melt down over Ben Domenech (hey, where are those bloggers you were going to hire, Jim?). BJ, why don't you tell Billmon that it's "so telling" that he makes fun of the term, or Digby, or Atrios. They'd laugh at you, just like me. Posted by: steve schwenk at May 11, 2006 1:19 AM | Permalink If I say to you: "some." And you say to me: "you mean all?" The name we give to that is not Socratic. Actually the 'some' and the 'all' referred to different things, Jay. And the questions certainly were socratic since they, in an admittedly clumsy, hasty manner, sought to force you to define an ambiguous term ('some' ) and to refine your thought...as your follow-up explanation of the point did:. I said some of the rage neglects to consider that some of the weakness of the press reflects the weakness of opposition within a government that is a one-party state at the moment. ... there is a limit to what journalists can do in "challenging" the president if there is weak or non-existent opposition in Congress. ... I think some of the rage directed at the mainstream news media from the left neglects this point. This statement could be read to say that the left sometimes rages at the media even when the media are doing everything that can reasonably be expected of them. That would, in my opinion, be a highly inaccurate statement, unless "some" is defined as a very tiny, tiny percentage of the time by a tiny, tiny percentage of people (but then, why bother mentioning it?). The only times I have seen anything even approaching rage from the left, it has been in response to shocking and outrageous examples of reporting or punditry by the media. Never have I seen anything approaching rage where the press has performed to it's potential. Can you give any examples? Even the so-called "anger" that people express at the press usually arises in circumstances where the press has failed to to do its job, or acts as stenographers instead of journalists, not where they make a good effort, but fall short. When you use a powerful and extremely negative word like "rage," and then qualify it by use of an extremely ambiguous term like "some," which can mean anywhere from .0001% to 99.9999%, it can appear to some that your point was to use the negative term, and to qualify it in an ambiguous way in order to leave an escape hatch, should someone challenge your use of the inflammatory term. But clearly, I should have just ignored the whole thing. Posted by: steve schwenk at May 11, 2006 1:25 AM | Permalink Paging Dr. Snow, Dr. Snow please... The release of the two pages of visitor logs appeared to raise as many questions as it answered, since White House spokesmen declined to explain why the logs did not refer to a number of other White House visits by Mr. Abramoff that they had previously acknowledged. That's very helpful, thank you. Was that a false or fallacious rant? Thanks for noticing the idiotic name. I wanted a literal one, but village idiot already was taken. One of the slogans for The Young Turks is, "We get angry, so you don't have to." Richard-- For a frequent commenter whose usual complaint about journalists is their inaccuracy, you should check a little, yourself, before you post. In fairness to Professor Rosen, I would prefer to offer this reply offline since it is irrelevant to the thread. Since you offer no e-mail address, I hope Jay will allow me a few paragraphs of rebuttal: First, you agree with me that the levee failure could be a legitimate complaint of conservatives against this administration--"I suppose you could hold Bush responsible..."--and then you attribute to me all sorts of deceptions and omissions that I would like to answer here. "You might also try to convince us that you'd be just fine with the trampling on local authority which would be necessary to clean up the Louisana levee situation before anything happened." On what possible grounds do you assume I hold a brief for Louisiana municipalities? You have absolutely no idea what my opinions are on this issue, since I have never addressed it one way or another. "I am also convinced that Andrew would not hold Clinton to the same standards." On what possible grounds do you assume I hold such double standards? When Clinton's Justice Department provoked the fire that killed the Branch Davidians, the Tyndall Report held the President accountable. "Had it happened on Clinton's watch, it would be a non-event. Dead people notwithstanding." When the genocide happened in Rwanda on Clinton's watch, the Tyndall Report held the President accountable for his inaction. "Responsibilty requires authority. By habit and custom, the authority of the president over Corps construction and the later maintenance of various projects is attentuated. I rather doubt liberals would prefer to see it become straightforward, robust,and ignore the locals." If you remember, the entire discussion earlier in the thread was whether Katrina might be a motivation for conservatives, not liberals, to become dissatisfied with the Republican Party. Straightforward and robust actions by the Pentagon are usually favored by conservatives, a fact that seems to support my argument. The point is that conservatives traditionally have supported two values that are here in contradiction--states rights vs robust military action. As Jay observed earlier, what liberals think in this debate is "political popcorn." "Andrew, you should know how obvious it is that your concern is bogus. The disasters you point to are tools for partisan hackery, not concern for others." On what possible grounds do you assume those are my motives? Floods cause the deaths of hundreds in New Orleans. When I ask questions about accountability, you claim that is proof of my lack of concern for others. That comment is insulting and outrageous. "...your views, if you state them honestly, remind me of a Weather Underground person I knew who was a sadly and largely incomplete person. On the other hand, if you're not like her, the views you state are not honest." Check with Jason: I believe this last attack--that I am either dishonest or sad and largely incomplete--is ad hominem. Thanks for the space, Jay Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at May 11, 2006 11:41 AM | Permalink Yes it AT to radical Weather Undergrounders who are unhinged, and apparently incomplete, whatever the hell that means. The key accusation is honesty. The "dishonest" statement has to be clearly indentified. I didn't detect one. Posted by: George Boyle at May 11, 2006 12:04 PM | Permalink Welcome to Aubrey-land, Andrew. Your experience is typical. He's all about the hating. His press hate is morphing lately into hatred for all he imagines disagree with him. Pretty soon, if his pattern doesn't change, he will get some warnings from me, and will become the fourth person in three years, 400 posts and 17,000 comments to be asked to leave. (Three were "left," one was "right" if you're keeping score.) Jay. What I find here is excuses for both. FWIW, I replied to Andrew by e-mail. I said he could post my e-mail to the thread if he wished. I was not aware my e-mail address was not part of posting, since I enter it each time I post. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 11, 2006 1:47 PM | Permalink Only the URL shows up for public viewing when posting a comment. I've seem people put their e-mail address in that space. Posted by: email at May 11, 2006 2:11 PM | Permalink Tony Snow has released detailed statements regarding what he thinks are three separate errors of reporting. Is this new? Is this good? Should he continue it? Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 11, 2006 2:37 PM | Permalink Rollback in the Senate? Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) is filing a formal complaint with chamber officials regarding what he considers an “unethical” broadcast of an interview with him by a CNN reporter Tuesday. In an incident that could have repercussions for TV journalists’ access to the chamber, Stevens is furious with CNN correspondent Joe Johns for an interview conducted outside the weekly GOP policy luncheons, but far away from the usual bank of TV cameras set up for such interviews next to the storied Ohio Clock. ... The blow-up over the Johns report comes as TV journalists have launched a campaign to secure greater access to the second-floor hallways, which are regarded as top real estate for reporters because it’s possible to get up-close face time with Senators there during votes and before and after key meetings. (Restricted story at Roll Call, Excerpts at Raw Story) Posted by: Ron Brynaert at May 11, 2006 2:39 PM | Permalink More than half of the surveyed journalists reported working with "a peer involved in fabrication, plagiarism or other deliberate misconduct," Wow. That's a pretty lousy ethical climate to be working in! and almost 90% say they would report suspected unethical behavior by a peer to That's not too great, either. That figure should be 100%. Most of them are lying, anyway. .9 times 5 is .45. You guys who run newspaper staffs: Have fully 45% of your staffs reported someone to you for fabricating or plagiarism? Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 11, 2006 3:44 PM | Permalink er. .9 x .5 is .45. Sorry for the error. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 11, 2006 3:45 PM | Permalink Jason, I read that Joe Strupp article a couple of days ago and wanted to go and check out the study's methodology and complete findings but the link that he included doesn't work. I emailed him (today, actually) but does anyone else have a link to the actual study's report? Posted by: Kristen at May 11, 2006 4:17 PM | Permalink Oooops. My bad. Found it there just now. Posted by: Kristen at May 11, 2006 4:18 PM | Permalink Let's check that math a little further, Jason. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 11, 2006 4:23 PM | Permalink If any reporter heard about Jayson Blair, does he count as a peer? Shocking, there are unethical journalists? Can't wait for Kristen's next post about how Bush's coverage is bad because of the unethical media. Hope those participants in the survey were senior unidentified journalists. Just curious, Jaw.... What are you talking about? Posted by: Kristen at May 11, 2006 4:38 PM | Permalink ... As John Moore pointed out earlier, it makes all the difference in the world. If the levees failed without being topped then it means their construction and/or maintenance was flawed. If so the flooding was a manmade disaster not an act of nature.Video of New Orleans 17th Street Levee Model Illustrates IPET Preliminary Findings (Video) Panel's Report Assigns No Blame in Levee Failures Steve, That might hold some water if you're willing to define "worked with" beyond all usefulness. But if I'm on the business beat, and Jayson Blair's working the city desk, and I never even bump in to the guy except by chance at the vending machines, I sure as hell don't "work with" Jayson Blair. He's another employee at my company, and that's all. I read "work with" to mean, you know, "work with," as oppose to "work in the same building as." Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 11, 2006 5:49 PM | Permalink That graph is on page 10: Deliberate Misconduct Although we included numerous items pertaining to dishonesty among co-workers and peers, responses suggest this is less prevalent than problems with sources or editing. Nevertheless, most respondents report being concerned about a peer's work at some time in their career. About 45% have suspected a peer of plagiarism and 30% of all respondents (60% of the suspicious ones) have had such doubts proven. Some 25% have personally uncovered peer dishonesty and 20% have directly confronted co-worker they suspect of producing erroneous or plagiarized reports. Experience with Ethical Problems over the past 5 years. When asked specifically, "Has there been a problem with unethical or unprofessional behavior in the newsroom in which you work in the past 5 years? 53 percent of respondents answer, "Yes." Yes votes are more common from respondents at large newspaper (61 percent) than from those at small newspapers (47 percent.)
