While America's Watch Dogs Slept...

Mark Thoma tells me that I am live at Project Syndicate :

---

I want to deviate from my usual economic themes this month and focus instead on the system by which the press – mostly the American press – covers government nowadays. But perhaps this is not too great a deviation, for the behavior of the press affects not only politics, but economics as well.

Consider an editorial written in March by the Washington Post’s editorial director, Fred Hiatt, in which he makes a very small and limited apology for the newspaper’s coverage and evaluation of the Bush administration. According to Hiatt, “We raised such issues” as whether the Bush administration had properly thought its proposed adventure in Iraq through, “but with insufficient force.” In other words, Hiatt finds fault with himself and his organization for saying the right thing, but not loudly enough.

Next, consider a comment by the former editor of the New York Times, Max Frankel, about how the Washington ecology of media leaks is healthy, because “most reporters do not just lazily regurgitate...leaks.” Instead, “they use them as wedges to pry out other secrets” and so oversee the government. The system may be “sloppy and breed confusion,” but “tolerating abusive leaks by government [that misinform] is the price that society has to pay for the benefit of receiving essential leaks about government.”

So, where Hiatt sees a press corps that was a little too cowardly about overseeing the Bush administration, Frankel sees a press corps where a sloppy and confusing process is nevertheless doing a reasonable job.

I see a very different picture.

It was the summer of 2000 when I began asking Republicans I know – generally people who might be natural candidates for various sub-cabinet policy positions in a Republican administration – how worried they were that the Republican presidential candidate, George W. Bush, was clearly not up to the job. They were not worried, they told me, that Bush was inadequately briefed and strangely incurious for a man who sought the most powerful office in the world. One of President Clinton’s problems, they said, was that the ceremonial portions of the job bored him – and thus he got himself into big trouble.

Look at how Bush had operated as president of the Texas Rangers baseball club, they said. Bush let the managers manage the team and the financial guys run the business. He spent his time making sure the political coalition to support the Texas Rangers in the style to which it wanted to be accustomed remained stable. Bush knows his strengths and weaknesses, they told me. He will focus on being America’s Queen Elizabeth II, and will let people like Colin Powell and Paul O’Neill be America’s Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

By the summer of 2001, it had become clear that something had gone very wrong. By that point, Bush had rejected O’Neill’s and Christine Todd Whitman’s advice on environmental policy, just as he had rejected Alan Greenspan’s and O’Neill’s advice on fiscal policy, Powell’s and Condoleezza Rice’s advice on the importance of pushing forward on negotiations between Israel and Palestine, and – as we learned later – George Tenet’s and Richard Clarke’s advice about the importance of counterterrorism.

A strange picture of Bush emerged from conversations with sub-cabinet administration appointees, their friends, and their friends of friends. He was not just under-briefed, but also lazy: he insisted on remaining under-briefed. He was not just incurious, but also arrogant: he insisted on making uninformed decisions, and hence made decisions that were essentially random. And he was stubborn: once he had made a decision – even, or rather especially, if it was glaringly wrong and stupid – he would never revisit it.

So, by the summer of 2001, a pattern was set that would lead British observer Daniel Davies to ask if there was a Bush administration policy on anything of even moderate importance that had not been completely bollixed up. But if you relied on either the Washington Post or the New York Times, you would have had a very hard time seeing it. Today, it is an accepted fact that the kindest thing you can say about the Bush administration is that it is completely incompetent, which is the line now taken by hard-line Bush supporters like the National Review and the commentator Robert Novak.

Why didn’t the American press corps cover the Bush administration properly for its first five years? I really do not know. I do know that the world cannot afford to rely again on America’s press for its information: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. So I appeal to all of you working for newspapers, radio, and television stations outside the United States: it is to you that we – including those of us in America – must look to discover what our own government is doing.

---

There are honorable exceptions. Ron Suskind. Paul Krugman. McClatchy--the news service and organization formerly known as Knight-Ridder. David Wessel and the crew at the Wall Street Journal's Washington Bureau got medieval on economic policy missteps early. The Financial Times was measured but accurate, and didn't follow the strategy of keeping its good reporters off the front page.

Suggestions for other notable candidates for the honor role would be welcome...

