Firing the White House Press Corps
Dean
In the comments to my earlier piece, Bryan said that Jay Rosen's not currently a working journalist but is a former reporter working now as a journalism teacher. I knew that, but somehow they run together in my mind. Maybe they shouldn't.
Also in the comments, Derek Rose points to an earlier piece by Jay Rosen called De-Certifying the Press, which argues that the White House has already started the process I suggest to be inevitable. In reading Rosen's piece, I shake my head in wonder: the snide crack about excessive "credulity on the Weapons of Mass Destruction story" being "Bush's fault" strikes me as still more revealing of why the mainstream press deserves to be fired. When a bipartisan consensus develops in Washington over not one but three administrations, and is shared by the governments of dozens of other nations, laying it all at the feet of one President and calling that "credulence" merely validates the thesis that there's something wrong to the core with modern journalism. Ditto Rosen's fascination with the Jeff Gannon non-story--as if no White House has ever invited an administration-friendly reporter to be in the press pool, or as if there's something wrong with doing so. Yeesh. This, once again, points to everything wrong with modern journalism.
The rest of Rosen's piece is all about the role the press arrogated to itself, that of the President's "interlocutor"--i.e. the people who question the President on our behalf because no one else will. This is a role the press only took upon itself in the last couple of generations, and so far as I can see it has only led multiple Presidents and much of the public to come to hate journalists. And "hate" is not a carelessly chosen word: many politicians, especially those of a "red state" mentality, utterly hate the press, as do many of their constituents.
The President does not need a self-appointed set of "interlocutors." Most such "interlocutors" have been stupid, scandal-obsessed, self-important, preening, endlessly-sentence-parsing buttheads whose sole job appears to be to tear apart the administration. And I don't mean this administration, but every administration I can recall. It bugged the crap out of me as much when Clinton was in office as it does these days with Bush.
In the comments to my earlier piece, Mark at Urthshu made the most interesting point: he worried that Presidents are so isolated from everyday people that firing the White House press corps might make the President even more isolated. This seems to be Rosen's central concern as well.
But I say that having a pack of baying jackals in your basement who pound you and your staff every day with a ridiculous set of hypercritical and often shallow second-guessing "questions" has probably done more to make Presidents feel isolated than any other force in modern life. I know that if I were President, I'd feel more worried about that gaggle of hostile monkeys and my supposed need to appease them than I would be about assassination attempts.
We, the people, do not need any self-appointed "interlocutor" to the President. The White House can issue its statements, and the Congress can issue its statements, and the people can weigh them. When the next election comes around, we will make our choice at the ballot box.
I for one would find it enormously refreshing if the entire White House press corps was summarily ejected en masse. The White House can issue daily briefs over the internet, and perhaps hold a small--emphasis on small--press conference once or twice a month, with a handful of seasoned, respected and respectful reporters who get to ask the press secretary a few salient questions. When the President felt he (or she) needed to address the public directly, he could do so as he already does, via speeches. If he occasionally felt the need to talk the press, he could do so at the times of his choosing, to members of the press of his choosing.
All of this would not make the President more isolated. It would make him more able to do the job he was elected to do without the constant distraction that the feces-flinging monkey corps--I mean, the White House press corps--creates.
You want "someone" to ask harsh questions of the President? I think the leaders of the opposition party in Congress are more than capable of doing that. I also think that the President is as capable of reading the paper and watching the news as I am, and that neither the President nor the public has any pressing need for instantanteous responses to publicly-aired questions.
I note again, by the way, that I do not mean this President. I mean any President, of any party. I utterly despise the self-appointed "interlocutor" press corps. When I don't just despise them, I outright hate them. And I don't care if I hate whoever's President, because I hate the feces-flinging monkey corps even more.
We the people do not need the press to be our stand-in. Indeed, the very notion represents everything I hate about journalism as it has functioned since the Nixon years. Which is part of why I cheer whenever I notice these people being bypassed.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Flash!
