|
|
September 14, 2007
Note From the Castle: White House Correspondent Writes to PressThink, Explains the Body WatchPerson who wrote to me is for real. Has one of the seats. Does not want to be named. I don't generally run things like that. But this is straight from the briefing room to correct PressThink on a few items. So I found a way.The reporter whose letter I quote from works in the White House press room with the rest of the crew. “I wrote this with posting in mind,” this correspondent said, “but where, when, how, etc, is, I think, up to you… It’s really your call (your blog).”
Here’s what hack had to say, with replies I’m writing in response to your post about the president’s trip to Iraq, and some additional thoughts that you shared about covering this White House. After reading your column, I sent a somewhat heated email to a friend who’s a press critic — and a long-time reader of your columns on HuffPost and Press Think — and he suggested I reach out to you directly. Excellent. First, I have to tell you that your suggestion that the White House press corps - or its “pool” representatives - not cover the president when he goes into a war zone struck me as curious. Why? Well, there are two phrases that I’d like to pass along to your readers. They mean more or less the same thing. “Body watch” means covering an event that will produce zero news on its own because you need to make sure the president doesn’t collapse. The other is SSRO — “suddenly shots rang out” — which is basically equivalent, just a bit more dramatic. I think melodramatic would be right. I didn’t know about SSRO, so thank you. But the body watch, yes. I think you are absolutely correct to emphasize it as the base line for daily coverage of the President. Here’s what I told PressThink readers (March 6, 2005): “By concentrating where it did, and making the President himself, his every move, the object of attention (with the post-1963 ‘body watch,’ obsessive attention) there is no doubt the modern press helped to create the office George W. Bush holds, including the hold it has on public attention, and the parts of it that are imperial, glamorous, mythic.” When I emailed this to my friend, he asked whether we were responsible for the president’s safety, so I assume that others will have the same question. What we are responsible for is making sure that, if he collapses, or is shot at, we are in a position to get that information to our viewers/listeners/readers. From what I know, a correct and concise statement of what the body watch is. Think about how much JFK, RFK, MLK, Wallace, Squeaky, and Hinckley have shaped the logistical reality of White House coverage. The history of journalism is littered with stories of reporters who called it a day a bit too early, like the guy from the New York Times (if memory serves) who decided to head back to NYC hours before Wallace was shot. I’m sure this is a huge factor in the daily conduct of the beat. What if the bullet flies, and we have no one there? is the kind of thing that would petrify editors and reporters alike. Intimidate them, even. So, yeah, the body watch explains a lot. But then you are agreeing with me that the White House press is past the point of making an independent decision on whether to extend coverage. The body watch is in force. It commands the movement of troops. Second, as I’m sure you realize, that doesn’t make the reporting off-limits to criticism. You can call into question the way someone covered a press conference without calling into question their decision to attend it. I’m eager to draw that distinction because I don’t want this message to be viewed as a blanket defense of media coverage. There is a clear difference between criticizing the coverage and criticizing the decision to cover. Third, I’d like to thank you for building on the Moyers/McClatchy argument. Means Moyers here. And Warren Strobel of Knight-Ridder (now McClatchy) here. You’re much, much closer to the truth than Moyers was. Uh, I doubt that, but… Moyers mostly misread the point, because he was building an indictment of the White House press corps specifically. The reality is that McClatchy covered the White House much the way that the rest of the press corps did. What made their overall coverage so much better was that they decided that the White House wasn’t The Story. That last part is right. Big part of The Story was in the accounts of people who were staggered by their encounters with the White House. Another way to say it is outside-in reporting can sometimes achieve more than inside-the-castle coverage. It’s really one of the biggest problems in journalism today: An overreliance on the White House press corps, and political journalists in general, to tell major national and international stories. Yes, but why would this happen? I can think of one “cultural” explanation; it’s related to the “have you seen the cables?” method of intimidation. It’s probably true that the diplomatic correspondent or the guy in China should cover the President’s trip to China, (let’s say…) but editors might go with the White House reporter because they believe in getting inside the sanctum, where the real secret cables arrive, and the real decisions are made. It’s a mystique effect. They like to feel “wired” to power centers. (They like to tell higher-ups the inside scoop.) Failing that they think political reporters are better connected to the chatter in Washington, from which they may pick up signals about what the White House intends to do. This is part of what I called the cult of savviness in Washington journalism. Moyers similarly uses a long-time Middle East correspondent’s entirely accurate criticism that the media minimized his contributions to The Story. It’s a slightly different version of the same criticism: Experts sidelined. I see that. So, in other words: if you know something about the story, but your knowledge originates outside the White House, you’re less trusted with the base line narrative than if you know a little bit about the story, and your little comes from inside the White House. Seems to me this could be turned to White House advantage, along the lines of, “I wouldn’t get too far out in front on that story..” Expanding on that, I’d like to add that sometimes the worst place to cover the White House is from the White House press corps. Here, here. Well put. We are responsible for the day-in, day-out coverage of presidential goings on. That’s an indispensable aspect of White House coverage, but it’s not sufficient. For one thing, while “accountability” is a term best left to describing voters, the media is supposed to supply the information that helps them do that. Well, if you are not in the direct accountability business after all, and cannot yourselves “hold their feet to the fire,” as the newsroom saying goes, then I would suggest that your newsroom make a big announcement to that effect and maybe hold a presser. There would be a lot of interest in that. I’d like to see media organizations have a “Charlie Savage” kind of reporter who is not responsible for, say, “Bush orders review into import safety” and therefore can do more investigative, contemplative, what have you, sorts of pieces. That is also indispensable, but also not sufficient. You know what I would do with Bush? Routine stuff goes to the wire services and whitehouse.gov. Leave a skeleton crew behind, pull everyone else out of the castle and re-deploy as outside-in correspondents making runs and breaking stories. Don’t like that one? How’s about: when the Charlies Savages figure out what the big narrative is they feed ideas, tips, directional signals and good questions with tons of background to the guys inside the castle. Outside-in acts