Comments

[jm]

Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe is an obvious addition to your list, as is freelancer Seymour Hersh.

On the local level, Marcus Stern of the San Diego Union-Tribune deserves consideration for breaking the Duke Cunningham story a couple of years ago.

[Joel]

This isn't directly related to your post, but concerns another Project Syndicate column:

In Joe Stiglitz's column The Phelps Factor, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz78, he says "reducing unemployment by two percentage points would increase output by 2%-6%, or $0.5-1.5 trillion dollars in the case of America."

Isn't this too high by about a factor of two? 2%-6% of outputt would be about $0.25-0.75 trillion dollars, right?

[Hans]

Juan Cole, Helena Cobban, Tom Barnett.

[Emma Anne]

Molly Ivins. :-(

[Steve Phelan]

Brad, I would be very interested in your view on the validity of the factors in Noam Chomsky's Propaganda Model in explaining why the dogs slept.

[derek]

"[Bush was supposed to] focus on being America’s Queen Elizabeth II, and will let people like Colin Powell and Paul O’Neill be America’s Tony Blair and Gordon Brown."

The American Republicans who thought it would work that way are at least two centuries out of date about how the Queen's administration works. She is not free to choose who she picks in her government, but must invite someone who has the confidence of the legislature. If you had a system like that, the entire Bush Cabinet, save only Bush himself, would now be Democratic, as of January 2007, thanks to the change in the composition of the House in the election of November 2006.

[denniS]

Perhaps the Toledo Blade; They broke two big stories having to do with government/military abuse during that time frame, one having to do with Republicans & corruption in Ohio. I'm not a regular reader of the Blade, but I'm impressed enough with those two stories to nominate them.

Wapo, NBC, and the NY Times are my biggest disappointments.

[ken melvin]

Good and well said.

[Roger Albin]

Try Science, the journal of the AAAS. Most of Science is exactly that, publication of important results in a broad variety of fields. Science also has a front section that covers science policy related issues with a small crew of staffers and part-timers. They were well onto the Bush administration incompetence in science policy, environmental policy, and even the intelligence fantasies about WMD in Iraq well before the major media outlets.

[BMZ]

It wasn't Bush's arrogance which caused him to ignore the advice of the knowledgeable, it was his loyalty. He promised his financial backers that he would advance their interests above all others, at all times. Hence, he based all his decisions on politics only; and consistently, adhered, almost exclusively to Karl Rove's advice only. That his actions would screw over all legitimate interests and greatly injure this country, was a given from the outset.

[RW]

"That his actions would screw over all legitimate interests and greatly injure this country, was a given from the outset."

Say rather , following your own argument, that legitimate interests or the benefit of the country were always secondary to Bush's ideological commitments and were therefore served or injured essentially at random.

[ned]

Following BMZ's idea, one would expect the media's interest to be in building business through sensationalistic stories that create readership and viewers. This is not supported by their dismal coverage of the scandals and potential scandals of this administration, however. That's what I find really weird - that they think Americans are more interested in Anna Nicole Smith stories than the attempted destruction of our Constitution. The image of Bush as Nero "fiddling while Rome burns" may be better with our Media as Nero.

[jamzo]

don't you think the nytimes thought judith miller's stuff was quite a coup?

don't you think cnn,nbc et al thought they had a coup when they sent their reporters to embed camp prior to the iraq invations?

karl rove has been quite successful managing the press relationship and maintaining the mainstream print and tv arrative

his accomplishments transcend atwater and other republican predecessors

[jeff hoffman]

Murray Waas.

[Lee A. Arnold]

David Cay Johnston

[sglover]

"Juan Cole, Helena Cobban, Tom Barnett"

Er... Thomas Barnett, the "Pentagon's New Map" guy?!?! Thomas Barnett, the guy who's made more dollars out of jargonized magical thinking than anyone since George Gilder?!?! **That** Tom Barnett?

[Carolyn Kay]

From the soon-to-be-released update to my Progressive Media Strategy:

Since the early 1960s, a group of rich families has spent many millions of dollars to build an infrastructure that promotes right-wing ideas and demeans contrary beliefs. David Brock and Eric Alterman have written extensively about this movement.