- In Defense of Jay Rosen
- Firing the White House Press Corps
- The Press Not Getting It--and a Proposal for the White House
You are slipping the tracks. You're desperate for someone to blame for the fact that things are not working out quite the way you wanted or predicted. You're now blaming this docile, slow-witted media, trying to cast them as the scapegoat?
You are so invested in Iraq and your father and your charity there that you have lost all capacity for rational analysis. Blaming thesse milksops at the WH press corps for anything beyond being dull is just silly. Thee WH can and does release statements. It can and does choose the time and place for speaking to the press corps.
This whole tack is beneath you. You are too smart a guy for this. But you have defined yourself as the official uncritical cheerleeader for this war and as that posture becomes increasingly untenable you flail ever more wildly at the media.
I posted this in another place, so I apologize for the repetition, but it is very much on-point:
"Unfortunately, resolve alone won't bring success. Neither will well-delivered statements by the president. The problem in Iraq is not poor public relations, or a lack of will. Rather, it is the failure of policymakers at the highest levels to fashion a military and political strategy that maximizes the odds of success. That is what has been missing ever since Saddam's statue fell a little over a year ago."
Not from the liberal MSM. From the conservative Weekly Standard. The fault for your distress does not lie with the media, it lies with the leadership in this war.
You want to believe things are better off than I or a lot of other people, fine. It's faith. And now, when your faith is being tested you are looking for someone to blame.
It was no longer good enough to report on the day-to-day operations of the government. No, your job as a journalist was to bring down a government.
The mindset changed then. They went from impartial observers and sharers of facts to nation builders (or nation destroyers). I think this had a tendency to attract to the profession folks who weren't interested in writing and getting the facts right as much as those who saw journalism (Fifth Rail types) as a means to an end.
I think this explains why it has been open season on the representatives of our government. Yellow journalism was alive and well (forever), but something changed--something significant. Press prior to that never reported on personal matters (such as Roosevelts handicap or mistress) that could taint the U.S. or weaken the power of the presidency. Journalists seemed to understand that the presidency was bigger and more important (sacred, in a sense) than the man who currently held the position.
Now it seems to be about nothing but.
Jeebers. Fifth Column + Third Rail = Fifth Rail.
arg. Sorry.
I've noticed over the years that whenever someone starts going after my motives, they've already pretty much ceded the argument. They can't address what I've said directly, so they instead try to read my mind and act as armchair psychoanalysts. Sorry, take your dime-store psychiatry and peddle it to someone else, I'm not buying--not even for five cents.
Not that it matters--it really doesn't--but nothing in Iraq has failed to meet my expections so far. Mind you, if they had, I would be noting it, simply as a matter of honor. But I'll be happy to show you or anyone else who wants the things I wrote 2-3 years ago which document my assessment then or now, and why things are actually better now than I expected, not worse.
I won't go into your own motives and your apparent desire to psychoanalyze away the truth of what I'm saying. I'll simply repeat what I've said before: you appear to be in denial, much like the mainstream press corps. Alas, you can't fix a problem until you admit that it's there, so... [shrug]
Mrs. du Toit: Yes, well said.
The fact that you believe as you do as a true testament to the slow-wittedness of the media, but docile?
Dean (among many others) has shown time and again how we are doing better in Iraq then we had reasonably expected going in. He has provided solid evidence, stark facts, and overwhelming proof that we are right to be in Iraq, we were right to have overthrown Saddam, and we are helping the Iraqi's decide their own future for the first time, for both their and our benefit.
You are unable to challenge any of this. I've read multiple comment threads on Dean's World where you have thrown out exaggerations, unsupported arguments, myths, and outright fables to support the fairy tale that "Iraq is a debacle" and then repeatedly failed to respond in any sufficiency when called out on these falsities.
Has Bush and his people made mistakes during the prosecution of this war? Hell yes. Could anyone else, particularly of the opposing party, have done any better? Not in a hundred lifetimes.
