Dana Milbank vs. Helen Thomas

AltHippo, in "A Lawn Gnome of Journalism Comes Up Defensive," is unhappy with Dana Milbank, who writes:

A Giant of Journalism Comes Up Short: Helen Thomas's new treatise, "Watchdogs of Democracy?" is really two books in one.... The second is a rather unpleasant rehashing of the liberal criticism of the press's performance before the Iraq war.... It is an effort unworthy of a woman who, whatever her late husband was, truly is a journalistic icon.

"Nothing is more troubling to me than the obsequious press during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq," she tells us, citing pulled punches at news conferences. "Critics are still wondering why White House reporters were so quiescent at President Bush's March 6, 2003, news conference, which was scripted and in which he made it eminently clear that the United States was going to war.... White House reporters became a laughingstock before the viewing public, who wondered about all the 'softballs' being pitched to the president at such a momentous time."

Really? Let's review some of the "softballs" that were tossed that night:

• "If all these nations... have access to the same intelligence information, why is it that they are reluctant to think that the threat is so real, so imminent that we need to move to the brink of war now?"
• "I wonder why you think so many people around the world take a different view of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses than you and your allies?"
• "How would you answer your critics who say that they think this is somehow personal? As Senator Kennedy put it... your fixation with Saddam Hussein is making the world a more dangerous place."
• "What went wrong that so many governments and people around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power?"
• "There are a lot of people in this country... who still wonder why blood has to be shed if he hasn't attacked us."
• "Do you ever worry... that this could lead to more terrorism, more anti-American sentiment, more instability in the Middle East?"
• "What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?"

This is quiescent and obsequious?...

Milbank's editing makes it hard to see what the seven questions he picks (out of twenty-seven) really are.

The first question he cites has a second part, which turns it from judgement-of-intelligence question into a diplomatic-strategy-at-the-UN question--Milbank quotes the windup, but doesn't quote the softball delivery.

The second question is a hardball one--but Bush doesn't answer it, and there is no follow-up. The one thing the White House press corps doesn't do is for one reporter to say, "But you did not answer my colleague's question."

The third question also has a second half that Milbank does not quote, and that turns it from a hardball into a softball that asks Bush to outline "worst-case scenarios," which Bush answers by saying that he takes his responsibility to protect America seriously.

Question four is once again a legitimate hardball question. And Bush doesn't answer it. And there is no follow-up asking for a real answer.

Question five is a place where Milbank's ellipsis has changed the meaning of the question. As AltHippo writes, "the context... indicates that the questioner believes that those 'who still wonder why blood has to be shed if he hasn’t attacked us' are misinformed. That’s a completely different meaning than the excerpt [implies]."

Questions six and seven seem to me to be entirely reasonable ones--and they get answers, false answers we now know, but answers.

So of Milbank's seven examples of the White House press corps not being "quiescent and obsequious," we have three softballs, two dodged questions because the press corps won't help each other, and two real questions that get answered.

And, of course, there are the twenty questions Milbank doesn't pick, including:

Can any military operation be considered a success if the United States does not capture Saddam Hussein, as you once said, "Dead or alive?"

[H]ow is your faith guiding you? And what should you tell America? Well, what should America do collectively as you instructed before 9/11? Should it be pray? Because you are saying, "Let's continue the war on terror."

I score this for Helen Thomas. The press corps is quiescent and obsequious--even though individual members of it do not want to be. The press corps is quiescent and obsequious for four reasons. First, many of its members are quiescent and obsequious. Second, all of its members are perennially underbriefed. Third, its members don't back each other up. Nobody says: "You didn't answer my colleague's question." Fourth, its members are, by and large, lousy questioners: they ask multi-part questions with one hardball and two softball components, and so the president gets to pick and choose which part he will answer.

How much of what is wrong with the White House press corps could be fixed if they routinely backed up the previous questioner and limited themselves to one-part question? I'm not sure. Less than if they were properly briefed. But it couldn't hurt. And the way it played out on March 6, 2003 was very different than a casual reader would gather from the seven questions excerpted by Dana Milbank.

---

Let's roll the tape: all questions, unedited, on March 6, 2003, from http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/06/bush.speech.transcript/, with the phrases picked out by Milbank in italics:

Let me see if I can further -- if you could further define what you just called this important moment we're in. Since you made it clear just now that you don't think that Saddam has disarmed and we have a quarter million troops in the Persian Gulf and now that you've called on the world to be ready to use force as a last resort, are we just days away from the point at which you decide whether or not we go to war? And what harm would it do to give Saddam a final ultimatum, a two- or three-day deadline to disarm or face force?

Thank you. Another hot spot is North Korea. If North Korea restarts their plutonium plant, will that change your thinking about how to handle this crisis? Or are you resigned to North Korea becoming a nuclear power?