There is no more navel-gazing institution on the planet than the U.S. press.I'd like to get the thoughts of a press critic on the figure at the bottom of page 7 of the Mongerson report. Our motivation for asking these questions came from a desire to learn how many journalists regularly report on errors and fabrications in the news (the central theme of the Mongerson Prize) and to put the extent of such reporting in context with other coverage. But as the chart on the right shows, very few respondents say they have experience investigating and reporting either of those issues. First, from the Mongerson report: "Has there been a problem with unethical or unprofessional behavior in the newsroom in which you work in the past 5 years? 53 percent of respondents answer, "Yes." Next, from Jason: "But if I'm on the business beat, and Jayson Blair's working the city desk, and I never even bump in to the guy except by chance at the vending machines, I sure as hell don't 'work with' Jayson Blair. He's another employee at my company, and that's all. --Jason Steve isn't here right now, Jason --but I think that for once your point is exactly his point. We can't blame some business reporter for not knowing Jayson Blair was piping stories. The question asked by the survey concerned "in the newsroom in which you work." Which is a far cry from "Does the guy who sits next to you make stuff up?" Posted by: Ann Kolson at May 11, 2006 8:11 PM | Permalink With the most liberal--which is to say favorable for journalism--calculations, what percentage of journalists does the study suggest occasionally make stuff up, plagiarize, or fake sources? Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 11, 2006 8:22 PM | Permalink What is with all the righteousness? Journalists do not derive from 'homo sapiens'? Posted by: village idiot at May 11, 2006 8:37 PM | Permalink Aubrey, you realize reporters are competitive also. They fight for placement of stories in the paper, they fight for reporting turf, so jealousy is the equation when people suspect. It's a workplace like any other workplace. The fabrications are usually a small feature in a true story. You cover some trade show or fair on the weekend, and there is temptation to find a person with a colorful quote in the body of the story. The trade show or fair is not made up. No one fact checks if Joe Blow from Altoona exists. Even Jayson Blair used news photos to described places he never visited. There are elements of truth in the lies. Posted by: email at May 11, 2006 8:44 PM | Permalink No, village, they don't. They are several cuts above. Just ask one of them, unless it's within a couple of minutes of having been caught. Then they're just people. "Journalists are generalists." If I had a buck for every time I've heard that as an excuse.... Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 11, 2006 8:45 PM | Permalink With the most liberal--which is to say favorable for journalism--calculations, what percentage of journalists does the study suggest occasionally make stuff up, plagiarize, or fake sources? Can't say, Richard. The study only notes that 45% of reporters "suspect" that some one colleague, at one time or another, made something up. But let's for the moment take the study at face value. Since American newsrooms range in size from 1,200 (New York Times) to three (Northern Wyoming Daily News), we have 540 folks at the Times wondering if a fellow employee ever made something up and one employee at NWDN wondering the same thing -- although I doubt that it skews that way. But, tell me -- how do you suppose that compares to, say, the staff at the White House ? Or the assembled bureaucrats at the various Cabinet agencies ? In other words, the people whose salaries we are paying to not lie to us ? Hmmm ?
Posted by: Ann Kolson at May 11, 2006 8:51 PM | Permalink Ann Kolson: In other words, the people whose salaries we are paying to not lie to us ? Too Funny. As opposed to the people whose salaries are paid by advertisers so they can both lie to us? jaw: Consider this: "Journalistic practice conforms to and establishes the dominant noetic field." Do the lies of the extra-constitutional 4th Estate have more, less or equal impact? What is the public ethos of an honest politician and an honest journalist? That's a very interesting conspiracy theory you have going there, Sisyphus. Advertisers (pantyhose, lipstick, movie studios, tire companies, department stores) are paying reporters to "lie" to us about Iraq ... Katrina ... warrantless eavesdropping ... and the confiscation of the phone records of tens of millions of Americans ? Those are some powerful advertisers ! I say, God bless 'em. And more power to 'em. Posted by: Ann Kolson at May 11, 2006 9:46 PM | Permalink It is like the Schrödinger's cat; guilt only exists when caught. Survey-based culpability is a 'fallacy'. Posted by: village idiot at May 11, 2006 9:50 PM | Permalink Conspiracy theory, Ann? No, no conspiracy theory. Just applying the same faulty logic as you did, only in the form of sarcasm. But I did enjoy the paranoid style in your response. jaw: School for Scandal (pdf) "What is the public ethos of an honest politician and an honest journalist?" It's intersting. After all this you would think Tim could comprehend honesty in both, but it's not blanket. Dishonest purveyors in both trades get prosecuted and fired. Does this mean they are dishonest by default because that's what Tim thinks? That and his politicians are as pure as the driven snow. Posted by: George Boyle at May 11, 2006 10:23 PM | Permalink The Paranoid Style in American Politics Anybody readily come to mind? .... Posted by: village idiot at May 11, 2006 10:33 PM | Permalink "Welcome to Aubrey-land, Andrew. Your experience is typical. He's all about the hating." Yes he is, and he's had a lot of company mostly on the right. People like Aubrey get away with murder while others are shot on sight for fighting back. There seems to be a conservative action program going on that protects these folks. In the blogosphere this blog is known as the anti-pressthink in some circles. It's a shame really. Posted by: George Boyle at May 11, 2006 10:35 PM | Permalink George Boyle: A thought experiment for you ... What are the similarities and differences between Abduction, Bad News Bias and Teddy Roosevelt's The Man with the Muck Rake? Yeah. "Hate" is drug out to replace "racist" as the all-purpose, Swiss Army knife discrediting of a point not otherwise manageable. For example, if I were to inquire--as I did--how the NYT could overstate the number of Katrina folks in Houston by a factor of five and understate the federal aid on their behalf by a factor of ten, I'm a hater. I don't even have to mention that the reporter's errors were aimed at (oops, excuse me, had the inadvertent effect of) making the feds (Bush) look bad, to be called a hater. Both of these numbers could have been discovered by phoning the appropriate agencies, which, one would suspect, the reporter reporting on the subject knew, or if a genuine reporter, should have known. By the way, there are any number of vocations in the country where certain actions, such as misrepresentation, are ground for losing one's license. In other words, you're out of a job, and out of a field, probably for some years, if not permanently. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 11, 2006 10:49 PM | Permalink Yes, Richard, all media errors are acts of commission. No mistakes, sloppiness, carelessness or simple bad luck ever It's always intentional. All facts are complete and updated constantly and simply ready to be checked. Especially in the immediate aftermath of a major disaster. All roads are passable. Telephone lines never go down. Cell phones always work, particularly when the cell tower are downed. The records of evacuations are neatly filed and correct in every way. Everyone is accounted for. And every dollar spent on disaster relief are readily accountable. I have no idea why the Times reported what they reported. I do know that your contention that media errors are indicators of intent to deceive and mislead has grown exceedingly tedious. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 11, 2006 11:53 PM | Permalink Yes you are a hater. A self-loathing Middle America biased wingnut. You hate anyone that reports reality as it is, not the way you would like it to be in Disneyland. And you shoot the messenger whether they deserve it or not. Instead try shooting a moving duck. It will be humbling for you. You're a walking cliche but sadly are able to realize it. Still having trouble reading the news Tim? It looks like it. Hasn't the Missouri professor explained it to you enough? Do the world a favor and just listen to FOX and the administration. It should be easy since they're interchangeble pieces of the same puzzle: a veritible Da Vinci Code of "truth" if there ever was one. Posted by: George Boyle at May 12, 2006 12:01 AM | Permalink One of Snow's first assignments is apparently manning the Bush administration flak gun aimed at news organizations who deviate from the official line: Snow Already Sparring with News Orgs Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 12, 2006 12:01 AM | Permalink The way the press reported the Katrina event was shameful. One would think that George Bush's job was to personally supervise the building of the flood walls, the operation of New Orleans city management, every detail of his administration (except when it does something right - such as FEMA did the prior year when four successive hurricanes hit Florida), etc. The New Orleans disaster was complex, but