If you're going to jump in and toss around "faith being tested" without once having been able to refute a single point Dean has made in his all-too-frequent updates on the overwhelming positives of this war, you might want to have something to show for it over than your own blind faith.
I usually lurk more than I post, but I've watched you devolve from spirited defender of the opposing viewpoint, to a common troll who, knowing he lacks a debatable point, resorts to insult and personal attack.
Sorry if I stepped on your toes, michaelreynolds' churlishness got on my nerves.
But whatever. Why is this even about Iraq? Other than noting Rosen's snotty and shallow comment about WMDs, I wasn't talking about Iraq at all, but the arrogant, sentence-dissecting, tear-down-the-government press as it has existed for both Democratic and Republican administrations for most of my life.
That said..
Dean,
Good job - what is happening here is increasing irrelevance of the MSM; it is just not needed as a source of primary information, and the way it presents itself just makes people not want to use it. Its been quite a long time since I read a newspaper or watched a televised news program (other than local news to catch the weather forecast from time to time when I've got outdoor activities planned for the next day...or when it turned out that the fiance's supervisor was profiled on "Las Vegas Most Wanted").
There is, however, a need for an outsider to ask the President questions from time to time - so, perhaps we can make Brian Lamb of C-Span "Interrogater in Chief" and have him do a quarterly interview with whomever is President?
Here it is...(PDF)
If someone wants to ask the administration a question the opposition doesn't ask, let him ask via mail, via the op-ed pages, via the blogosphere, etc. We don't need a special-certified, self-appointed group of "tough question askers" who get their jobs because they have a j-school degree and draw a paycheck from Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner or Pinch Schultzberg (sp?).
Transparency in government does not require self-appointed "tough question askers." It requires that those running government report what they're doing and answer to the other branches of our representative government. Professional, "certified" journalists are more often a distraction and a nuisance toward that end rather than a friend to it--they've proven it over and over.
Mark: Fine report. Will have to give that a link. No doubt those who view the press' job to be the "tough question askers" (i.e. snide, self-important cynics who tear down and attack politicians for a living) will start throwing out half-assed and shallow objections to the report, and using it as evidence that we need a "watchdog" press to rip that sort of report to shreds. As if the American people are incapable of reading the report for themselves, looking at the direct reporting we now get from our troops on the ground and the Iraqi people themselves, and draw our own conclusions. No, no, we need the feces-flinging monkey-corps to "interpret" it all for us. Bah.
"Free press" means the right to publish, not the right to appoint yourself the "interlocutor" for anyone else.
You claim that Michael has ceded the argument. John claims that Michael has avoided answering your challenges. However, it is you who have not answered his argument here:
You asked him to give criteria that would define success in Iraq, and to give contructive criticism for achieving that success. He did that. His suggestions for improving the situation in Iraq are here.
So, would you mind actually answering the dude's argument before claiming victory? I'm not convinced you're not right, but I'd like to see you make an actual case.
Furthermore, if Michael would stop constructing so many straw men arguments, mis-stating my position, and engaging in shallow armchair psychoanalysis, we might actually have something to discuss.
Yes, I've seen and heard all the arguments he made in that comment you linked. I merely note how rare it is that anyone--including him--ever gets that specific. Nor do I see any acknowledgement that other generals and seasoned military observers do not agree. I further note that Michael's lumping together a bunch of people who are critical and specific, but who DO NOT agree that we're losing in Iraq, behaving as if they all agreed that we are.
He is also--like the press--ignoring ALL the positive achievements so far, all the specific goals that have been met and exceeded, and acting as if they are meaningless or don't even exist.
If someone wants to have a conversation with me on how things are going in Iraq, the place to start isn't in attacking my motives, accusing me of saying things I haven't said, or ignoring all the positive achievements we've made and portraying them all as "cheerleading."
Which points are you accusing me of lying about specifically, so I can pinpoint the answers for you? Everything I've ever written is in the archives.