Mr. President, you and your top advisers, notably Secretary of State Powell, have repeatedly said that we have shared with our allies all of the current, up-to-date intelligence information that proves the imminence of the threat we face from Saddam Hussein and that they have been sharing their intelligence as well. If all of these nations, all of them our normal allies, have access to the same intelligence information, why is it that they are reluctant to think that the threat is so real, so imminent that we need to move to the brink of war now? And in relation to that, today, the British foreign minister, Jack Straw, suggested at the U.N. that it might be time to look at amending the resolution perhaps with an eye toward a timetable, like that proposed by the Canadians some two weeks ago, that would set a firm deadline to give Saddam Hussein a little bit of time to come clean. And also, obviously, that would give you a little bit of a chance to build more support with any members of the Security Council. Is that something that the governments should be pursuing at the U.N. right now?

Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, if you haven't already made the choice to go to war, can you tell us what you are waiting to hear or see before you do make that decision? And if I may, during a recent demonstration many of the protesters suggested that the U.S. was a threat to peace, which prompted you to wonder out loud why they didn't see Saddam Hussein as a threat to peace. I wonder why you think so many people around the world take a different view of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses than you and your allies?

Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, how would you answer your critics who say that they think is somehow personal? As Senator Kennedy put it tonight, he said your fixation with Saddam Hussein is making the world a more dangerous place. And as you prepare the American people for the possibility of military conflict, could you share with us any of the scenarios your advisers have shared with you about worst-case scenarios, in terms of the potential cost of American lives, the potential cost to the American economy and the potential risks of retaliatory terrorist strikes here at home?

The potential crisis in terms of... for the economy, terrorism.

Thank you, sir. May I follow up on (a previous) question? In the past several weeks your policy on Iraq has generated opposition from the governments of France, Russia, China, Germany, Turkey, the Arab League and many other countries, opened a rift at NATO and at the U.N. and drawn millions of ordinary citizens around the world into the streets into anti-war protests. May I ask what went wrong that so many governments and peoples around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power?

Mr. President, good evening. If you order war, can any military operation be considered a success if the United States does not capture Saddam Hussein, as you once said, "Dead or alive?"

Is success contingent upon capturing or killing Saddam Hussein in your mind?

Mr. President, to a lot of people it seems that war is probably inevitable, because many people doubt -- most people I would guess -- that Saddam Hussein will ever do what we are demanding that he do, which is disarm. And if war is inevitable, there are a lot of people in this country -- as much as half by polling standards -- who agree that he should be disarmed, who listen to you say that you have the evidence, but who feel they haven't seen it, and who still wonder why blood has to be shed if he hasn't attacked us.

Thank you, Mr. President. As you said, the Security Council faces a vote next week on a resolution implicitly authorizing an attack on Iraq. Will you call for a vote on that resolution, even if you aren't sure you have the votes?

Mr. President, are you worried that the United States might be viewed as defiant of the United Nations if you went ahead with military action without specific and explicit authorization from the U.N.?

Thank you, Mr. President. Even though our military can certainly prevail without a northern front, isn't Turkey making it at least slightly more challenging for us, and therefore at least slightly more likely that American lives will be lost? And if they don't reverse course, would you stop backing their entry into the European Union?

Mr. President, as the nation is at odds over war, with many organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing for continued diplomacy through the U.N., how is your faith guiding you? And what should you tell America? Well, what should America do collectively as you instructed before 9/11? Should it be pray? Because you are saying, "Let's continue the war on terror."

As you know, not everyone shares your optimistic vision of how this might play out. Do you ever worry, maybe in the wee, small hours, that you might be wrong and they might be right in thinking that this could lead to more terrorism, more anti-American sentiment, more instability in the Middle East?

Mr. President, if you decide to go ahead with military action, there are inspectors on the ground in Baghdad. Will you give them time to leave the country, or the humanitarian workers on the ground, or the journalists? Will you be able to do that and still mount an effective attack on Iraq?

Mr. President, good evening. Sir, you've talked a lot about trusting the American people when it comes to making decisions about their own lives, about how to spend their own money. When it comes to the financial costs of the war, sir, it would seem that the administration surely has costed out various scenarios. If that's the case, why not present some of them to the American people so they know what to expect, sir?

If I can follow on (a previous) question on North Korea, do you believe it is essential for the security of the United States and its allies that North Korea be prevented from developing nuclear weapons? And are you in any way growing frustrated with the pace of the diplomacy there?

Thank you, sir. Mr. President, millions of Americans can recall a time when leaders from both parties set this country on a mission of regime change in Vietnam. Fifty-thousand Americans died. The regime is still there in Hanoi and it hasn't harmed or threatened a single American in 30 years since the war ended. What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?