if one is assessing blame, a pretty small percentage should fall on Bush. Much more should fall on the state and local officials, who were warned by Bush and the NHC director, Max Mayfield to start evacuating but failed to do so. Oh, and by the way, Dr. Mayfield is part of the, gasp, Bush Administration. I had a side-bar with Andrew on this, that goes into more detail. Suffice it to say, the press had a Bash Bush field day (and is still having it) about a disaster in which many things were done right, many were done wrong, and most of the wrong was at the local level. Important context information was downplayed, the failures at local levels (which were widespread and dramatic) were minimized, and the federal failures were exaggerated. A couple of silly statements by Brownie (who, it appears, should not have been appointed to that job) came to overshadow the good work of thousands of people in the fed, and certainly were dramatized far more than the idiocies of the Mayor and Governor. One little example... the folks who rescued thousands by helicopter, starting as soon as the winds died down, worked for... the US Coast guard which is part of...guess what... the Department of Homeland Security... which reports to Chernoff and ultimately to Bush. In other words, it is fair, by the new rule of escalation of responsibility, to say that Bush sagved thousands of people who otherwise would have drowned. But it doesn't seem to be appropriate to mention uncomfortable facts like the delay for 24 hours by the governor, after being warned by both POTUS and the head of the NHC, before taking any action. That doesn't make Bush look bad, so we don't hear much about it. It's pretty obvious to me that either: 1) The press is ignorant, and also imagines that all events should be controlled by the White House and when things go wrong, anywhere in the federal government (or just about anywhere else), it is the President himself that is somehow to blame. This new doctrine of immediate blame escalation to the President seems to be tied to BDS. 2) Or, the press is out to get Bush, and misreported the Katrina story intentionally, as it has many others, some of which Jay would kill me (or more likely, my post) for just mentioning. So having said this, I guess I too qualify as a hater. I have to be honest and say that I am not exactly dispassionate about how the national MSM has been behaving lately... the provokation is too intense. Posted by: John Moore at May 12, 2006 12:43 AM | Permalink Moreover, the "errors" that Richard Aubrey was referring to came as recently as last month, not "in the immediate aftermath of a major disaster." Three "errors," of the exact same kind, in two articles in consecutive days. All wildly underestimating the amount of relief provided by the Bush Administration, and totally invalidating the core angle of both pieces. I put the word "error" in quotes, because in any profession other than journalism they would be called fabrications. (BTW -- Under what definition of "hater" is that word applied to Richard Aubrey, who provides facts, examples, and reasoned argument, as opposed to George Boyle, who most typically just shows up and spews invective?) Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 12, 2006 1:02 AM | Permalink NC - of course you are correct, and I neglected to mention that. But these days, the nature of the MSM is to adopt a particular view of an issue, and then continue to put it out regardless of changes in available information or circumstances. Once they find a formulation that is effective in trashing the right, they use it to death. I also agree with your comments about Aubrey, who in my opinion is indeed providing useful information and is not a troll (unlike a few un-rebuked people on the other side). While the Katrina issue may not be on the topic of Tony Snow and the what magical incantation the White House is supposed to issue to placate the press regarding Goss, it does go directly, as a strong example, to the serious misbehavior (can we say unprofessionalism? partisanship? propagandizilng?) of the MSM that has not changed its tone since Brownie opened his mouth and said something dumb. I remember hearing about something Bush said around the time of the disaster, that was used as an example of him being imsufficiently informed. It was only a bit later that we heard that actually, before the statement was made, he had called the governor and warned her to take action right away. But it was too late... the press had the examples it apparently wanted, and mere facts that contradicted them were not going to change the narrative - ever. Posted by: John Moore at May 12, 2006 1:11 AM | Permalink Agreed, John. Let's not forget this "error", which would have warmed Jayson Blair's heart. Dave, how many times do we have to repeat the point? There does not need to be a conscious conspiracy or "intent to deceive." All it takes is a newsroom full of uncurious and/or overly-hurried reporters who are all too ready to accept "facts" at face value, if they conform to their own preconceived notions, and editors who lack the intellectual diversity to challenge, or even notice, egregious hoaxes as long as they fit the prevailing BDS narrative. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 12, 2006 1:25 AM | Permalink John, 2. Bush declared a state of emergency on August 27th. 3. Mayor Nagin declared a state of emergency on August 27th. 4. Michael Chertoff, director of the Department of Homeland Security triggered the federal response plan on August 30th. By all accounts I've read, this was the most devastating delay in the chain. 5. Governor Blanco asked for a twenty four hour delay in response to President Bush's request to have the federal government take over control of hurricane response from Louisiana officials. In this news cycle, anonymous Bush administration officials were repeatedly telling reporters that Blanco still had not declared an official state of emergency. This was an error of fact on the part of Bush administration officials that went uncorrected by the national press for days. The Washington Post article linked to in this paragraph dutifully repeats this administration falsehood. I believe this is probably the event you have in mind when you declare: But it doesn't seem to be appropriate to mention uncomfortable facts like the delay for 24 hours by the governor, after being warned by both POTUS and the head of the NHC, before taking any action. It is hard to imagine a context in which "before taking any action" is an accurate description of Blanco's response on September 2nd when she had already declared a state of emergency eight days earlier after which it had taken the Department of Homeland Security thirty six hours to respond. She hardly had to be warned by POTUS to act when she had declared an official state of emergency twenty four hours before Bush did that many days before Bush's request and Chertoff's failure to act. It appears you conflate Governor Blanco's delaying a specific action ordered by Bush on September 2nd for twenty four hours with the separate issue of if and when Blanco took appropriate action throughout the course of the emergency. The record clearly shows that she had declared an official state of emergency on August 26th and that it had taken DHS until August 30th to activate the national response plan. The Bush administration falsehood that she was still delaying the declaratin of a state of emergency can only be construed as an effort to deflect responsibility for DHS's documented dilatory response from the Department of Homeland Security (a part of the executive branch Bush was responsible for) to Louisiana state and local officials Bush was not in direct control of. Your mischaracterization of Blanco's actions seems to fall into the same line of misrepresentation. Given his Fox "news" background, I'm afraid we can probably look forward to many happy years of Tony Snow "correcting" press accounts that fail to repeat disinformation such as the canard that Blanco had failed to declare a state of emergency eight days after she had already declared it. Those of you interested in fishing these waters yourself may find the TPM Hurricane Katrina Timeline of use. I certainly did. Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 12, 2006 1:43 AM | Permalink Mark Anderson's previous comment: One of Snow's first assignments is apparently manning the Bush administration flak gun aimed at news organizations who deviate from the official line. calls to mind this posting at Powerline. Why is there anything sinister about the WH press secretary challenging a reporter's slant? Steven Den Beste is reminded of a Roger Corman movie about warlocks, in which Peter Lorre challenges Boris Karloff to a duel of magic: Karloff's magic is so much more powerful than Lorre's that he is able to foil each of Lorre's attacks with just a simple gesture of his hands, leading Lorre to mutter those immortal words, "You're defending yourself, you coward!" Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 12, 2006 1:46 AM | Permalink So the Snow model, hustling experts to the podium, whipping the news folks behind the scenes. The Ringmaster? Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 12, 2006 2:02 AM | Permalink PressThink, May 7: Another possibility: Snow has been called a “movement conservative.” Maybe he listens to his base, and goes on the attack. He charges the press with trying to bring down Bush, and puts reporters on notice that he will call them on it. McClellan wasn’t agile enough to wage culture war from the podium. Snow may think he is.