of journalism. Worth a try? In the case of the president’s Iraq trip, you need the on-the-ground person reporting back what the president said, but you also need to put those comments and the bigger picture in context. Here the letter trails off, ending with: I hope you will understand why our answer to [Stephen Hadley’s question] “would you rather we come here without you?” has to be a resounding “no.” Well, if you’re saying…. Look, we’re just on the body watch here, that’s what being a White House correspondent means: you’re a body watcher, okay? … then, yes, under that understanding it’s GO WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE SAYS GIT, even if you expect to be used as a propaganda completion agency. I think you may find more sense in the body watch than I do. If you have the body under surveillance, it does not mean you have the presidency under watch. Surely we can satisfy the Zapruder Never Again Society with a skeleton crew on watch duty, while everyone else makes a judgment call: am I better off at the White House, looking up, or coming down on it from the rim of the canyon? UPDATE: Our correspondent, HackWhoWroteRosen. (his title) returns for more, responding to my commentary. My lines are in italics. But then you are agreeing with me that the White House press is past the point of making an independent decision on whether to extend coverage. The body watch is in force. It commands the movement of troops. Actually, I thought what I was doing was challenging the very core of your interpretation, which centered on our failure to tell the White House to take a flying leap when they invited reporters along to a war zone. “Prove that you’re independent thinkers by refusing to go” wasn’t fair, especially since you knew about, and apparently agree with, the importance of the “body watch” premise. The other factor here, of course, is potential breaking news. Now, there’s something of a chicken-and-egg factor here, but what happens if the president wants to announce on the way over that he is, oh, nominating a new attorney general, criticizing Vladimir Putin, going to visit New Orleans, etc? I say chicken and egg because if reporters weren’t on the plane, the White House would just release a written statement or make other arrangements. But you’d rather have the man himself in front of you every time. Yes, but why would this happen? I can think of one “cultural” explanation; it’s related to the “have you seen the cables?” method of intimidation. It’s probably true that the diplomatic correspondent or the guy in China should cover the President’s trip to China, (let’s say…) but editors might go with the White House reporter because they believe in getting inside the sanctum, where the real secret cables arrive, and the real decisions are made. It’s a mystique effect. They like to feel “wired” to power centers. (They like to tell higher-ups the inside scoop.) Failing that they think political reporters are better connected to the chatter in Washington, from which they may pick up signals about what the White House intends to do. These are all part of the big picture. The China example actually highlights what I was trying to convey later in the message: You need a blend of coverage to have good coverage. It’s not clear to me that the China correspondent is a naturally better person to write about the trip to China…it depends on how technical the issues surrounding the visit are, how much local understanding you need (a standard narrative of the US president pushing China to, say, let its currency float on international markets doesn’t require the China correspondent to write the story). You’re more dismissive than I am of the “real decisions” issue, especially when it comes to covering breaking news (like, say, the president’s new pick for Attorney General). Sometimes, the White House really is the best place for that stuff. I see that. So, in other words: if you know something about the story, but your knowledge originates outside the White House, you’re less trusted with the base line narrative than if you know a little bit about the story, and your little comes from inside the White House. Seems to me this could be turned to White House advantage, along the lines of, “I wouldn’t get too far out in front on that story… That’s basically correct. Your rephrasing and your conclusion are basically sound. We’re back, in effect, to the superiority of McClatchy’s news judgment (or complaints from the WashPost’s national security team that their stories ran on A16). And you’re right about the potential spin factor (actually, not-so-potential), though at least in theory we’re supposed to be able to push past that. Well, if you are not in the direct accountability business after all, and cannot yourselves “hold their feet to the fire,” as the newsroom saying goes, then I would suggest that your newsroom make a big announcement to that effect and maybe having a presser. There would be a lot of interest in that. Can it be that you genuinely don’t understand how central “holding their feet to the fire” is to getting that relevant information out? “What did the president know and when did he know it?” is an effort to get information to news consumers. Fact-checking presidential statements is the same. McClatchy’s superb pre-war coverage was the same. “For Bush, Facts Are Malleable” in the Washington Post was the same. NSA wiretapping story in the NYTimes? Dana Priest’s “secret prison network” stories? The same. I guess I just think that final “accountability” rests in institutions other than the press. The Congress, the Courts, and elections. If I underplayed the role we have to play, that was my mistake. You know what I would do with Bush? Routine stuff goes to the wire services and whitehouse.gov. Leave a skeleton crew behind, pull everyone else out of the castle and re-deploy as outside-in correspondents making runs and breaking stories. This sort of ignores breaking news, like “President nominates new attorney general.” It also sort of ignores how large swathes of the news-consuming public - a majority, I believe - don’t want to go to whitehouse.gov themselves and sift through all of that stuff. It also ignores the fact that news outlets don’t like to rely on other news outlets (like the wires) for their final product. How’s about: when the Charlies Savages figure out what the big narrative is they feed ideas, tips, directional signals and good questions with tons of background to the guys inside the castle. Outside-in acts of journalism. Worth a try? You’re describing how this is supposed to work. Yes. Well, if you’re saying…. Look, we’re just on the body watch here, that’s what being a White House correspondent means: you’re a body watcher, okay? … then, yes, under that understanding it’s GO WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE SAYS GIT, even if you expect to be used as a propaganda completion agency. Your original premise was that we lack judgment because we sent a “pool” of reporters with the president, and that’s why I invoked the “body watch” concept. I didn’t say that this was our only function, and in fact I laid out some of my own criticisms and some of my own ideas and tried to explain some of our other shortcomings. Your final response is a classic misdirection play. “If you have the body under surveillance, it does not mean you have the presidency under watch.” Or, as someone else once said, “you can call into question the way someone covered a press conference without calling into question their decision to attend it.” Once again, thank you very, very much for giving me the opportunity to communicate with you and your readers. I really appreciate it. Our pleasure! Most informative.