The lead-up to the Iraq war is only the latest example of the success of these efforts, and the utter failure of the few and feeble attempts to counter them. We are now in the position that Republicans, conservatives, and even right wingers dominate media commentary. Belief in any kind of collective action other than war is belittled and downgraded, hour after hour, day after day, on the airwaves and on cable television.

What most Americans fail to understand is our own complicity in this effort. Even if you have become a member of MoveOn.org’s media project, even if you participate in the action alerts sent out by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and by Media Matters for America, you play a part in the downgrading of progressive thought and ideals.

We do it by donating to candidates who spend most of that money on advertising in the mainstream media. We do it by subscribing to mainstream newspapers and magazines and their websites. We do it by buying the products of the commercial advertisers. These subscription and advertising dollars go into the pockets of the very media moguls who pay their employees well to promote right-wing ideas and denigrate progressive ones. In other words, we ourselves are paying for the destruction of our most deeply held beliefs.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[ogmb]

What about the Economist editorial trying to make us believe that Al Gore would micromanage his administration while George Bush would delegate governing to the best minds of our generation, thus turning the old adage that A people hire A people while B people hire C people on its head?

[Modest Anonymouse]

As an actual member of the MSM, I've long read Brad's critiques of the industry with some interest. I just think that Brad sometimes looks too far outside his realm for answers.

Imagine two news operations; let’s call them The Validator and The Challenger. The reporters, editors and owners of the Validator live to confirm the beliefs of a majority of Americans. Every word spoken or written aims to shore up the beliefs and morality of the majority on any given topic, regardless of fidelity to fact. The opinion writers never hector; they hail accomplishments great and small and only note in passing “opportunities for improvement.” “Celebrate” is frequently used as a verb.

At the Challenger, afflicting the afflicted becomes a 24-hour mission. Each story takes a piece of conventional wisdom and thoroughly destroys it, no matter how cherished. Editors not only do not worry about provoking reactions, they are disappointed when stories don’t spurn angry calls and e-mails. Imported British obit writers ensure every obit includes a healthy review of a person’s flaws. Columnists don't smile for their mug shots. A certain percentage of stories turn out to be misguided, off-base, even wrong – but the Challenger believes such minor mistakes a small price for maintaining its mission.

Let's say we set each of them up with equal amounts of capital, staff and talent in all areas.

Which one survives five years?

In reality, most outlets mix Validator and Challenger in varying ratios. But I struggle to think of any successful, large-scale outlet that’s ever more than half Challenger.

Obviously, the pre-war reporting was wrong. But it succeeded in economic terms; it gave a large swath consumers what they wanted to read and hear.

[anon]

It's a dubious assumption that this administration make decisions on a purely random basis. If administration decision making was random, it would be statistically expected to reach the right decision 50% of the time. Currently, however, the administration is batting 0.0000. It has not made any decisions of consequence that have been beneficial to the interests of Americans, the American state, or the planet.

Something else is going on there other than simple incompetence leading to random decisionmaking.

[jeff hoffman]

"In reality, most outlets mix Validator and Challenger in varying ratios." Am I buying a newspaper or ordering at Starbucks?

[Carolyn Kay]

Well, Modest, if I may call you by your first name, Knight Ridder has been more than 50% Challenger, and has done very well at it. But they don't see their mission as buttressing the Beltway nabobs. They've now been bought by McClatchy, and are still doing first-rate reporting.

If newspapering is just like any other business, as Sam Zell said when he was trying to buy the Chicago Tribune, why did the Founding Fathers think it was so important? What other business is specifically protected from government interference in the Constitution?

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[Modest Anonymouse]

Good points and questions, Carolyn!

Of course, McClatchy bought KR in an auction precipitated by investors unhappy with the sluggish growth in profits at the chain, and McClatchy unloaded the Minneapolis Star-Tribune to a hedge fund to help pay down the debt, and now the Strib's ditching 145 jobs to shape up its balance sheet. KR may have been ahead on the war, but that didn't save it when Wall Street came pounding on the boardroom door.