Snow Already Sparring With News Orgs. Yes you are a hater. A self-loathing Middle America biased wingnut. You hate anyone that reports reality as it is, not the way you would like it to be in Disneyland. And you shoot the messenger whether they deserve it or not. Instead try shooting a moving duck. It will be humbling for you. You're a walking cliche but sadly are able to realize it. Still having trouble reading the news Tim? It looks like it. Hasn't the Missouri professor explained it to you enough? Do the world a favor and just listen to FOX and the administration. It should be easy since they're interchangeble pieces of the same puzzle: a veritible Da Vinci Code of "truth" if there ever was one. George. Try the decaf. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 12, 2006 2:29 AM | Permalink Blogger and Commentator, May 12. USATODAY Counterpunches. Posted by: nedu at May 12, 2006 2:44 AM | Permalink Thanks to JM for the compliment. The questions I had about the Houston/Katrina story were as follows: What resources did the reporter consult? What, if anything, did management say to the reporter afterwards? Did an editor sit down with her and go over the thing step by step looking for unfortunate shortcuts? Does something like this generate a letter in the file? Reduce next year's raise? Get her reassigned to the gardening beat? What did a big editor say to the small editor who should have fixed this before it went out? Dave. Are you in a position to say what facts changed between the time she got them--you imply she was correct at the time--and when the paper went to press? Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 12, 2006 8:03 AM | Permalink George Boyle: Using the term Middle American as an epithet is kind of self-diagnostic, don't you think? Whatever you think about it, it shows one of the locii of the problem. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 12, 2006 8:08 AM | Permalink Jay, you said: “Of course this would do nothing to explain Bush to the country. It would do nothing to re-claim majority support.” Why do you think this strategy would do nothing to explain Bush or to re-claim majority support? I think it will absolutely do that for people who are “open to receiving,” the “issue-oriented” citizen, who is not ideologically driven. How do you “persuade” or “explain” an action or decision to someone who uses ideology to refute it? It would be like arguing the practical need for war with Cindy Sheehan. Snow’s strategy, and I hope he does follow Deroy Murdock’s from that National Review piece, will gain support for the president overall because the reality is that he’s correct in his analysis that “their side” has not been adequately covered by the Press. But there will be some areas that even his strategy won’t affect: those principle or value-based actions which many people are simply ideologically opposed to, or some of those stupid actions Bush has taken, like nominating Harriet Myers, giving in to pressure and allowing FEMA to be rolled into DHS, or playing hookey from the immigration debate. Those are just boner decisions so how can you explain them away? BTW, Jim Axelrod’s quote at the end of that E & P article, struck me: “Again, the White House is clearly manipulating what I broadcast to fit their agenda. And they are wrong to do that.” Isn’t Tony Snow saying, “Again, CBS (et al) is clearly manipulating the description of whatever we do to fit their agenda. And they are wrong to do that.” Posted by: Kristen at May 12, 2006 9:15 AM | Permalink This is OT but b/c he talked specifically of several items that have been addressed in this thread.... I wanted to share that I heard Colin Powell speak last night at a local university, about 2300 or so people attending. He gave a very good speech, very entertaining, touched on a variety of topics. I knew he was charasmatic, but did not realize just how funny (look out Colbert), optimistic and upbeat he is, having never before seen him in person. Definitely a man who loves this country and is passionate about looking forward, not back (his words). Also a man who loves the audience. The very brief writeup of the event was in our local paper this morning. They allowed audience questions at the end and the last questioner (of about 6) did a “Ray McGovern-LIES” question (he was visibly upset and near shouting towards the end of his rather lengthy question) and that produce a heated exchange between he and Powell, especially when he tried to cut Powell off in his response and Powell pointed his finger at him and said with some force, “No sir. You do not now interrupt me when I listened to what you had to say.” What followed was a fairly detailed response from Powell but I thought his last words were particularly well said and well-received by the audience. He said something like (not an exact quote) “I hope later tonight you’ll get into a conversation on this topic with someone else and show as much force and passion when you speak against the insurgents and terrorists that are killing innocent people all over this world.” I thought the audience questions were great and very well framed and spoken. A sampling: What were his thoughts on the controversy on having a military person being nominated for the CIA post in the light of Porter Goss leaving? What did he think of Madeline Albright going around now and perhaps “undermining” our efforts in the WOT? If you had been president when the decision had to made about Iraq, would you have invaded? Change of topic from politics, but someone asked him about the influence of his mother (a book by Rev. Jakes is out which mentions his parent relationship) and maybe b/c Mothers Day is coming up, and he gave a wonderful answer that I wish all parents could hear early on. An enjoyable evening all around. Posted by: Kristen at May 12, 2006 9:19 AM | Permalink (Thanks, Kristen. I still like Powell, and think Neil Young's right that he could be a unifying candidate for Pres. (Reading your post, though, I can't help but think that conservatives, Republicans, and their supporters, really just don't have any idea how much damage to national unity -- against terrorism (remember 9/11/01?) and towards victory in Iraq -- the Republicans have done by insisting that both 9/11 and the War on Terror are theirs and theirs alone -- and anyone with a dissenting view is a traitor or worse.) (Some part of me thinks maybe they alienated half the country on purpose -- to guarantee that a potent dissenting force would vigorously check or at least watch the civil liberties. But I think that's just wishful thinking.) (Using the war as a bludgeon with which to kill Democrats and take over Congress was stupid. It is the root of the unrest today -- and if the sour national mood is undermining the mission, then Republicans had better start looking in the mirror. Because "either you're with us or you're with the terrorists" was pretty shortly followed by a lot of fingers pointing at the other side of the aisle saying "you're not with us." And because it became so clear that "us" meant the Republican leadership, everyone who does not support them, apparently -- now around, what, 66% of the country? -- is "with the terrorists." That's no way to win a war. Powell's question makes it sound like that part of the picture may be hidden to him. It's hard to raise a vigorous argument against terrorists when your own government is treating you as the enemy.) That's where Snow's approach is key here, and I think that may be what Jay is getting at. There's a difference between outreach with an open hand and outreach with a billyclub. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 12, 2006 10:47 AM | Permalink That's very heart warming about Powell's speech. I don't know if this is your intention, but neither your post or that Napierville Sun story tells us anything about what Powell actually said. You gotta love it. Powell goes out and collect speaking fees tells a different story than his former chief of staff. Not long ago, Wiki described Wilkerson as Powell's mouth. That phrase has been removed, for this. He retired from government service in January 2005 at the same time as Powell. Subsequent to their retirement, he and Powell had a falling out over Wilkerson's strident criticism of the administration. From First Read's blip about Snow: On another front, five times in three days, the White House press office has issued releases, titled "Setting the Record Straight," directly attacking news organizations by name for "misleading" or otherwise allegedly problematic reporting. Such releases have blasted a "misleading" USA Today article on enrollment in the Medicare prescription-drug program; a New York Times editorial on the economy for continuing "to ignore America's economic progress;" a "misleading" CBS report on the number of seniors enrolled in the RX program; a "misleading" AP article on military recruiting goals; and a Washington Post editorial criticizing the new tax-cut bill, which the White House said conflicted with a Post news story from the same morning. All of which represents a departure from their usual approach of leaving such work to either the Bush campaign, when there was one, or to the Republican National Committee. I guess we know what at least one new tactic is -- shift the word "misleading" away from Bush and onto the press. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 12, 2006 11:24 AM | Permalink "a pretty small percentage should fall on Bush. Much more should fall on the state and local officials" Well that's where one becomes a supreme federalist all of a sudden isn't it? I mean when it's YOUR guy why wouldn't you? This everyone but Bush meme is just tired partisanship. Doug Brinkley has a new book that covers the truth of the matter in great detail. We've seen the tape of Bush being unaffected and unresponsive. #1 minion Chertoff was the ultimate clueless one. I think Mr. Aubrey middle americans railing against great liberal masses on the coasts is indeed very telling of just how naive and uninformed they are. You do them no service. Your petty beefs with local news organization have no bearing on the business nationwide. The news is the news, reported with an inverted pyramid. The opinion pages are another matter. If the argument adds up it's easy to see it. Others can make up their own version which is what you do. Posted by: George Boyle at May 12, 2006 11:29 AM | Permalink Er, I meant to italicize two paragraphs quoted from G.Boyle in my last, not one. &$^#ing html. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 12, 2006 11:37 AM | Permalink I think Mr. Aubrey middle americans railing against great liberal masses on the coasts is indeed very telling of just how naive and uninformed they are. Heh. Speaking of uninformed, how many years do we have to be at war before the New York Times gets someone on their staff who knows what a sergeant is? I think it's pretty clear who the uninformed people are. Problem is, they're covering the war for everyone else. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 12, 2006 11:49 AM | Permalink George. What is an inverted pyramid in the news business? I have petty beefs but they don't count? Is the media in the grand narrative business where frequent errors don't matter? Errors are irrelevant? I am aware of the tactic of insisting that one error--whichever one I happen to be discussing--is, in the grand scheme, not particularly important. That may or may not be true, depending, but that tactic is most bodaciously ineffective in deflecting the readers' attention from the real issue, which is the frequency of errors and their cumulative effect(s). Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 12, 2006 11:58 AM | Permalink So, Jason, do you think John Burns or Dexter Filkins report sergeants as officers? Do you think they are misinformed about the war? The error you linked to is embarrassingly stupid. But it was an error, much as was your mistake in multiplication above. ( .9 times 5 is .45. in case you forgot.) Does that disqualify you in financial reporting? Should we assume you regularly mislead those who read your reports that include percentages? The Times corrected its human error, as did you. The pot may want to look in a mirror before calling the kettle black. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 12, 2006 12:14 PM | Permalink Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 12, 2006 12:32 PM | Permalink That's how we got that genius, CNN senior Pentagon correspondent, to refer to an M249, the lightest commonly fielded automatic weapon in the military, as "a very heavy machine gun, with a heavy trigger pull." Granted this is an error. But CNN's audience isn't pedantic former S1 officers. The audience don't know an M249 from an M60. Unless the heavy machine part is central to the report such as, "He missed his target because his automatic-weapon was so heavy," then this distinction is up there with Powell counts as a commissioned officer while at State because he is retired. Did we refer to Powell as Retired Genenal Powell, Secretary of State? Or Secretary of State Colin Powell? Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 12, 2006 1:09 PM | Permalink Dave, You're confusing a typo with ignorance. Do you really think they're the same thing? I think Filkins and Burns do a pretty good job overall. I've already caught Wong doctoring quotes and got a correction from the New York Times. And Eric Schmitt and Doug Jehl have been poster children for one of my chief criticisms of media coverage: The lack of grounding in military history and theory, which makes it impossible them to contextualize information. This particular article - now in the paid archives - was a good example of how an article can be carefully reported with not a single factual error within it, and still be 170 degrees off course. Had they been familiar with the writings of John Boyd, Leonhart, and Liddell-Hart, three of the centuries' leading maneuver warfare theorists (or Guderian, for that matter), they would have been much better grounded. To use a financial journalism parallel, these guys are trying to cover asset allocation without ever having heard of Markowitz and Modern Portfolio Theory. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 12, 2006 1:23 PM | Permalink Jaw. The "heavy" piece was part of the article's important point. As in, he couldn't handle the weapon because it was so heavy. Also, any number of military folks have commented that they've taught JR ROTC kids how to fire the things in a quarter of an hour. The complex training piece is a complete fabrication. And, if you think anybody believes what they read in the NYT, they will believe that the M249 is the heaviest machine gun we have. There is no guarantee this is an American weapon. At least fifteen countries use it. There isn't much they got right, about this. Also, it's not clear if the complex-and-heavy theory is meant to excuse the moron who took hold of it by the barrel and burned his hand. Apparently Warsaw Pact weapons don't get hot. Forget making excuses. Some time, eventually, bfore half of us die of old age, somebody's got to admit, "We screwed up because the reporter is incompetent and we didn't bother to find somebody who was. We wouldn't send somebody without a degree in horticulture to cover the Hamptons Garden Tour, but we can send people who know jack about the military to cover the military. We're thinking about changing that." The fact is, nobody buys the excuses. It looks worse to keep excusing than to admit failure. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 12, 2006 1:40 PM | Permalink Richard if you have to ask what a inverted pyramid is you are prepared for a discussion of jounralism let alone a critique of it as a tradecraft. Ignorance is never a virtue. Or an asset. Look it up. Jason that Grand Mall mistake was a copywriter's cutline. You'll notice the reporter didn't refer to her as an officer which is 2nd LT and up. It's very minor mistake that I'll agree shouldn't happen because it allows you to make gross overgeneralization fallacies. Posted by: George Boyle at May 12, 2006 2:15 PM | Permalink Aubrey, Jason mentioned a CNN correspondent and M249. I have no idea what the M249 was related to in that CNN report since Jason didn't link to or mentioned what report was about. He wasn't referring to a NYT story so what's all this crap about whether is is an American weapon? You're incompetently raging about reporters incomptence. You're a clown. Should have been "ill-prepared." Posted by: George Boyle at May 12, 2006 2:16 PM | Permalink As for quote-doctoring charge all quotes are selected. There isn't room to use every word the sources says. Only if it would change entirely the meaning of the statement would it be unethical. I fail to see how this changes the meaning of that officer as he stands by his men both in Fallugia and in Al Haim, and he scoffs at the idea the people were a wedding party on its face, so his attitude is clear. As is his meaning. This is bias mining that doesn't yield much save selective vision. Posted by: George Boyle at May 12, 2006 2:26 PM | Permalink Jaw. One implication is that this shows the bad guys are capturing US weapons--no stone left unturned in trying to make the US look bad. Point about fifteen other countries using it--I believe it's a FN license and so probably available on the open market--is that we don't even know if it was a captured US weapon. In other words, this is bunk from start to finish. Now, don't you wish you'd been paying attention to the news? Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 12, 2006 2:33 PM | Permalink Boy, speaking as a journalist, it really burns my butt when these know-it-all military types spout off about journalism all day long without knowing what the inverted pyramid is! Don't these guys have anyone with them in their mothers' basements who has a degree in journalism? That's the problem with the world today. Everyone should be an expert in my chosen field! Otherwise, they're all idiots! Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 12, 2006 2:50 PM | Permalink It's in the eye of the beholder. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 12, 2006 2:58 PM | Permalink Mr Simon-- Be fair to the van Steenwyk-Aubrey tag team. They are not insisting here that all journalists know about military matters; just those assigned to a military beat. In this they seem to have raised the bar somewhat as the thread progresses. Earlier they accepted ignorance of things military in a reporter, as long as that ignorance was acknowledged and followed by intelligent questions. This, on reflection, is an admirable precept not just for journalism but for life itself. And Aubrey, please show some tolerance to us civilians. I am in the same boat as Jaw. I do not know what an M249 is either. You say "normal people do." I really do not think that makes either of us abnormal. Cheers! Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at May 12, 2006 3:03 PM | Permalink Aubrey, I'm glad I'm not normal if that means I should know was an M249 is. So this was all about Zarkawi? Gawd, the minor figure we used as the terrorist hot button in Iraq? And no, I don't wish I'd been paying attention to whether an M249 is light or heavy automatic weapon. Lovelady-- I agree. The message of the outtake was to portray al-Zarqawi as a bumbling fool. But this makes no sense as psyops. Again and again the message on Iraq coming out of the White House is that the conflict in Iraq is not the early stages of a civil war, is not a guerrilla resistance against occupation. No, this is a war against terrorists, with affinity to al-Qaeda. al-Zarqawi is the leading commander of this struggle. Why would psyops want to undercut the White House message by portraying him as a paper tiger? Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at May 12, 2006 3:09 PM | Permalink I'm glad I'm not normal if that means I should know what an M249 is. I'd admit I should not have stuck my nose into the M249 debate without knowing it was related to Zarqawi. Or any debate with our wonderful and tedious press-hating former S1 officers. Then again I'm not normal since I didn't know about M249s, even with my 2 years in the USArmy, drinking German beer and guarding the German border. Ref the Zarkawi outtakes: Andrew--here's a problem I have. I got an extremely modest gradepoint on the way to a generic BA at Enormous State University. Then I was a grunt. Now I'm a pedlar. If I know this stuff, how about all the smart people--which is basically everybody else? About a year and a half ago, my wife and I were having dinner with an Abrams gunner in the 4th ID. Been, back again now. I asked a tank question. No problem. I asked another. He started talking about frequency-hopping intervehicle satellite something or other. When I was in, I solved that problem by running from one track to the next, gasping out the orders, getting the driver to goose it to give me a few meters' advantage and sprinting off to the next one as the formation moved along at maybe ten MPH. So I dropped the tank questions. Point is, much of what I know about today's military, I learned as a sillyvilian. I have no more opportunity to learn this stuff than anybody else. I just pay attention. I once belonged to a peace&wonderfulness group. When they were getting ready for a new effusion,I'd start out on "who is Aubrey, but an ignorant ex-grunt. If he knows better, surely everbody else does." Never worked. They always thought I was some kind of super genius and the fact that I knew better didn't mean they couldn't put another one over on the rest of the folks. They're no longer in business. So don't be comforting yourself that you're being tormented by somebody with a narrow and intense focus on one issue who's better than 99% of the readership. I may be better than you. I'm not better than your readers. Anyway, the NYT/CNN reports both got the facts wrong, and both got them wrong as part of an effort to tell us that we shouldn't be making fun of Z-man because the weapon was....etc. The interesting point is not only is he an incompetent jerk, two big news organizations screwed the pooch to keep him from looking as bad as he looked. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 12, 2006 3:22 PM | Permalink Aubrey, you're killing me. In one paragraph, you describe yourself as an ignorant ex-grunt and some kind of super genius. The bar is pretty low for super geniuses these days. Do knowledge of automatic weapons required to join the super genius club? Well, here's what happened... Because CNN's Jamie McIntyre was too clueless to realize that this particular "very heavy weapon" with a "very heavy trigger pull" was so heavy it's routinely issued to 18-year-old, 120 pound females in basic and advanced individual training, he was taken wholly off course from what the video actually demonstrates: That the fearsome Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's "emir of Iraq" and the "Sheikh of Slaughters," this lion of the Islamic Jihad who is so quick to send muslim boys to die like flies at the hands of American marksmen, is a hypocrite who doesn't even have the weapons experience to clear a stoppage by himself. And his closest associates are so removed from the fight, so sheltered from the blood and death that the foot soldiers of Jihad have to contend with every day, that they don't even realize that the barrels of automatic weapons grow hot with use. "Zarqawi's bumbling raises questions about his fitness for command of the jihad against the Zionist crusaders," and all that. So here's an example of a reporter's ignorance concerning a technical matter throwing him off track for the whole story. Now, sometimes the technical ignorance is not readily apparent, but lies in faulty assumptions underlying the story. For instance, even if McIntyre had the sense to keep his mouth shut over the M249, he STILL would have blown the story - we just wouldn't know why. And for the record, I don't think it's too much to ask that a college-educated journalist know the difference between an officer and a sergeant - whether they work on the military beat or the fact-checking staff. I think that's a matter of basic fund of information, even for a layman. You'd think, after five years of war, and several instances of making the same mistake, the Times would update their style manuals to reflect the matter. After all, to use a formulation popular with journos, the inability of a major media outlet to discern an officer from a sergeant first class raises questions about the ability of the Times' staff to adequately and intelligently cover the most important story of the decade. After all, if they can't get this right, what ELSE are they missing? Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 12, 2006 3:37 PM | Permalink Jason, you nitpick the trees and don't see the forest. That NYTimes story was about a funeral. There is no excuse for not knowing the difference an officer and a noncom. But what does that have anything to do with the funeral? Did the NYTimes dishonor Sgt. Gomez by the error? You act like if the Times can't tell the difference between an E-7 and an officer in the caption, then that was not a funeral but a birthday party. That was a funeral story by the local staff, and you use that as some kind of barometer for coverage of the Iraq War. jaw. Reread the piece. I say I'm just an ignorant ex-grunt. The point about the supergenius is that the peace&wonderfulness group seemed to think I was one. Not that I think so. It made them feel better. There was no problem if I knew better. I was the supergenius--they thought. That I was a supergenius meant I might know better, but it also meant that everybody else--who were not supergeniuses--could be fooled. So they went ahead. They didn't fool very many. jaw. Try again. Nobody said the NYT dishonored the funeral. You don't even seem to think we can read. Nobody said the NYT did it. The NYT didn't dishonor the funeral. Got that. Nobody did. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 12, 2006 4:22 PM | Permalink Aubrey, I concede. You are correct Sir. No need to go round and round on on whether the knowledge of an M249 is a gauge for being normal. Or why the peace&wonderfulness group (whatever that is) thought you were some kind of super genius because you knew better. We've wandered far enough from Snow.
Yes, The author of that piece, Michelle O'Donnell looks to be at the metro desk, not the military beat. Wasn't there a complaint somewhere up above that a soldier's funeral story wasn't covered? Andrew, your posts are among the most cogent and reasonable here. I agree wholeheartedly that it is a good philosophy to aim for more knowledge and understanding and less ignorance, generally. And yes, 100% accuracy is the best goal for journalists. Soldiers, too. But you guys have to understand that journalists have to drum up instant expertise on whatever story they are assigned to cover -- typically in a very limited amount of time. That is a problem with the 24-hour news cycle. But that's a weakness of the medium, not necessarily of the message or the messengers. If you look at O'Donnell's clips for the past six weeks, they range from that fallen soldier's funeral to immigration to the stranded tram rescue; the history of the FDNY Chief; the shooting of a deliveryman; brush fires in the city; and human interest stories about mourning families and fallen citizens. There is a tendency among some folks here to ascribe unseemly motivations to all journalists. Richard, Jason, et. al. -- you have some good points about accuracy when covering the military, and perhaps suggesting that the Times add some basic military terminology to the style manual would be productive. But impugning the motives of a metro desk reporter or indicting the whole paper or the whole field of journalism because the photographer didn't accurately count or interpret the number of stripes on someone's shoulder at a funeral is ... well, it's unfair. And it's not particularly productive.
Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 12, 2006 4:47 PM | Permalink But impugning the motives ... And it's not particularly productive. But what to do? School for Scandal? The Era of Omniscience is Over? I believe Andrew Heyward was onto this, and that's why he agreed to write his PressThink post. His solution is the wise one: reduce the harm from each error and each slippage from the objective news ideal by reducing the majesty of your claim to know. Could blog comments set the example? Richard Simon, Your points are well taken. Particularly the instant-expert requirement of journalism and the inherent unfairness of using an individual act of omission (poor copy editing and/or counting of stripes) to indict the industry as ignorant of the military mission. You miss one point: Richard, Jason, etc. don't care. This discussion appears to be a zero-sum game to them. Journalism is either perfect or it is irredeemably incompent and biased. And Jason, my friend, if calling it a typo makes you feel better, that's nice. But in my world, if an mistake makes it in print, it's still an error and must be corrected, whether it's a typo or collective liberal ignorance. Imagine, just as you assume whoever wrote the the faulty cutline was ignorant. Though someone might easily see your written calculations and believe you shouldn't be trusted with numbers. It's all a matter of perspective. Oh, for the record, if you left the Army in the early 1980s, you likely never saw a M-249. And while the CNN reporter's chatter about the SAW was largely gibberish, Jason's portrayal of the weapon as hardly heavy at all is a wee bit overstated.\ According to globalsecurity.org, the M249 SAW, loaded with it standard ammunition feed of a 200-round belt, weighs 22.08 pounds. The M240 machinegun, which fires a larger round and replaces the old M-60, weighs 24.2 pounds. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 12, 2006 5:19 PM | Permalink If the medium can't figure out a way to be more accurate, then it will have to be seen as, less accurate. So when we know that they are not only less accurate but have a reason/excuse for being less accurate, what are we to think of their reporting? Dave. 22lbs counts as light. Did you add a two-hundred round box to the M240 when you did the math? Okay, the media isn't biased. They just don't care to get it right. Not important. Good enough for you? Richard. Didn't I predict this? One little example doesn't indict the entire field. Why, yes, I did. It isn't, as I said in my prediction, one little mistake, even when diminished in your presentation ("counting stripes") that matters. It's the cumulative effect. Great. The reporter does a lot of stuff. Do we consider she may have committed errors in all her work? It would seem to follow. Maybe the editors should figure out who knows what, either now or as a matter of assignments over the years, and try to match the knowledge base to future assignments. Posted by: RIchard Aubrey at May 12, 2006 5:50 PM | Permalink When I was in the Army from '86 to '88, I only saw M-60s. As unit guarding the German border, we had regular unannounced alerts (exercises to prepare against a Soviet attack), at 5 a.m.. Most of the time, you hope they call off the alert because we would have to lug our personal weapon and gear and the M-60 to the motor pool. (Don't give me the M-60, chief.) It was a hike. Even when we rolled out of the barracks, we never had ammo. The one alert where we got ammo, it took hours. The Soviets would be in France will we waited in line at the ammo dump. An M60 weighs 23.1 pounds (empty) about the same as an M249 loaded. I never had to lug a loaded M60, but the empty one was heavy. 22 lbs is light in military language, heavy in news language. We can't debate when light and heavy have different meanings for all of us. Rambo (scroll down) should be able to fire an M249 with one arm. No, richard, 22 pounds is what the guy with the SAW has to carry. Light is not what anyone calls it. In 1969, the Army told me the M-16, at roughly 8 pounds was light. It didn't always feel that way. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 12, 2006 6:12 PM | Permalink Richard's comment above is important to what I have been warning him about: "It doesn't matter if you don't know what a M249 is. Normal people do." It's a good example of his press hate morphing into hate for the people he is allegedly trying to talk to. If you don't know military weaponry you are not only ignorant, you are not "normal," defective as a human being. I wouldn't say it is quite there yet, but he certainly took the turn-off to Fascism with that one, in the sense that politcized hatred of defective people who aren't equals to us (the warrior class) is Fascistic. That's Aubreys world: It doesn't matter if you don't know what a M249 is. Normal people do. And when he sprews his hate it naturally causes people to react to the sewage, and then you no longer have a "thread," you have the Aubrey show. Which is why he is on his way to being banned if he doesn't change his postings. Jay-- Somewhere in my distant memory I recall a previous thread in which you sternly--very sternly--reprimanded a poster for his imprecise, even flippant, use of the term Fascism. At the time I remember thinking that you were perhaps too hasty in cutting off debate since the shadow of Fascism--the appeal of strong father figures as leaders, ideas of purity, invocations of the homeland as an argument that trumps all others--is not entirely absent from our body politic. Here, though, I come to Aubrey's defense (even though I too objected to the implicit slur in the "normal" comment). His earlier denunciation of those who look to a strong father figure as a leader (it was actually a misconstrued denunciation of me) as infantile and sad reveals a contempt for, rather than an embrace of, Fascist thinking... ...although his idea that the Weather Underground represented a strain of crypto-Fascism fails to strike a chord. Jay, a future posting on Fascism, a topic of your interest and expertise, would be well worth reading, even if incendiary. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at May 12, 2006 7:47 PM | Permalink "Boy, speaking as a journalist, it really burns my butt when these know-it-all military types spout off about journalism all day long without knowing what the inverted pyramid is!" I thought I gave him an assignment? I have a journalism degree and that's taught at the beginning, which shows everyone how little these crtics know, other than they hate journalists. Yes professor the demonization on nonmilitary citizens is quite a project. I hope it fails. Posted by: George Boyle at May 12, 2006 7:59 PM | Permalink I wouldn't say it is quite there yet, but he certainly took the turn-off to Fascism with that one, in the sense that politcized hatred of defective people who aren't equals to us (the warrior class) is Fascistic. Ooooh! The dreaded "f-bomb," the anathema to rational discourse! I call Godwin! Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 12, 2006 8:09 PM | Permalink "Both CNN and NYT tried to make excuses for him" I find this realy hard to believe. It's like these people think reporters want the terrorists to win. Zarqawi is another example of the hyperbolic fear these false images give us. Those images showed ineptitude. That's a good thing. The dialogue won't back up RA I'm sure but that's what his head heard since that's where the needle is set. Posted by: George Boyle at May 12, 2006 8:17 PM | Permalink But impugning the motives of a metro desk reporter Hmmm. Can you show me where I impugned the motives of anyone on the metro desk? Or of anyone else? I don't even think I ever mentioned any reporter by name. I was taking aim at the copydesk, or whoever writes the captions at the NY Times, and checks them. 1.) I don't think it's unreasonable to expect anyone with a college education to understand what a commissioned officer is and what a sergeant is - although the dorks who banned the presence of ROTC at Columbia don't do anyone any favors on that score. Somehow people figured out what was going on in "An Officer and a Gentleman." 2.) This is not the first time the NY Times has made this particular error. I've noted it several times. The apparent fact that five years into a war, the Times has not seen fit to run military stories by a veteran -- ESPECIALLY if they come from the metro desk rather than the war correspondents -- is a significant failure of quality control. This isn't hard, people. One sharp scooper in the building who happens to be a former E-4 would go a long way to fixing this. But seven zip codes of the lowest ten veterans-per-capita are immediately in and around the NY Times building in NYC. Which tells you how demographically warped the pool of recruits is from which the NYT selects its talent. Can you say "inbred," boys and girls? I knew you could. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 12, 2006 8:21 PM | Permalink Those images showed ineptitude. That's a good thing. And CNN and the NYT were both had their heads too far up their rears to see it for what it was. That's a bad thing. And that's precisely what we're talking about. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 12, 2006 8:23 PM | Permalink Andrew, I do not say the Bush regime is fascist, but I do say that you have to study fascism to understand a lot of what they do. There are profound agreements and significant disagreements between the way Bushco runs things and the way the two fantasied enemies of the administration, WWII era German Nazis and Japanese militarists, ran their programs. For a quick overview of my take on this, see may latest blog post, George W. Bush, Carl Schmitt, and Hannah Arendt. Mark Anderson's off topic post.... Off Topic Ron Suskind reopens the "US Military is deliberately killing journalists" debate. He "emphatically" insists the orders to obliterate the al-Jazeera office in Kabul by cruise missile went through proper channels, though he isn't specific about how high up the decision went. He insists it was premeditated and deliberate. It would sure be nice to have an investigative journalist nail this down with verifiable documents or sources. If proven true, does the term "rollback" do justice to this aspect of Bush administration media strategy? What kind of a wacko is Eason Jordan, exactly? BLITZER: One of the other explosive charges you have in the book is that the U.S. deliberately bombed the Al Jazeera offices in Kabul to make a point. You write this: "On November 13, a hectic day when Kabul fell to the Northern Alliance and there were celebrations in the streets of the city, a U.S. missile obliterated Al Jazeera's office. Inside the CIA and White House there was satisfaction that a message had been sent to Al Jazeera. Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 12, 2006 9:28 PM | Permalink Mark, Have you stopped beating your wife? ;-) Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 12, 2006 9:32 PM | Permalink The NY Times is hardly the problem; if in the eyes of its readers, it loses credibility, they will stop reading it, and it will soon perish. The real grudge the wingers seem to harbor is their own inability to build a similarly credible institution that is sympathetic to their cause and yet win the journalistic game against the Times. Of-course, this idea is a mirage because a 'credible right-wing rag' is an oxymoron, a non-sequitur, a 'fallacious' concept, sort of like a credible flat-earth theory. As hard as the 'confederacy' tried, they failed miserably in creating an alternative with the stature of the New York Times; so they hate themselves because of their own shortcomings by projecting it on to the Times, and since they cannot build their own 'Times', they are out to destroy the object of their daily humiliation. This hatred of the Times provides but a glimpse of the deeper hostility felt by the bible-thumpers for the creative core of America on the two coasts, and is borne out a feeling of inferiority. When the wingers claim that the muslims hate the west because of their own lack of social and economic progress, the wingers are channeling a sliver of this very inadequacy. Posted by: village idiot at May 12, 2006 9:51 PM | Permalink every bit of factual information that leaks through the iron curtain, set up against the ever-threatening flood of reality from the other, nontotalitarian side, is a greater menace to totalitarian domination than counterpropaganda has been to totalitarian movements. Yes. Hence, decertification of those who are traditionally the bearers of said reality: academics and intellectuals