Thank you, Mr. President. In the coming days, the American people are going to hear a lot of debate about this British proposal of a possible deadline being added to the resolution or not. And I know you don't want to tip your hand; this is a great diplomatic moment. But from the administration's perspective and your own perspective, can you share for the American public what you view as the pros and cons associated with that proposal?

Comments

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I don't get the crack about Helen Thomas' husband. Who is/was he?

[anne]

"Douglas Cornell of the Associated Press, my husband and an icon in wire-service wrap-up story writing."

[Alan]

Was there a question from Jeff Gannon in there?

I think I see Milbank's point, even if he is addressing the wrong issue. What he seems to be saying is yes there WERE people there willing to ask tough questions, so HT must be wrong. But for Milbank's assertion to have weight, he would have to answer for the press's willingness to accept non-answers, and he doesn't.

[howard]

dana milbank is one of the better wapo reporters, so why is he doing this? do these people truly believe that they are beyond criticism?

and does milbank not remember elisabeth bumiller's comment afterwards, to the effect of how hard it was to ask the president a tough question with everyone there watching and all?

is milbank really claiming that that news conference wasn't, in fact, a complete joke?

[marc sobel]

I believe that reporters who ask hard questions and push get penalized. I believe that 70% or greater are fox like whose editors /employers would lean on them. I believe even if Bush got pushed that he would still lie and obfuscate (e.g ongoing investigation) and that all we could hope for is make it clear that was happening.

[Esq.]

What you are saying is that the reporters need to learn cross examination. I'm sure the Post, the Times, even ABC and CNN, have litigators on retainer that would be willing to put together a training session. But how to make the self-satisfied camera whores recognize the need?

[Jay Rosen]

From Brad's Where Are the Heirs of Walter Lippman?

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/07/where_are_the_h.html

"Note that my examples are budget examples. I'm one of the budget people. But I have peers in other issue areas. They see the same deficiencies. Whether they are bombs-and-bullets people, striped-pants-diplomacy people, welfare-and-social-policy people, science-and-technology-policy people--they all see the same patterns."

Brad: Those "patterns" begin to find some explanation when you realize that categories like "hard news" rather than "analytical piece" are simultaneously serving as a reality-reporting system, and a risk-reduction method.

Hard news is supposed to be lowest risk, not necessarily harder information. It's lower risk to just say what happened ("Rove said...") without saying what's true.

An "analysis" piece means you can speculate about motives and what might happen from here. Slightly higher risk, but not necessarily more "analytical."

Or let's take the classic in press watcher frustration... He said this happened, she said that happened. It tries to inform you in a half-hearted way, but it secures protection from being wrong in a full-throated way. "I'm just telling you what they said." It's not truthtelling but innocence-establishing behavior-- see? no agenda.

Here's the catch: officially, journalists only engage in truthtelling. That they would the choose the more innocent account over the more truthful one contradicts the professional self-image. So it doesn't happen, even though it does.

When what journalists are doing makes no sense at all to you on the reality-reporting scale, switch yourself over to the risk-reduction (or "refuge") scale and measure it there.

Why don't journalists work together and coordinate their assaults to get a better answer from the President? Might make sense on the reality-reporting front, but fry the circuits on risk reduction. They'd open themselves to "cabal" charges, or so they think.

Why didn't Leonard Downie join with Bill Keller and Dean Baquet in their joint op-ed explaining the need to report on classified programs sometimes? (He was asked.) He didn't want to risk the impression that news organizations act together to "get" something.

For we are dealing not only with the risk of being wrong, but of coming under effective attack in the culture war's politicized theatre of news. Outside actors can influence the news by raising the perception of risk.

[Movie Guy]

Brad,

It might be worthwhile to ask your readers to identify those press corps reporters that they hold in high esteem. Then ask them why.

The White House press corps list shouldn't be long.

The national list, on the other hand, might be interesting.

[Alan]

> I don't understand what a
> non-willingness to accept non-answers
> would look like.

No, you can't make the president or even the press secretary answer a question they don't want to. But the press can pursue the issue in print.

They can put it right up front what it was that was asked and not answered. And they can dig for facts that the non-answer is covering for.

To see what they really did, read Boehlert, or Alterman, or Somerby, or Digby or any of one of many sources.

[Lee A. Arnold]

Despite all the horror, it's a fascinating time to watch, as the U.S. is evacuating itself of any solid references that are presumed to underlie a moral code. Consider John Bolton, asked yesterday to comment on Lebanon:

"US Ambassador John Bolton said there was no moral equivalence between the civilian casualties from the Israeli raids in Lebanon and those killed in Israel from 'malicious terrorist acts'... 'I think it would be a mistake to ascribe moral equivalence to civilians who die as the direct result of malicious terrorist acts,' he added, while defending as 'self-defense' Israel's military action, which has had 'the tragic and unfortunate consequence of civilian deaths'."