Posted by Jay Rosen at September 14, 2007 12:31 AM
Comments
I see insider over outsider as part of the same cultural arrogance that brings us national over local. Bodywatchers don't have to help in propaganda. They have to go, apparently, but they don't have to file. Problem is, a frontpage headline saying, "Nothing happened, nobody hurt, nobody to blame." would only sell papers once, for the novelty.
Besides, we all know the pres went to Iraq to distract everybody's attention from Iraq. Clever guy. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at September 14, 2007 7:35 AM | Permalink Apparently, s/he is saying that the White House press corps isn't the accountability arm of journalism. I don't get that WHPC gets all the "secret cables." Do they? It seems like the secret power cables are distributed to the most useful name brands. Instead WHPC gets pre-spinning of the President's speech by anonymous "senior administration officials." You're right, there is value in distribution of Administration policy to a certain number of news organizations. The rest of them should be outside looking in. Or the big picture Charlie Savage people, as our unknown correspondent observes. Posted by: James, Los Angeles at September 14, 2007 9:49 AM | Permalink One factor that your correspondent does not acknowledge is the "personal aggrandizement" angle. The more "sensational" a story is, the more prominent/important the reporter on that story becomes. Reporters have a personal stake in the stories they cover, and it is in the personal interest of White House reporters to exagerate the significance of White House events/pronouncements. Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 14, 2007 10:44 AM | Permalink Jay: Well, if you are not in the direct accountability business after all, and cannot yourselves “hold their feet to the fire,” as the newsroom saying goes, then I would suggest that your newsroom make a big announcement to that effect and maybe having a presser. There would be a lot of interest in that. I second that emotion. Posted by: Mark Anderson at September 14, 2007 11:35 AM | Permalink Richard Aubrey posted on 14September2007 at 7:35AM "Bodywatchers don't have to help in propaganda. I view this even more cynically than you do. The WH reporter must file, because that's his job and the way his employer can determine that the reporter is actually on the job. Nothing wrong exists in that system. My cynicism meter goes off the scale with the editors and producers in the media offices choosing what to show. They've got the chance to determine the newsworthiness of everything filtering through their enterprise and they're choosing to put in or on BS propaganda. Worse, it's a money decision. They've sent the reporter because of their "SSRO" paranoia, but they then use their having sent the reporter as the justification for running the non-news. How else can they justify to their bosses the price tag for having sent the reporter and their crew traipsing around with the Pretender to report on nothing? The CEO/COO will be asking why they're not seeing anything in the paper or on the broadcasts after seeing all of those hefty travel and living expense accounts and the editors and producers don't want to openly say that they've sent the reporter because of "SSRO". Pretender Bush's staff excel in recognizing the insanity of this situation and plundering it for all its worth. Posted by: PrahaPartizan at September 14, 2007 11:36 AM | Permalink Sorry, but I don't get this whole thing. I want reporters there telling me what the president said, and what others said back, and how onlookers reacted. In addition to body watch. It shouldnt be the only thing or the most important thing, but why exactly would public knowledge be enhanced by not covering the president's trips? You're as likely to get bum information from reporters who think they've figured out the real lowdown from the outside as from WH reporters. The solution is always more, not less. Posted by: John at September 14, 2007 12:09 PM | Permalink Well, yeah, John. But the point here in the rolling of the helpless and naive--except when savvy--journalists is that they have to go with the prez and they have to run stuff that Prof. Rosen and a number of others think is propaganda. Now, if it's useless propaganda, they can either not file--or if that means they're slacking, the editor can spike it--or not go. Problem with the bean-counters of course. But maybe that would be solved by charging the going rate for ads. You, apparently, disagree with the thrust of the bodywatcher complaint that only propaganda can come of such a system. Well, if there's news there, you would have a point. Problem is, the news might be good for Bush, in which case it's propaganda. I'm surprised you don't know this. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at September 14, 2007 12:27 PM | Permalink The WH press corps definitely is too large and largely useless, especially under a presidency that stonewalls and spins routinely. It achieves almost nothing. As a consequence, too many stories are assigned to the press corps in the hopes of getting some mileage out of them, stories that they aren't prepared to handle. For example, in 2005 I led an on-line effort to get the national news media to give coverage to the Downing Street Memo. Some reasonably good coverage eventually emerged, but a huge (and unanticipated) stumbling block turned out to be the WH press corps. Too many DSM stories were left in the hands of the WHPC, and virtually every one of those reports was abysmal...uninformed, inaccurate, out of focus, and dominated by stenography. The fact that Bush was actually asked at a presser about the DSM made matters worse, because the reporting the following day consisted mostly of a summary of the whole press briefing with only a passing nod to the dodge perpetrated by Bush. The WHPC doesn't have the background in national/international stories they're required to mention, so they tend to do a second-rate job even on the rare occasions when they're handed first-rate material. And let's face it, as often as not the only real story coming out of the WH these days is "The White House lied/refused to explain..." And how often do WHPC stories lead with the actual story? Far better if 80% of the WHPC were set loose and allowed to do some serious digging into what is really going on. One AP reporter ought to be sufficient to describe what the WH would like us to believe is going on. Posted by: smintheus at September 14, 2007 1:19 PM | Permalink One aspect of this administration hasn't gotten that much attention is the social organization of relations with the press. Although there always have been high level, often freelance leakers in the past (Kissinger, for example), this administartion seems to have been good at keeping discipline at the lower levels where many leaks occur. They also have managed to bottle up or at least intimidate senior civil servants (who hate the media, BTW, as do the uniformed military). In the end, a lot