But the problem goes back before Nixon. In 1964, the media were very bi-assed against Senator Goldwater, called him a dangerous crazed lunatic warmonger out to blow up the world, etc., etc., even a Nazi (he was Jewish by ancestry). And before that, there was Walter Duranty in the "New York Times" covering up Stalin's crimes.
What the President should do, if he really needs an "interlocutor" from the press, is abolish press conferences, refuse to have any more of them, and instead have one-on-one interviews with one (1) reporter from the press. It would be far more dignified, for both sides, than that mob of feces-throwing monkeys we see today.
Well, it's nice and specific. A rare thing to see that. I find most of it wrongheaded, and apparently based on his credulous willingness to believe the mainstream press' relentlessly negative spin on the war from day one, but at least he's sincere and at least he's specific. That's a rare thing in my experience.
Regarding his specific suggestions: We certainly shouldn't fire Rumsfeld, who is quite brilliant and has done a superb job. Furthermore, most of the "bullshit" that needs to stop is the press-generated bullshit and the partisan crap from same. Draft? Horrendously awful idea and not in any way needed. Ministry of propaganda? Michael seems unaware that we have two of them already working in in Iraq, three if you count independent initiatives like Spirit of America. Let the allies go? No, no thank you, they are helpful on multiple levels and should not be cut loose. Indeed, that's just insane.
The only suggestion that really makes sense is the "let's pour more troops into Iraq." There are generals and other seasoned military people who think that's a good idea, and that there are several ways to accomplish it without anything as counterproductive and destructive as a draft. As it happens, however, there are generals and seasoned military people who think that's a *bad* idea, that it's not only unnecessary but that it would actual increase our casualties and our headaches. Michael seems to be utterly unaware of those arguments.
I'd be happy to have a discussion with him about any of the above--once he stops acting like a mindreader anyway.
I've noticed you've gotten a tad touchy lately. Anything going on?
Accuses me of saying things I haven't said.
Accuses me of believing things I don't believe.
Lectures me on how I'm hurting my credibility by taking whatever position I'm taking
Demands immediate answers to complicated questions
Demands that I do their research for them
I don't mean one of those things happens every day. I mean ALL those things happen every day.
I should get used to it and stop complaining, but my fuse is shorter some days than others as a result. I am only human.
Some people think that Dean is here at their beck and call.
Well, he isn't.
He has responsibilities beyond this blog, ones that actually pay him. He isn't here to be shat on or to be anyone's fucking research assistant.
This is a blog and he does it because he loves it. It takes lots of time and energy and he, like the other top bloggers, gives 110% to it. He does all of it for free. He gets an occasional tip in the tip jar but not near enough to put up with some of the shit he has to deal with.
So, if you think Dean owes you an answer and it isn't coming fast enough - email him.
Truthfully, he doesn't owe anyone anything. He provides many readers with lots of interesting stuff to discuss, ponder or read. It would be nice, if some people would appreciate it and say so, leave him a tip or show some fucking respect.
I wasn't accusing you of lying. I am genuinely interested in your offer, and I took it to be sincere, not sarcastic.
For what it's worth - more than any other blogger, you have challenged my notion of what it means to be liberal. You've won me over to a lot of your thinking. I greatly respect you for that, and I appreciate it. And frankly, as someone who has just started blogging, I am awed by how much you do. I know you're not a "pro", and I have no idea how you find the time, especially with a kid.
That said, I think it's unfair for you to demand that I or anyone else go back and research every thing you've said, when you clearly aren't willing to do that in return. You didn't read Michael's full argument, yet that didn't stop you from acting as if you had. If you're going to attack other people for not being familiar with everything you've said, you should be prepared for the reverse.
I will endeavor to be more polite in the future. I would appreciate it if you would do likewise.
There really is nothing mandating the presence of a a White House "press corps". Or giving any specific news agency privileges of having their representatives permanently parked in and amid the leadership of the elected government.