FROM: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060717/pl_afp/mideastconflictlebanon_060717204728

We are all, of course, enormously edified by Mr Bolton's bringing the tablets down from on High, to tell us when the killing of innocents is not equal to the killing of other innocents. He may have some difficulty in citation from Authority, however. The Pope, the Christian Church, and indeed every other religion in the world is against him on this. And as for the precept of International Law, Mr Bolton himself had already long advised us that it only needs to be followed, as it is convenient. No moral authority remaining there, either.

So what's left? His reasoning must be something like, "It's because we're the good guys, and they're the bad guys." Try using that in an argument with your kids.

We must conclude that Mr Bolton, despite our sympathy upon his likely share of unfair press coverage in the past, truly is an ass. Please relieve him from his post immediately, and dock his pay. Perhaps he is fit enough to use a shovel? Send him to work with the gravediggers.

On a more alarming note, this may be all we get. Consider Condoleeza Rice's comment over the weekend, that it would be "grotesque" to blame the U.S.'s action in Iraq for all the hell that is befalling. Unlike Bolthead's gibbering, this one has a little truth -- plus a lot of self-serving exoneration, since it is the U.S. civilian leadership that botched strategy and tactics.

Still, it points to the shallow quality of moral argument everywhere in the culture. And to the same conclusion: our leaders are NOT up to the job!

[howard]

William, there have been times in the past when the press was more pugnacious in presidential press conferences (and in reporting the non-answering) and the press conference didn't end.

which is to say, fine, i'll take the risk, because what we have now isn't an institution worth keeping. if harder-edged questioning led to an end to presidential press conferences, we'd be no worse off (and potentially better) than we are today with this empty shell game being played....

[tom f]

If journalists play hardball during press conferences they just get more evasions, lies, and another round of tangential talking points.

Of course, no one serious could possibly expect news from a press conference. The most I get out of 'em is using them as a proxy for the ideology of the press and the political establishment in general. The questions establish what these folks are thinking about and what they can't possibly contemplate.

("Mr. President, we've seen Palestinian civilians kidnapped by Israeli's, collective punishment of the residents of Gaza, and continued settlements in the West Bank. Some have suggested that Hezbollah has taken actions in the North to try and protect residents of Gaza from some of these Israeli actions. In your view, do residents of Gaza and the West Bank have a right to defend themselves, and if not, who do you suggest defend Palestinians from Israeli kidnappings and collective punishments?")

The basic problem with the press conference has nothing to do with the aggressiveness of the press. The problem is that editors, pundits, journalists and politicians think they're important and are all complicit in staging political theatre for a passive consumer market.

The last place I want to see a competent, informed, and skeptical journalist is in the fourth row of a White House briefing room.

[anon]

An effective press corps requires far more than merely an effective questioning strategy but rather an embedded methodology of extracting the truth about a given situation. If a news principle will not answer a question, the press should report that the principle declined to answer, not just transcribe the principle's weasel words back to the public. There must also be followup and a sense of history. If a principle will not answer certain questions, the media should find out what he/she is hiding and why. Similarly, if a principle has a history of lying to the public and media, anything he/she says should be both treated and reported as 'alleged' until demonstrated otherwise. The overall point here is the the media needs to take an active role in discovering and reporting *the news* rather than merely acting as a conduit for public relations releases. Effective questioning techniques are only a small part of this.

[John Emerson]

Goodwin, WTF are you trying to say? Aree you as bad as you seem?

[A. Zarkov]

Here is a video of the press conference:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/07/snow_to_thomas_thank_you_for_the_hezbollah_view_video/

Here is an excerpt from the transcript:

http://newsbusters.org/node/6477

HELEN THOMAS: And we stopped a cease-fire -- why?

TONY SNOW: We didn't stop a cease-fire. I'll tell you what --

HELEN THOMAS: We vetoed --

TONY SNOW: We didn't even veto. Please get your facts right. What happened was that the G8 countries made a pretty clear determination that the guilty party here was Hezbollah. You cannot have a cease-fire when you've got the leader of Hezbollah going on his television saying that he perceives total war -- he's declaring total war. When they are firing rockets indiscriminately --

HELEN THOMAS: We had the United Nations --

TONY SNOW: Please let me finish. I know this is great entertainment, but I want to finish the answer. The point here is they're firing rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas. The Israelis are responding as they see fit. You will note the countries that disagree with the –

.....................

HELEN THOMAS: At that point, why did we veto a cease-fire?

TONY SNOW: We didn't veto a cease-fire.

HELEN THOMAS: Yes, we did.

TONY SNOW: No, we didn't. There was -- there was no cease-fire. I'm sorry --

HELEN THOMAS: Wasn't there a resolution?

TONY SNOW: No.

HELEN THOMAS: At the U.N.?

[CapitalistImperialistPig]

From the New York Times, July 14: "UNITED NATIONS, July 13 — The United States used its veto power on Thursday to block a Security Council resolution that would accuse Israel of a “disproportionate use of force.”