of leaks come from the top (e.g., Rove, Rumsfeld) and despite their frequent lack of credibility, the news outlets don't want to lose access to these tender morsels and keep getting "played" for saps. At the same time, they seem to have been unable to penetrate other levels of government (which are filled with zealots) or the civil service. there are exceptions--people like Dana Priest, Walter Pincus, etc. who aren't "political" reporters and who have deep contacts in the "permanent" parts of the government. I suspect that the radicalism probably has stunned the DC press, but there also seems to be a palpable laziness. The Administration and its freinds are good at returning phone calls and giving disciplined sound bites. The press has collectively lost some of its willingnesss to ask questions. This acceptance of neatly packaged junk started in the Clinton era and the linakges probably have persisted into the current Administration (think Starr & Co.). By now they should have found where to get real news and how to present it, but much of the time they don't. It's become obvious that much of the pundit class is truly lazy, recycling all kinds of conventional Beltway wisdom--something that has been obvious since the mid 90s. There's also a who class or reporters who obviously are lazy: Susan Schmidt, John Solomon, etc. and some who only seem intermitently interested in doing their job, e.g., Dana Milbank. Regardless of party, a smart administration would find a way to maintain message discipline and access, esp. in the beginning. The press will probably get more angry if Democrats succeed in doing this, but i think they feel comprelled to criticize Dems and are obviously willing to communicate whatere the wingnust shovel to them in a prepacked form. Posted by: Rich "I am the temple dog," Sam Donaldson told me when I wrote about the WH press room and its denizens during the Jimmy Carter years. Other than the occupant of the Oval Office, little has really changed -- including the death watch -- since then. For the full "la plus ca change" experience see: http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/2007/07/12/the-white-house-press-room-then-and-now/ Posted by: Rory O'Connor at September 14, 2007 2:14 PM | Permalink UPDATE: Our correspondent returns for more dialogue. (see the post....My lines are in italics. And for even more from the same reporter see the back-and-forth at The Next Hurrah, where Marcy Wheeler wrote about this post, and our correspondent came into the comments to reply to her, using the name "HackWhoWroteRosen." Most interesting. Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 14, 2007 2:54 PM | Permalink "You know what I would do with Bush? Routine stuff goes to the wire services and whitehouse.gov. Leave a skeleton crew behind, pull everyone else out of the castle and re-deploy as outside-in correspondents making runs and breaking stories." Not only would this be better use of increasingly strapped newsroom resources, it would also force the White House to find news ways to spin, which in itself would be extremely interesting to watch. Posted by: Tracy Thompson at September 14, 2007 4:05 PM | Permalink I find it curious that those who created the WH Press Corp and then ate well when fed it the Clintonian "non-stop campaign" which enthralled and protected the Imperial Presidency, now find the Bush WH coverage too much... You guys built this beast. You fed it. You protected it and nurtured it... Let's face it a WH under seige and in constant campaign mode makes it much more fun... It also means promotions and more money... Unless you want to tell me that journos don't think about their careers... The problem isn't that the Bush WH is so Imperial. Bush is Boring. The real problem is that we don't have a constant series of scandals. the Clintons spoiled everyone into thinking there should be a new story, scandal or defense of an old scandal every week. Every two weeks at the most... No wonder you guys are greasing the pads for another Clinton WH... 1992-2016 would make a nice career...maybe some awards. Lots of words typed, lots of face time... And not a hell of a lot of work. Afterall, the Clintons feed their doggies well... "You guys built this beast." Good god, what on earth are you talking about, you loon? Who are "you guys," anyway? What kind of code is this? Sometimes the librul media thesis just gets so wacky it's almost dada-ist. PressThink readers created the White House press corps? The discussion with our correspondent at Next Hurrah is totally fascinating. You should check it out. Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 14, 2007 8:08 PM | Permalink As an interloper coming the other way from The Next Hurrah, thank you for your work here Mr. Rosen; it is excellent. My final take at TNH, that I will relate here, is thadt, over the course of the day, it was a fascinating exercise in interaction with the "Hack Who Wrote Rosen"; yet, at the end of the day, a disappointingly hollow one. Maybe time will change my conclusion; I hope so. Thanks again. Posted by: bmaz at September 15, 2007 2:46 AM | Permalink Jeebus. I leave a comment here and wander back by my nominal home, TNH, and see you have left a nearly simultaneous comment at least partially in response to me. At any rate, I am not sure how often you stop in at TNH, so I decided to bring my thought back here (not that it is that particularly compelling; but hey I live on the west coast, am still up, and thats what blogs are for). You wrote: "For me the hollow part comes down to this, a hanging question never addressed: do you not feel you were gamed by the Bush Administration, successfully played for fools in the build up to the War in Iraq? If you don't, then say so out loud and explain why. (Cuz it sure seems to us that you were.) If you do feel you were gamed, would that not affect the way you cover the Bush White House from then on? Things never got to that level. Plus, there's something else journalists do consistently in these kinds of discussion. If they can't win the argument, they revert to arguing about the audience. They switch from defending the coverage they produced to... "okay, fine, but the kind of coverage you want isn't what most people in the audience demand." Which, of course, immediately changes the grounds of discussion from what it was responsible to report to.... what the great audience will stand for." I did notice that burden transference. It is a regrettable pattern of that can only result is circular societal degradation. You feel your main audience is stupid, so you feed them pablum. Over time, as the audience grows less informed from the pablum, you feed even them ever thinner gruel. I suggest that instead of constantly feeding the lower common denominators, the press (and the White House Press Corps would be a fine place to start) start reporting the meat and with depth. Drag the lower intellects up; not the upper down. I admit the above is a view through ideologically rose colored glasses. Let me end on a more concrete