"The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power ... Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 12, 2006 10:25 PM | Permalink But seven zip codes of the lowest ten veterans-per-capita are immediately in and around the NY Times building in NYC. Which tells you how demographically warped the pool of recruits is from which the NYT selects its talent. Jason, do you seriously believe that the NY Times selects it hires from "the seven nearest zip codes ?" In journalism circles, the newspaper is notorious for just the opposite -- hiring people who rise to the top of its masthead from such unlikely places as Portland, Oregon (Bill Keller), Omaha, Nebraska ((Joe Lelyfeld), Goldsboro, N.C. (Gene Roberts), London, England (Thomas Friedman), and on and on and on. When it comes to looking for a job at The Times, you yourself would stand a better chance than some poor sap from New York or any of its environs. Once you venture beyond the topic of the weights of various guns, it would behoove you to know what the fuck you are talking about. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 12, 2006 10:28 PM | Permalink Earlier, on Thursday, continuing its "Setting the Record Straight" media critique, Snow's office had knocked the AP for a story headlined: “Army Guard, Reserve fall short of April recruiting goals.” The White House, acting as a kind of conservative version of Media Matters, countered: “The Army National Guard, Air Force Reserve, and Marine Corps Reserve all have exceeded or achieved their year-to-date recruitment goals.” That did not address the April numbers, however. AP to Mr. Snow: Reading for comprehension can be fun .... Posted by: village idiot at May 12, 2006 10:51 PM | Permalink Tim Russert does George W. Bush: He [Russert] also disclosed that he goes to church every week at 4 p.m. on Saturday and prays "that I will ask the right questions" on NBC the following morning. Posted by: village idiot at May 12, 2006 10:59 PM | Permalink Andrew: I may have earlier denounced the casual and imprecise use of the term fascisim, but here I wasn't being imprecise, and I was being casual. I didn't say Richard is a fascist (although I do think he is a press hater.) I said his remark--a very specific remark--took a turn in that direction; and I also said in what sense I mean it: "in the sense that politcized hatred of defective people who aren't equals to us (the warrior class) is fascistic." That's not the death of rational discourse. Asserting that normal people know military weaponry, and those who don't know aren't a normal part of humanity-- that is deeply irrational. If you don't agree that such a statement heads in a fascistic direction, I can live with that. I do think so, and I think it's part of Aubrey's casual hatred, which he comes here to display. I resent it, and I will continue to warn him about it. Jaw writes: "The NY Times is hardly the problem; if in the eyes of its readers, it loses credibility, they will stop reading it, and it will soon perish." Jaw, I hardly think you are that naive. If anything kills the NYT, it will be something like Craig's List. Also, the local readership of the Times (i.e. the people who place and read the classifieds and other ads) are far more liberal than the US population as a whole. Furthermore, when you consider that about half the country is liberal (ish), that's a heck of a big market for counter-factual information if it supports that viewpoint. Polls show that media credibility is way below Bush's approval rating. Is the Grey Lady dead yet? A newspaper is complex business, and to say that it sinks or swims on its credibility, especially in this age where most metropolitan dailies have virtually no competition, is ridiculous. The NYT has local competition, but not in the niche of "serious news." .... Moving right along... "The real grudge the wingers seem to harbor is their own inability to build a similarly credible institution that is sympathetic to their cause and yet win the journalistic game against the Times. Of-course, this idea is a mirage because a 'credible right-wing rag' is an oxymoron, a non-sequitur, a 'fallacious' concept, sort of like a credible flat-earth theory." As a flat-earther, I resent that comment. Seriously, get a clue, dude. Yes, we are unhappy that the *established* institutions are highly biased against us and our causes. But we do have news outlets, and most of the map of the US is now painted red. Furthermore, the success of conservative talk radio shows that people will go away from the "straight news" sources when they experience the cognitive dissonance of constantly reading/hearing nonsense that is contradicted by their personal experience. When it comes to credibility, well, the TImes doesn't have much - not on controversial subjects. The NYT is increasingly a propaganda organ (although the Duranty episode suggests that propaganda is a venerated tradition at that institution). So, you might ask yourself why the liberal/left/whatever world cannot field a successful national talk radio show, when the conservatives have a whole bunch. I'll leave that as an exercise to the readers. Air America had worse ratings than the national talk show I used to co-host, and for the most part our show was devoted to a hobby, not news (although I managed to get in some conservative politics - which was appreciated by our audience). RIchard Simon writes: "Yes. Hence, decertification of those who are traditionally the bearers of said reality: academics and intellectuals Let's be a bit more accurate here: "academics and intellectuals" - only in the "soft" fields which cannot be objectively tested. "artists and musicians" - traditional bearers of reality? Not recently, for sure. "judges" - nope, we haven't "decertified" them, although we dislike some (as does the left - do you want to show us your support for Thomas and Scalia?). "scientists" - surely you joke. Conservatives in general don't "decertify" scientists. There are a few issues (.e.g anthropogenic global warming hypothesis) that have become sufficiently polarized that *some* scientists have become advocates, which is not how scientist "bear reality." There is one wing of the party that gets upset at the theory of evolution, but the rest of us are embarrassed by them. "the press" - surely you're joking. Since when has the press been a bearer of reality? Perhaps back when theyre were multiple competing outlets, instead of today's groupthing. At least then you could piece together reality by reading the various different sources. Today you have a press which labels itself as objective when it is not... so it doesn't even come close - it can't tell the truth about itself, much less other things. .......... The use of "fascist" in this discussion is really pretty sad, because it is not buttressed by evidence, but it is an old trope of the left. . Merriam-Webster defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition." How many of those characteristics are advocated by those of us on this board? Posted by: John Moore at May 13, 2006 12:05 AM | Permalink (Good grief, it's too easy.) Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 13, 2006 12:47 AM | Permalink Jason, do you seriously believe that the NY Times selects it hires from "the seven nearest zip codes ?" In journalism circles, the newspaper is notorious for just the opposite -- hiring people who rise to the top of its masthead from such unlikely places as Portland, Oregon (Bill Keller), Omaha, Nebraska ((Joe Lelyfeld), Goldsboro, N.C. (Gene Roberts), London, England (Thomas Friedman), and on and on and on. When it comes to looking for a job at The Times, you yourself would stand a better chance than some poor sap from New York or any of its environs. 1. Few New Yorkers are from there. Trust me. I know this dynamic. I'm a Floridian. 2. The New York Times selects its staffers from people who self-select as willing to put up with New York media types. That's a pretty damn narrow group of people. 3. The New York Times must select its staffers from among people who don't care to drive their own cars to work. That's another pretty narrow group of people. 4. The New York Times' last ombudsman, Dan Okrent, wrote that the New York Times needed to diversify its staff to include, among other things, more people from a military background. 5. Your implication that the New York Times staff somehow looks like America simply doesn't hold water in the face of study after study after study demonstrating that in a country split 52/48, that the national media votes Democratic far, far more strongly than even the bluest of the blue states - and rivals even the bluest counties within the blue states. Sorry, but you'd have to argue a regression analysis would show that a regression analysis of NY Times staffers' voting preferences and those of newsroom employees in national media outlets as a whole have a correlation coefficient of .15 or less. Sorry...it doesn't hold water. The Times - along with the rest of the New York-based media, remains a swamp of intellectual inbreeding. And the proof is in the sloppy journalism and faulty assumptions underlying so much of their reporting. Things go unchecked because they sound ok if you're surrounded by 100 people who think like you do. Once you venture beyond the topic of the weights of various guns, it would behoove you to know what the fuck you are talking about. Wow. You can act like an ass, but it's Aubrey who gets threatened with removal from the boards. Well, that's just an example of the intellectual inbreeding I'm referring to trying to perpetuate itself. New York media is a strange organism indeed! Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 13, 2006 1:07 AM | Permalink For some reason the italics function doesn't work right on multiple paragraphs. The first three paragraphs above are quoting Mr. Lovelady. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 13, 2006 1:10 AM | Permalink New Post. "Nice and Collegial and Relaxed:" Four Scenes From Tony Snow's First Meet with the Press. This one's closed. It's just a way of starting over for the weekend. Four excerpts to discuss. I will have something new next week. |
|
Print