John R. Bolton, the American ambassador, exercised the veto after failing in an effort to deny the resolution the nine votes needed for adoption."

So Mr. Zarkov, who is senile now?

[liberal]

William Goodwin wrote, "Howard, with the obvious exception of Nixon, when has the press been consistently pugnacious?"

How about Clinton/Whitewater/Lewinskygate? (Not saying they _were_ pugnacious; just listing this as a possible example.)

[liberal]

A. Zarkov wrote, "Helen Thomas has recently showed signs of what might be the onset of senile dementia during a televised press conference."

Even if so, it's nothing compared in import to Bush's increasingly bizarre behavior (cf the shoulder massage incident).

http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2006/07/what-hell-is-going-onitem-onebush-to.html

[liberal]

"So Mr. Zarkov, who is senile now?"

Without having looked at the actual texts, it appears Zarkov is talking about a cease fire resolution, and you're talking about something slightly different.

[Corvid]

Brad really hits the nail on the head. I've been in journalism for 30 years and the points that Brad makes have been driving me nuts for most of that time. The press, partly because of sheer cowardice but more due to a set of intellectually childish rules about objectivity and balance (which in many cases are not at all incompatible with keeping advertisers happy; the business community prefers to deal with journalistic dunces) is an easy mark for a politician who knows the rules. And to address an earlier point that Brad made, reporters do indeed refuse to read legislation. I'm not sure whether to chalk this up to laziness or just a tragic lack of curiosity.

[Kate G]

There was a UN resolution, and it was to that that Helen Thomas referred, and it was vetoed. Tony Snow had to know that, and he refused to answer her question, turning the ordinary question and answer period into something more combative. The charge that Helen Thomas is "senile" like the other childish charge that she is "ugly" or "an old arab" (from coulter) is simply another sign that bush's defenders are out of ideas.

As for William Goodwin's "point" that the press has no choice but to operate as stenographers, because if they don't they risk having the president "stop giving press conferences" well, you don't seem to have even the most rudimentary understanding of how the government-administration-advertising arm of our political system works. The press "covers" washington in order to provide "eyeballs to advertisers" and, secondarily and in a better world, to inform something we call "voters" or "the public." The government *gives* press conferences in order to *lie* to voters, spread propaganda (bush's own phrase, by the way), create dissension or create support for its policies. IF the press refuses to rubberstamp the information it is getting the government "loses" something valuable--free advertising and the free granting of the image of gravitas. But the press loses money because it loses eyeballs, unless it turns the entire thing into a massive witch hunt/free for all in which case it could theoretically increase advertising revenue by increasing readership of the car wreck they now realize is their political system. That might even be the definition of the lewinsky scandal which happened with or without press conferences.

But if you are seriously interested in understanding politics and the press and its use by the white house I recommend Walter Pincus's amazing piece in the Niemanwatch. I can't provide a link but google Pincus and Nieman and I think you will find it. He lays out the history of the use of imagery, specifically TV/Press conference imagery, in convincing the public that Reagan was "doing something presidential" at all times while he was, in fact, failing to act at all in matters of great import.

Bush has gained a tremendous amount of legitimacy from the staged press conferences, the softball questions, and the deference accorded him during his first years in office. That it was thoroughly undeserved and did not reflect either the moral character, the intellectual attainments, or even the good nature of this ill natured, chancellor groping buffoon is now eminently obvious. To the extent that the press corps never bothered to tell us what kind of man was leading us, I hold them accountable for every moment they weren't forcing him, or allowing him, to acurately portray himself.

Kate G.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/world/14policy.html

U.S. Vetoes Criticism of Israel
By New York Times

UNITED NATIONS — The United States used its veto power on Thursday to block a Security Council resolution that would accuse Israel of a “disproportionate use of force.”

John R. Bolton, the American ambassador, exercised the veto after failing in an effort to deny the resolution the nine votes needed for adoption.

The resolution drew 10 votes on the 15-member panel, with Britain, Denmark, Peru and Slovakia abstaining. The measure, drafted by Qatar, the Arab representative on the Council, demanded that Israel halt military operations, release Palestinian prisoners, restore fuel supplies and replace destroyed power plant equipment.

In an effort to achieve balance, language was added condemning the abduction of an Israeli soldier and the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel. Mr. Bolton said the resolution still “placed demands on one side in the Middle East conflict but not on the other.”

[anne]

Kate:

There was a UN resolution, and it was to that that Helen Thomas referred, and it was vetoed. Tony Snow had to know that, and he refused to answer her question, turning the ordinary question and answer period into something more combative. The charge that Helen Thomas is "senile" like the other childish charge that she is "ugly" or "an old Arab" (from Coulter) is simply another sign that Bush's defenders are out of ideas.