note. I expect our politicians to do the honest and right thing. I expect the press to investigate and report when they don't. Society can afford when one or the other abrogates it's job; but not when both do. Far too often in the last seven years, both have failed us. This country is in dire need of a press reawakening and reinvention. And soon. Thanks again. Posted by: bmaz at September 15, 2007 3:52 AM | Permalink bmaz: the real question is, how much meat is there in a White House press conference? It looks like the answer is "precious little", not just with this president, but with every president. Either a reporter records exactly what the White House chooses to say; or he comes with a list of questions for the White House, prepared by reporters on some other beat, and asks them in hopes of getting an unscripted reaction. The first case requires no investigative skill or special knowledge. And in the second the reporter is acting as someone else's agent -- all the investigation, all the specialized knowledge, came from the other beat. The White House press corps may be doing a useful job in recording the President's every move. But it sure isn't doing a prestigious job, or a difficult job. The job probably should be given to inexperienced reporters with talent, to season them. It should not be considered a career; doing so just feeds the "cult of savviness". Posted by: Michael Brazier at September 15, 2007 5:11 AM | Permalink You know, that is a fair point and was raised at TNH as well. If the net worth and work product are not going to substantially improve, it is an excellent point. I will be honest, I think my statement above tends to comingle my desires for reinvention of the press as a whole with the peculiarities of the White House Press Corps. Clearly they would probably be decredited and physically ejected on the spot, but a scene I would love to see is that posited by Mr. Rosen when he said "do you not feel you were gamed by the Bush Administration, successfully played for fools in the build up to the War in Iraq? If you don't, then say so out loud and explain why." I would like to see the entire White House Press Corps do that en masse; make a stink and make a show, then send in the plebes. Posted by: bmaz at September 15, 2007 6:02 AM | Permalink Posting from TNH: To be fair, no one outright asked those questions, Prof Rosen. For me the hollow part comes down to this, a hanging question never addressed: do you not feel you were gamed by the Bush Administration, successfully played for fools in the build up to the War in Iraq? If you don't, then say so out loud and explain why. (Cuz it sure seems to us that you were.) If you do feel you were gamed, would that not affect the way you cover the Bush White House from then on? Though rather assuming the answer, don't you think? Posted by: James, Los Angeles at September 15, 2007 6:09 AM | Permalink
Seems like an issue that should be answered somewhere other than a 70-item comment stream. Posted by: James, Los Angeles at September 15, 2007 8:25 AM | Permalink I agree that it's an issue that deserves extended discussion, and cannot be resolved in a comment thread. (See this exchange between Michael Gordon and Michael Massing.) But it can be addressed. My question shows where I am coming from, James. It does not attempt to disguise my conclusion--elaborated in 20+ PressThink posts by now--that the press was gamed, beaten badly by the Bush forces, and did not know how to react. (See When We Try to Explain the Rout of the Press under George W. Bush.) You asked if I am actually interested in how Hack would answer; yes, I am. I would like to know how he responds to a view of Bush and the press that I (and others, like Marcy Wheeler) have developed over time. Would he contest it? Possibly, and that would be interesting. Maybe he would not contest but de-excite, by saying something like "gamed? I think that's exaggerated..." Or he could do what a lot of journalists do and retreat to an argument over eternals, "every Administration tries to pull the wool over our eyes...." Would he say something like: "I think you have framed the wrong question. It's not were we gamed by the White House, it's...." Or would he acknowledge that something pretty bad went down if you believe in a watchdog press? I have no idea, and so yes, I am really interested in which way the reply would go. I can tell you the kind of answer I am not looking for, and would reject out-of-hand. You could even say my mind is closed to it (but as a result of experience.) That would be the sort of reply that tries to explain to me how my sense that the press under Bush failed is just displaced anger at Bush, and not an observation about the press at all. When someone in journalism gives me that attitude, I dismiss him from the category of "someone I can have a discussion with," and I put 'em in the "denial" bin. But then there's no possibility of debate, one might say. And I would agree: none. Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 15, 2007 10:25 AM | Permalink How’s about: when the Charlies Savages figure out what the big narrative is they feed ideas, tips, directional signals and good questions with tons of background to the guys inside the castle. Outside-in acts of journalism. Worth a try? You’re describing how this is supposed to work. Yes. I've heard all the defenses and the denials and the reframing as well. It's a pathology that has long fascinated and frustrated me. I liked the above response to the question you posed. I just think it is fair to pose a direct, unloaded question and consider the answer, if sincerely given Posted by: James, Los Angeles at September 15, 2007 10:53 AM | Permalink As for what I mean by "gamed," this from Frank Rich's column last week is ground zero for that thesis: Sept. 8, 2002. What happened on that Sunday five years ago is the Rosetta Stone for the administration's latest scam. Five years later, the press has not even come close to grappling with what happened that morning. HackWhoWroteRosen may well be trying to, however. That is why I suspended my rules about permitting anonymous contributions and ran his letter. Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 15, 2007 10:58 AM | Permalink I'd add that Jay Rosen has provided and exchanged ideas about the White House Press before that are worth reading again in the context of this thread. When the correspondents were invited into the White House, and to some degree into T.R.'s confidence, that began an era that changed the institution of the Presidency, and the balance of powers between Congress and the Executive, well before television and its powers of personalization came along to seal the deal. I sat down this morning to do my daily news read and I’m seeing that Bush sat down for an hour with bloggers yesterday at the White House to talk Iraq and answer questions. I wonder if our body-watchers will go to these sources to find out what the President Bush actually said. Posted by: Kristen at September 15, 2007 11:19 AM | Permalink I'd also suggest before accepting Frank Rich's "ground zero" for Rosen's "gamed" thesis, readers review the "debunking" of the aluminum tubes that occurred in the press in December 2002 and the UN report from 2004: CNN AMERICAN MORNING WITH PAULA ZAHN: CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bill, well, what's interesting is that the Iraqi officials, according to this high-ranking official who I spoke to, have over the last couple of weeks confirmed to the chief U.S. weapons inspectors that they did try to import aluminum tubes. Those tubes, as you remember a few months ago, the U.S. pointed to as evidence that the Iraqis were trying to re-launch and re-start its nuclear weapons program.Christiane Amanpour: Iraq says it sought weapons components The whole issue of these aluminum tubes, when (the issue) first surfaced about three months ago, was used by the U.S. and ... British administrations (as) evidence that Iraq was trying to build and ... increase its nuclear weapons capabilities.Findings regarding munitions and components whose purpose is under review (pdf, February 2004) 19. UNMOVIC inspectors discovered munitions and munition components that are not described in Iraq's declaration of December 2002 although they have characteristics consistent with chemical or biological munitions. It was not possible to clarify the actual purpose of the following items prior to the withdrawal of the inspectors.Wikipedia: Iraqi aluminum tubes- A small number of components of an unusual 81-mm rocket warhead were discovered at two sites. Subsequent comparison of the components with similar components of known chemical rocket warheads suggests that they are part of two different warheads for 81-mm rockets, possibly intended for use with proscribed agents. No trace of proscribed agents was found on the recovered components. Kristen @11:19 - wouldn't matter. The only "bloggers" he met with are, per the Bush norm, pre-selected kool-aid drinking puppy dogs; some military, some not, but all screened to agree with Bush. Posted by: bmaz at September 15, 2007 1:48 PM | Permalink I remember that column well, Jay. I'm on your page. My only question is this: Is "White House Press Corps" who we are talking about? According to your correspondent, Tim Russert, a prime mover in that incident, is not. ...Yes, you're right, there's an MSM, subset Washington press corps, subset White House correspondents.... Russert is not a White House guy... I'm still struggling with the terminology. Posted by: James, Los Angeles at September 15, 2007 3:07 PM | Permalink re: "gamed" Now, on the other matter, I've been over that so many times in my head and with hundreds of journalists who are trying to figure it out for themselves - I can't tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can't. I've wrestled with it. I don't know - and people say, well, INR dissented. That's a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That's all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios. Carl Ford and I talked; Tom Finger and I talked, who is now John Negroponte's deputy, and that was the way INR felt. And, frankly, I wasn't all that convinced by the evidence I'd seen that he had a nuclear program other than the software. That is to say there are some discs or there were some scientists and so forth but he hadn't reconstituted it. He was going to wait until the international tension was off of him, until the sanctions were down, and then he was going to go back - certainly go back to all of his programs. I mean, I was convinced of that. James: The Washington press corps is the entire group of correspondents and their editors and producers who work in the capital and report on politics and government. They live in DC or the suburbs and become attached to the place. Tim Russert is Washington bureau chief for NBC News and would definitely qualify as "Washington press." The White House press corps is a smaller subset of the Washington group, and would specifically designate people who are on the White House beat, and typically work at the White House itself. They go to the briefings, would have a seat at WH press conferences, and often file stories from the White House, where they would have a small workspace. There's an organization, the White House Correspondents Association, that regulates membership in the White House press corps; I believe that only members can attend briefings. The WHCA represents the White House press corps in its dealings with the administration on coverage-related issues. There may be a listing of the Washington press corps somewhere; it would number in the thousands. The White House press corps is a more defined group, and Dan Froomkin keeps a list of the active ones. Some confusion comes from the fact that lots of Washington journalists might report, comment and opine on what the President is doing, without being White House correspondents. Russert would fit into that category, which is why Hack says "Russert is not a White House guy..." David Gregory, on the other hand, is White House correspondent for NBC News; he works in the building itself and is on Froomkin's list. So "White House press corps" does not mean everyone who does journalism about the President and what he's up to; it really refers to where they work from, whether they are based at the WH. Then there are journalists like Frank Rich and Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall who write constantly about what the White House is doing but work from New York. They are part of the political press, but not the Washington press. In fact, Judy Miller was a reporter based in New York when she was up to her tricks with the Bush forces and Iraq. If you ask the New York Times Washington bureau about her they will tell you, "she didn't work for us." "MSM" is not a term I use. I think it's ugly, inelegant, dumb. It refers to pro journalists who work for big news organizations and includes the organizations themselves. For some reason pro journalists like referring to themselves as MSM. I think it makes them feel bloggy. Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 15, 2007 4:11 PM | Permalink The only "bloggers" he met with are, per the Bush norm, pre-selected kool-aid drinking puppy dogs; some military, some not, but all screened to agree with Bush. In light of Bush's usual habits when dealing with the press, that makes it rather more likely that he said something worth hearing. People are less cautious in front of a friendly audience; and the less skillful they are in public speaking, the less they're inclined to guard their tongues. Posted by: Michael Brazier at September 15, 2007 10:39 PM | Permalink I agree with that. And I would love to see a transcript. I also think that Bush is so bad at dialogue and explanation that friendly bloggers who agree that the Iraq war is a heroic cause-- that's really all he can handle. He is simply not up to anything more strenuous and the White House, I think, knows that. It's an extraordinary state of affairs. A discourse invalid in the Oval Office. Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 16, 2007 1:16 AM | Permalink Well, I am sticking with the "pre-selected kool-aid drinking" part, which apparently isn't in substantive dispute; but you have convinced me I was dead wrong on the "wouldn't matter" bit. You are right, it might be pretty interesting to see what that esteemed gathering of minds produced. Posted by: bmaz at September 16, 2007 2:47 AM | Permalink Just so we're clear who bmaz considers "kool-aid drinking puppy dogs": The Armorer of Argghhh! Linking in from Iraq were: Bill Roggio of the Long War Journal "[K]ool-aid drinking puppy dogs" is not a term I use. "I think it's ugly, inelegant, dumb." I also think it's arrogant. Tim: On Wilkerson, what makes you think the Bush administration shared with the State Department everything it had to share? Wasn't Powell famously (see Woodward's books) told about many things after the fact, after decisions had already been made? Posted by: JJWFromME at September 16, 2007 11:01 AM | Permalink I think that would be great questions to ask Wilkerson: What and when did he and/or Powell know about Sabri in light of the SSCI report (bottom of p. 141) and Blumenthal's article. As far as I've read, the CIA never passed on the results of the Joint Task Force on Iraq and Charlie Allen's plan to the "Bush administration." Your explanation upthread was helpful, Jay. I don't recognize many on Froomkin's list; the TV network people and the NY Times and Wash Post mainly, and Mike Allen, who has since left Time. I wonder if Frank Rich's column was referring to a different subset of Washington journalism in his indictment: call it the Washington Talk Show Elite, perhaps, where news, analysis and opinion are not so sharply delineated? With respect to the Hurrah thread, I wonder if your White House correspondent felt like a Joe Lockhart to his or her own counterparts in the blogosphere. (I used to follow the daily briefing in those days, not so much any more.) As you observed: fascinating. Posted by: James, Los Angeles at September 16, 2007 2:56 PM | Permalink It's been pretty well established that Powell wasn't in the loop. Cheney ran everything -- still does, for that matter. Therefore, neither Powell nor Wilkerson had a clue. Both might as well have been guys standing around on the sidewalk outside the White House, waiting for instructions as to what to say next.
Posted by: Steve Lovelady at September 16, 2007 6:35 PM | Permalink Jay, very interesting! but I would have asked "the hack" to participated in the comments, here -- I mean, he said he wanted "the opportunity to communicate with you and your readers," so it's sort of strange that he didn't participate in the comments here (while he *did* post elsewhere referring to this...) D. There is such a multitude of issues to address in the article and comments that I'm boggled. The issue of what the audience will bear strikes deeply with me, the Press stands so firmly on its 1st Amendment protections that one would think the corresponding responsibility would have some effect on that particular question. This same body regularly attacks the 2nd Amendment on the basis of the irresponsibilty of some (and illegality). Hmm, is the best I can do there. Corresponding to the relationship of the WH press corps & DC press corps to the WH is the relationship of the ownership of their employers to that same household, a larger question appears. What filtering is occuring beyond the subservient WH/DC/NY corp? If KR (McClatchy) could get so much right from the outside (and total outside amatures like myself) then what justification beyond the body watch is there for the WHPC? And if in fact almost the entire DCPC got so much so wrong what are their employers paying for? Are they actually satisfied with what they get - which once again rolls around to the question of ownership relations. No, I'm being repetitively circular, the question is now about employment costs, I am in business and bear responsibility for my employees' mistakes, I would have to have a very serious reason to continue to pay money for such performance. The Hack doesn't address that particular question and it would seem basic to the entire discussion. Is there an assumption that it isn't a valid question about their performance? Where does their sense of entitlement to such blatant failure come from? I sense no such urgency that their careers and even profession depend on not failing. Citizens and public servants cannot be left to wander informationless or misinformed and be expected to make other than stupid decisions. Finally, I am an opinion and advocacy blogger, not a journalist, I may research to see that my opinion holds water, but I cannot do the original work and if all I can find is junk, then I produce junk. In 06 I ran for US Rep in a Primary and I based my policy stances on what I could find out, from journalists. There is a natural outcome of syncophantic reporting that moves upstream. (ok, I am a Democrat, so...) I suppose that where all this meandering is getting to is that I don't think the proximity to the President is the problem, the problem is the attitude, even the isolation of DC/NY isn't the problem, it is the attitude. People are only that effected because they allow it; I've spent the last 30/54 years in towns that wouldn't make a neighborhood in those cities and I can still see past my front porch. Thanks for trying to hold their feet to the fire, Jay. If the Press holds to their current course I do not see how they can hope to stay relevant and hold onto their position next to Speech and Religion. Posted by: chuckbutcher at September 17, 2007 3:23 AM | Permalink The casual mean-spiritedness directed at the bloggers who met with Bush is not a matter of ingrained mean-spiritedness. I mean, the people who did it are almost certainly imbued with more than their share of meanness and bile. But in this case, it is a tool, not a general reation. The bloggers, some of them, are actually veterans. Others had to phone in from work--Iraq. Thus, they may well know a good deal more than the journos would like them to know. Knowing the wrong stuff. Solution. Pointless nastiness as a dismissive tool. Problem: Obvious as hell. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at September 17, 2007 10:23 AM | Permalink Somehow, it all the analyzing both of you miss the parasitic relationship of the press and the presidency. They have formed a symbosis that is both unhealthy and unnatural. There is no provision in our laws or traditions for a "white house press core." This all got started under Johnson, I think. If I remember my media history from college correctly, it was Johnson who gave them an office in the White House. (Could be wrong, it has been a long time since college.)It somehow became entrenched in stone. Why on earth is our government footing the bill for lugging around a bunch of reporters? This is part of the reason the reporting has become so substandard- why on earth would they bite the hand that feeds them? They need to be back at the door scrambling for the stories again, not sitting in the nice little airconditioned room waiting for the guy to step up to the podium! There is an old saying- once you lie down with dogs, you are bound to get fleas. Well, our press in the country is infested at this point. When you can't tell the differnce between the politician and the reporter, there is a serious problem. Kay Posted by: kgoriup at September 17, 2007 10:27 AM | Permalink Tim-- I would look in the man-sized safe in Cheney's office as well. Posted by: JJWFromME at September 17, 2007 11:02 AM | Permalink Since none of this matters if readers don't pay attention, paying attention to credibility is important. If you're interested in readers paying attention to you. If you're interested in something else, something close to incest, maybe it doesn't matter. Well, as they say, the hits just keep on coming. Now there's ABC, Brian Ross and a string of bogus interviews with big shooters. Years worth. I hate to say this, having been slammed for it before, but if people don't trust you, all this hot air goes for naught. Which is the approximate size of a future paycheck. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at September 17, 2007 9:28 PM | Permalink You don't think the man-sized safe is an interesting story? The ABC bogus interview thing could get interesting... Posted by: JJWFromME at September 18, 2007 7:45 AM | Permalink The "beast" is the Pack of Beagles that only bark at Republicans. We few remember that the Establishment Media was slow on all of the "Bimbo Eruptions" yet covered all of the lawn parties. We noticed the slowness of Establishment Media in doing much more than re-writing the WH Press releases... "You Guys"-Establishment Media created the beast by bowing to the Clinton WH/Thompson-Hollywood dictates and accepting the prechewed and finely spun feed. We saw what happened to the hapless reporter who dared to ask the wrong question, wrong time, wrong place and found his invites lost. No Access = No Job...why would anyone pay a reporter to stand on the street outside-? Now the well fed Democratic Beagle Brigade produces boring pablum and you are disppointed-? Do you really want the public to believe that "you guys" (Establishment Media) haven't tried really hard to find some scandal in the past seven years-? C-SPAN covers the WH briefings... We can TiVo the proceedings and we can tell who is really seeking clarification and who's playing "gotcha".. Why are the newspapers losing readers-? Why are the major TV news shows losing eyeballs-? Who is boring-? Who is predictable-? Who is the one that cannot report on the events of the world without taking a feed from a plagarist, a fabricator, a fabuluist, an enemy with staged video-? It ain't the viewers who are betraying the trust of the marketplace. There appears to be no competition in news or between reporters. This problem has many origins including the consolidation of Establishment Media into ever larger empires and the one-hand-washes-the-other syndication and sharing of sources, stories and stringers. When the NYTimes and WashPost share their morning front pages with each other, at night before publication, that's not competition. (The NYTimes occasionally gets an update and doesn't share. THAT becomes news in the WashPost). That creation of the Well-Fed-Pack of Beagles is just good manipulation and gamesman ship by President Clinton. A strong competitor(s) would have seen an opening and attacked the pack to draw the audience. Silence equates to complicity... Nobody wants to work THAT hard... If one starts a fight then everyone will have to work. If we all go along we all get along and we all get promoted. I find laziness, carelessness and greed more common in the world than conspiracy. I don't think anybody agreed to be complicit. I think nobody was encouraged to be agressive, I find Establishment Media to be well paid and extremely lazy. By adopting one political party over another they can avoid competition and yet give the appearance of being competitive... Oh yeah, I like Lord Gnome and what I suspect to be his plans for the NYTimes. Competition never hurt the marketplace. No company deserves to live forever... Welcome to my world. Free Entry, Free Markets. Free People. You might find it fun. Hey Tim at 9/16/07 10:39 AM: If perchance you make it back here to this thread: It sure appears you know a thing or two about being arrogant yourself. Belligerent and vituperative as well. Are you arguing that said "bloggers" were not hand picked? Is it your position that Bush meets with people that fail to agree with him? If so, why do you not support those assertions instead of childishly calling me names? I participated in that discussion for most of the day, and part of the next, in good faith; even having my view changed by intelligent comments by others here a couple of times. Yes, I do maintain that all of those you listed, for one reason or another, were in line with Bush, whether it be ideologically in general, or the war in specific. I visited this site because it came to the site where I reside. Had you visited The Next Hurrah, you sure as hell would have been shown a lot more courtesy and comity than you took it upon yourself to show me here. So be it. I guess you must not have the wherewithal to discuss the message, so you blithely attack the messenger. Nice. Posted by: bmaz at September 22, 2007 5:15 AM | Permalink bmaz, I think I was quite clear that I consider the term "kool-aid drinking puppy dogs" ugly, inelegant, dumb and arrogant. I certainly consider it more ugly, more inelegant, more dumb and arrogant, than the term "MSM." I stand by that assertion. If you want to argue that "kool-aid drinking puppy dogs" is not an ugly, inelegant, dumb and arrogant term ... please do so. If you think recognizing the phrase, "kool-aid drinking puppy dogs," as ugly, inelegant, dumb and arrogant is the same as "childishly calling [you] names", then I suggest you step back and read the phrase "kool-aid drinking puppy dogs," again. I would also suggest that your use of the term "kool-aid drinking puppy dogs" and your frequent claims of residence at The Next Hurrah reflects the "courtesy and comity" that can be found there. You might be interested in a similar experience Ken Silverstein recently had: Bloggers = Stooges? Tim - I did not attack you personally; you, however did the reverse without personal provocation. That would be the difference between us; but since you seem to derive such self satisfaction from your effort have at it. If the roles were reversed, I would have treated you better; that was my only point. Further discussion on the subject serves neither of our interests. I harbor no ill will, just was perplexed. Perhaps, should there be a future interaction, we can start out on a new foot and leave the unpleasantries aside. Best regards. Posted by: bmaz at September 22, 2007 4:16 PM | Permalink |
|
Print![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://archive.pressthink.org/nav-commenters.gif)