This is the real question in journalism today, and the reason I frequent the blog of an economics professor: Rarely does good journalism pay its bills. Good reporting can pay off in financial news, because professionals can instantly put information to work in money. In all other outlets, the link between quality reporting and profits has never been consistently established despite what we like to think our readers and consumers want. The LA Times that won Pulitzers by the bushel still lost readers; same for the New York Newsday, the Inquirer, the Herald, etc.

KR/McClatchy still does good reporting, and they come close to my imaginary 50% threshold. But there's one question every McClatchy DC reporter finds hard to answer: How long will someone keep paying me to do this?

[Alex]

Josh Marshall.

[Carolyn Kay]

Good questions all, Modest, and good reasons for concern. And you don't even mention all the outsourcing.

We citizens need to take this bull by the horns and make the owners of media understand that we have concerns about how they conduct their business. No business entity exists without being allowed to by We the People, and no other business is mentioned in the Constitution. It's time we asserted our right to horn in on their decisions, if we believe they go against the public interest.

You may be interested in reading my week-daily posting of media news.
http://makethemaccountable.com/index.php/category/media-news

I send to my media mailing list earlier than I post on the website. If you'd rather be on that mailing list, let me know at caro@makethemaccountable.com.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[Daniel]

The US press has indeed led to a scary undercoverage of what's really going on, you could clearly notice that from the outside (I'm from Europe). But this press-laziness or complacency is not limited to the US, in Europe we have the same phenomenom. I am an international person, I have lived in many different countries and still travel a lot, that's why I notice, but in Europe, in order to get proper coverage on events going on in one country, you have to read the press of an other country that covers the same event. National press coverage is very bad here too, and failure to criticize blatant abuse by politicians is an issue too.

Let's take the example of EU-deputees and politicians in general working for the EU (parliament, commission,...) - 99% are overpaid people who barely show up at official meetings. Germany, for example, has about a 100 EU-deputees working in Bruxelles, who all earn as much as the german Chancelor Merkel. I'm not sure how high Bush's revenue as President of the US is, but it probably is the same scale as Merkel, +/- a few percent. Imagine what it costs to maintain a 100 George W's who do nothing, or barely nothing. Why is that not ciriticized in any newpapers, magazines, or on TV? It's the bib media wov of silence! So in Europe, we have to rely on foreign media reports too to know what's going on in our own countries, or our own continent as a whole.

But maybe the press is forgetting to as questions because most people don't ask any questions anymore. Does the average modern citizen really care? Sure, they might rant with their buddies while having a beer, but do they really ask questions to which they'd like answers? I think not.

And that's a shame.

[albatross]

Modest makes a nice pair of connected points: the news business tends to be mostly driven by entertainment needs, not the need for good information. So the challenger strategy has a tendency to make readers or viewers unhappy.

I think the post-9/11 environment made challenging the war on terror/Afghanistan/Iraq, the Patriot act, the scary claimed powers of the administration, etc., really hard for a lot of Americans to swallow.

ned: Anna Nicole news doesn't challenge anyone's beliefs or hopes, it re-enforces them. I'm inclined to suspect that the news channels know their business--probably Anna Nicole gets more viewers than Jose Padilla.

[yenayer]

Dear Modest,
You said : "Obviously, the pre-war reporting was wrong. But it succeeded in economic terms; it gave a large swath consumers what they wanted to read and hear."

Are you talking about the wrong pre-war reporting that lead to a war ?

Are you talking about the wrong pre-war reporting that lead to the colonisation of a sovereign country ?

Are you talking about the wrong pre-war reporting that lead to the looting of a country by big US corporations ?

Are you talking about the wrong pre-war reporting that lead to a civil war in Irak ?

Are you talking about the wrong pre-war reporting that lead to nearly 1 million deaths most of them civilians in Irak ?

Are you talking about the wrong pre-war reporting that lead torture ?

Are you talking about the wrong pre-war reporting that lead to violation of the international laws ?

Can you see any succes ???

Ah but maybe I did not get the real point. They are mere iraqis, mere muslims, mere poor third world people.

PS; You may have noticed that i did not mention the 3000 or more amricains soldiers that died due to this pre-war wrong reporting but nontheless succeful in some ways. I did mention the soldiers beacuse you have thought about them and their families.

Is there any succes to talk about in these conditions ?