[The Helen Thomas would not be accorded the complete respect due decades of conscientious reporting and commentary is deeply saddening and shocking. Shame.]

[anne]

"Helen Thomas has recently showed signs of what might be....during a televised press conference."

Shame, shame, shame, for such a comment! Disrupt all you wish, Helen Thomas. Disrupt and disrupt again.

[anne]

Imagine, a reporter tries to properly question American policy and is immediately attacked in the most hurtful shameful way for doing so. This a reporter who has been intimately covering and part of Presidential history for decades. And, notice how the attack is meant to cripple the reporter. Shame!

[anne]

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00102

July 13, 2006

Fighting back against the PR presidency
By Walter Pincus

The truth of the matter is that with help from the news media, being able to "stay on message" is now considered a presidential asset, perhaps even a requirement. Of course, the "message" is the public relations spin that the White House wants to present and not what the President actually did that day or what was really going on inside the White House. This system reached its apex this year when the White House started to give "exclusives" -- stories that found their way to Page One, in which readers learn that during the next week President Bush will do a series of four speeches supporting his Iraq policy because his polls are down. Such stories are often attributed to unnamed "senior administration officials." Lo and behold, the next week those same news outlets, and almost everyone else, carries each of the four speeches in which Bush essentially repeats what he's been saying for two years....

[But if you are seriously interested in understanding politics and the press and its use by the white house I recommend Walter Pincus's amazing piece in the Niemanwatch.

Reference by Kate.]

[tom f]

Again, what is the democratic value of the press conference? This thread seems to be a discussion about improving something whose value hasn't been established.

[Barry]

William Goodwin, stop playing the fool. The press had no qualms about going after Clinton, even after it was clear that there was an organized right-wing conspiracy feeding the lies.

Once Bush came onto the scene, of course, we started seeing comments like there was too much incivility, and that the tone should become more civil. Usually in the passive mode, so as to avoid assigning blame, even though it was clear who was at fault.

[Jay Rosen]

I agree with those who would warn about expecting too much from the press conference situation. The president cannot be "made to" answer, but the fantasy of cornering him with just the right question-- that is all too real.

I would lean toward seeing the White House press conference as state ritual in which information is the "theme" but not the point. Most of the time, it is that. Participants are highly conscious of their roles in acting out the ritual of scrutiny that was, in the old days, a twin coronation of the Washington press corps and the presidency itself.

This depended on a certain kind of Washington consensus about what the news media were to the Presidency.

William, you say: "the press routinely confuses objectivity with neutrality, which leads to the failure to call a lie a lie, or a wrong position a wrong position. But the idea that Bush has been treated with kid gloves in his press conferences compared to other presidents (again, with the obvious exception of Nixon) is simply a fantasy for which there is no evidence."

I agree with that, for most part. It's not correct to say that Bush "has the press in his pocket" (to vary the image a bit) or that they coddle him, go easy.

I think it's much more than the Bush White House has overwhelmed the "watchdog" press, flooded the system. Forcing it to fail and reaping the benefits.

[A. Zarkov]

There was a UN resolution on disproportionate force in GAZA that the US vetoed. That wasn’t a cease-fire resolution, and it wasn’t about Lebanon. The cease-fire resolution on Lebanon has been put on hold.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1153173011827&call_pageid=968332188492

Helen Thomas was clearly talking about a cease-fire resolution.

From the transcript:

“HELEN THOMAS: And we stopped a cease-fire -- why?”

She is also clearly talking about Lebanon not Gaza.

From the transcript:

“HELEN THOMAS: The United States is not that helpless. It could have stopped the bombardment of Lebanon. We have that much control with the Israelis.”

The press conference was about the war in Lebanon, so Thomas is clearly confused, and the kind of confusion she exhibited is consistent with the onset on senile dementia. After all she is 86 years old. Of course she would need a clinical examination to make such as diagnosis definitive. Moreover if you read what I said carefully I used the word “might” and “sign.” A seasoned reporter asking questions about the big story of the moment should not make this kind of mistake.

[Jennifer]

Zarkov, your comments have been extremely ugly and hatefilled. All you wish to do is harm.

[liberal]

Jay Rosen wrote, "It's not correct to say that Bush 'has the press in his pocket' (to vary the image a bit) or that they coddle him, go easy."

You clearly don't inhabit the same US of A that I do.

When measuring how hard the press is on a president, you have to ask the question based on the president's performance.

Compare the press's reaction to Whitewater, Lewinskygate, the press office bruhahah, etc.

Then compare the press's reaction to the Iraq imbroglio.

AND...don't forget the context: Whitewater etc were either nonsense drummed up by Republicans, or very minor. Iraq is the probably greatest strategic foreign policy blunder committed (under cover of lies) in the past two decades or more.

Finally, read dailyhowler.com for examples of the press going easy on Bush, particularly in Election 2000.

[Kate G]

William Goodwin,
I think you are doing a disservice to this discussion by simultaneously limiting and it to the words or the idea "press conference" ,"presidential press conference" or "white house press corps" and sometimes expanding it to "the press" and its duties/responsibilities. White house press coverage is not limited to press conferences by the president, and it is not fully encompassed even by white house press corps coverage of the administration of its doings. The white house press corps covers press availabilities and gaggles by non presidential persons and also the occasional special presidential interview of press availability. Snatches of these "news like events" are offered to viewers of networks and readers of newsprint as examples, variously, of "stuff that happened today" "what the president said" "what the president did" "how this all fits into the president's strategy" and "counterpoint to those losers who are not part of the administration." This fact, which is comprehended clearly in Pincus's article, applies as well to Bush's press availabilities and press-focused faux events (where he appears before a screened audience and a labled set of boxes) as to a formal press conference which, you rightly point out, Bush tried to avoid holding. The point about softball press questions applies to both events labled official "press conferences" and other events where questions may be asked or where reportesr may, gasp, report on the lack of questions. That these events are identical in all forms with the generalized propaganda effect Pincus is pointing to (the Reagan must be doing something if he is in the tV every night function) is amply proved by the lengths the White House has gone (and their own publication of these lengths) to get just the picture they want of the President Presidentin' with foreign heads of state or with just plain folks to impress people watching tV with the sound off. In that infotainment regime the questions or lack of it that the press may ask are irrelevant,t hey are just props in the gravitas machine. But that being said, their failure to rebel at being props is part of the problem, not a natural part of a press conference.

In addition, to get back to my original point, press "moments" and "images" are also used to illustrate points of interest to the editorial side of major networks and newsprint--so there are literally hundreds of questions and answers ("Gopal, did you want to ask how that relates to india?") which are never alluded to in public (TV or print) again after Gopal gets up and asks whether the president has an opinion about UFO's landing in a small town in India. On the other hand, there are questions of little or no national import (the blue dress) that get shouted out and replayed over and over once they get asked. There are even questions the asking of which never occurs whose non-asking ness is debated afterwards (or could be debated afterwards) a various as "what do you think Hillary thought of that??? (probably asked though I blanked that part out) and "If Saddam Hussein had anything at all to do with 9/11 why on earth aren't we trying him here in the US first, before sending him back to Iraq?" (never, to my knowledge, asked at any press conference and never alluded to in any non press situation).

Dana Milbank's coverage of the white house not-withstanding (and I think you may have him confused with the much better Dana Priest) the press corps has notoriouisly and in a very documented manner (see liberal, above) dropped the ball on any number of occasions. Those of us who religiously read Holden's obsession with the daily gaggle over at First Draft could give you chapter and verse but why don't you do your own research and come to your own conclusions?

Kate G.

[A. Zarkov]

“Zarkov, your comments have been extremely ugly and hatefilled. All you wish to do is harm.”

When someone you don’t like makes a mistake, even a minor one, he gets all sorts of invective hurled at him. Words like “stupid,” “liar,” “moron,” “should be fired.” Don’t you think you are being somewhat hypocritical? I think we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Sorry Helen Thomas is not beyond reproach, especially since she herself has a history of aggressive behavior at press conferences, which includes insults.

[Kate G]

Zarkov,
That is a falsehood, straight out. I have watched Helen Thomas at many a press conference and what you call a "history of aggressive behavior at press conferences, which includes insults" is no such thing. She has a history of *asking questions* on behalf of her readers and politely refusing to take no for an answer. I have certainly seen her insulted, again and again, by President Bush's handlers and shills--calling someone a traitor, implying they are a traitor or the representative of a terrorist organization would be an insult. Asking them for a direct response to a civil question is called "her job."

Drive by smears work only where the people you are talking to won't call you on them. We are calling you on them. Don't repeat these childish smears. They are unworthy of anyone. If you find them worthy of your time, well, that says a lot about what you think of yourself.

Kate G.

[Jennifer]

Zarkov, what I was pointing out is that the attack on Helen Thomas, to go so far as to suggest an examination, is beyond unfair. An apology was immediately called for after the initial perjorative comment, but there is no apology only more of an "attack."

[anne]

Kate:

In addition, to get back to my original point, press "moments" and "images" are also used to illustrate points of interest to the editorial side of major networks and newsprint--so there are literally hundreds of questions and answers ("Gopal, did you want to ask how that relates to India?") which are never alluded to in public (TV or print) again after Gopal gets up and asks whether the president has an opinion about UFO's landing in a small town in India. On the other hand, there are questions of little or no national import (the blue dress) that get shouted out and replayed over and over once they get asked. There are even questions the asking of which never occurs whose non-asking ness is debated afterwards (or could be debated afterwards) a various as "what do you think Hillary thought of that??? (probably asked though I blanked that part out) ...

[Kate is really Monty Python, though we have not wished it so known before.]

[kharris]

William G.,

There are things worth trying to do, even if they are bound to fail. If my kid were playing ball on a team that routinely cheated, I'd advise my kid to play far. It might not change anybody else's behavior, but it would be the right thing to do.

The press is protected (in theory, anyhow) so that it can help keep government on a leash. Bush is doing press conferences now not by accident, but because he's having a hard time selling his programs without them. He is still able to slide by less accountability than many of his predecessors, so working harder to make him accountable is a pretty good idea. We need not assume that, having decided he needs to do press conferences, he has nothing to lose by not doing press conferences. Beyond that, if reporters can accomplish is to point out Bush's refusal to answer important questions, questions to which the public ought to have answers before deciding whether to support the president's policy, that is worth doing. This governing by the consent of the governed is not as simple as ask a question, then take whatever answer is given.

I am also not convinced by assertions that the public doesn't care. The time during which Bush could "fool all the people" has apparently run out. It took a while, but now the public seems quite willing to doubt him. Waving a hanky around to draw attention to his lapses in honesty and openness is worth the trouble.

And in answer to your question to Howard, see liberal's answer. Were unable to read, listen or watch TV during the Clinton years?

[A. Zarkov]

Kate G.

Sorry but in my judgment she has been aggressive and insulting. She herself admits to being aggressive. As to insulting how about: “The day Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself.” Now you might agree with that sentiment, or think Cheney deserves it, but it is an insult nonetheless.

As for my smearing Helen Thomas, you need to either check the definition of “smear” or read me more carefully. You cannot deny she was confused about an important and timely subject that a professional reporter should not be confused about, and it wasn’t a momentary lapse.

Jennifer:

“Zarkov, what I was pointing out is that the attack on Helen Thomas, to go so far as to suggest an examination, is beyond unfair.”

Go back and read what I wrote. When someone as old as 86 gets confused and doesn’t seem to be connected to the conversation, one naturally suspects senile dementia. As I said, I observed this happening to Admiral Rickover, that doesn’t mean I was trying to smear him-- quite the opposite.

[erg]

Zarkov

Could this be because Helen Thomas is "Mexican looking", to use your sublime phrase ?

[Ari]

"All you wish to do is harm."

[Karlsfini]

A. Zarkov, you've been posting here so long I feel like I know you, so my first thought was you can simply change your name and after awhile eveything may be forgotten.

On the other hand, if you do that, henceforth every shitty, moronic comment, no matter what name it's under, will be suspected as A Zarkov posting under an assumed name.

Hmmm...this one's a tuffy all right.

[Batocchio]

Great, detailed analysis. I like Milbank overall, and he is often insightful, but here he's taking offense without cause. Context is everything. A number of reporters did a consistently fantastic job, but as a whole they let us down in a major way.

[Kate G.]

Trolls are trolls are trolls but I think its worth pointing out that, indeed, "context is everything." Had Helen Thomas said *to cheney's face* "I'd shoot myself if you ever became president" it would indeed be unfortunate. Whether it is insulting or not depends on whether you think Cheney, a man who in fact shot his own "friend" in the face with minimal apologies, would take it as one. Perhaps he'd simply take it as a sign that she was doing him a favor and saving him the work of shooting her first. But in any event she didn't say it *to him* or in the context of a press conference but during an interview about her own feelings about this administration.

If Tony Snow, along with other employees, members of, and hangers on of the Bush administration has not given much evidence that he thinks the rest of the press, other than Fox News, is traitors who should be treated as traitors [i.e. executed] I'll eat my hat. I don't call that "Insulting" either because its *not personal,* I'd call it part of an overall whitehouse strategy to demonize and destroy the bearers of the first amendment in order to prevent true information from being widely disseminated in this democracy. Smart politics. Childish to rail at it. Lets just attack it and move on. In that light your own attacks on Helen Thomas simply fit the pattern of attacking the messenger (the press) in order to attack the message (information not totally controlled by the white house).

But to get back to Helen's remark about *her feelings* about a cheney presidency. So is it "insulting?" I'd have to say, as Ann Coulter does so often "it was a joke!" God, doesn't [fill in your side here] have any sense of humor?"

Kate G.

[anne]

Clever analogies :)

[Kimmitt]

I think the press's job at a press conference, if the President refuses to answer a question, is to have their entire story be about how the President refuses to answer the question. That's not precisely the kind of result the President is looking for from a press conference, so he will either stop having them or start actually answering questions.

Then the press can start running stories on how long it's been since the President has seen fit to answer questions. The whole point is that they've got the audience, so they get to dictate (at least some) of the agenda.

[Jennifer]

Zarkov:

"I don’t understand why you are fussing so much. Is Helen your mother or something?"

Trolls only wish to harm, and harm is what you have attempted here.