In other words, freedom of the press does not imply anyone, in authority or in private life, has any obligation to cooperate with news-gatherers. Either for purposes of granting them personal interviews, or allowing them to attend official news briefings, or anything else that is over and above their constitutional protection against official restraint of their right to publish their opinions or whatever they imagine is both newsworthy and interesting enough to read in the first place.
The fact is, all the privileges that various national administrations have granted to news gatherers over the past century that saw the rise of various national news media, has achieved that status because the administration in question has attempted to engineer public opionion as a mechanism either to out-maneuver the various state governments, the US Congress, the US Supreme Court, or even foreign powers.
But perhaps the time has come for someone to remind the newsgatherers and their publishers that constitutional rights are one thing, while privileges they have accumulated over time can be withdrawn simply by closing the doors of government in their faces. If nothing else, it would compel some of these people to learn how to be real investigative reporters once again.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
One big difference, if I recall, is that I am about ten years older than Dean. I was a teenager and somewhat politically aware during Vietnam. My understanding is not derived ex post facto. I remember that we won every battle. I also know we lost the war.
I also study a bit of military history as an amateur. So my views are not derived from the MSM, they are derived from a degree of understanding of military ventures in the past. I'm relying more on history than anything current.
My point of reference is history and the opinions of individuals like McCain, Hagel, Biden and others with first hand, on-the-ground knowledge of the situation, and some knowledge of military history. Each of them has said 1) we don't have enough men, 2) we made terrible errors early on, 3) our current SecDef has very questionable judgment, 4) we need to consider our long-term manpower needs and realize that we are moving toward a crisis, 5) we do a terrible job at propoganda.
Point by point, I agree with them. I did not -- as you must know if you read the link Tom Strong left -- call for a return to a combat draft. I said we needed more men, and we should try and free more people from non-combat support and move them up, and fill those vacancies with private contractors and only if that failed consider a draft for support positions only.
Nothing I have said depends on a view that everything is going wrong in Iraq. What I have said -- exactly what the right wing Weekly Standard has said -- is that our strategy is wrong.
So, summarizing, on my side: the Weekly Standard, McCain, Hagel, Gingrich, Biden and just about every general who is no longer in uniform and can speak freely, and reportedly just about every officer who has spoken to Senators McCain and Biden off-the-record.
Now you can continue to try and fit me into your tool-of-the-media category, but then you'd better put John McCain -- who has visited Iraq a number of times, is a war supporter, a Republican, a naval aviator, a war hero -- in that same box. If I'm just a fool who accepts blindly everything the MSM has to say, then so is John McCain.
This media-bashing is not the point. Strategy, tactics, men, weapons, terrain, geography -- that's the point.
But I'll tell you what, I'll drop it. Me and John McCain, Dean and Don Rumsfeld. We'll know the answer soon enough.
War is a complex business...and if you go back to 1943 you can try to demand that FDR admit to the "mistakes" surrounding the Battle of Tarawa, or you could jump forward to 1944 and demand explanations for "mistakes" which bogged us down in the Bocage country...only there weren't any mistakes; there were just situations which arose...perhaps situations which could have been better anticipated and/or better handled once they arose, but they were just situations. War provides them, one after another.
We went into Iraq and swiftly crushed the Saddamite regime - since that time while engaged in frequent heavy combat we have mid-wifed the first ever democratic Iraqi government, done more for Iraqi infrastructure than the Saddamite government did in the previous 30 years and pacified most of the country. Not bad. Still a lot of work to do...we'll get it done, provided we don't listen to absurd demands that Rumsfeld be fired and McCain given unconstitutional powers over our defense establishment.
Biden, Hagel, McCain...yeah, not one of them could possibly have a political reason for taking exception to Administration actions...just pure as the wind-driven snow; disinterested observers of the situation...
I've got a bridge in Brooklyn, wanna buy it?
Good point - it was, I believe, Teddy Roosevelt who first attempted to use the media directly to further his political designs...as it was, he had a very sucessful relationship with most of the press...but he opened up a can of worms which should have remained firmly shut.
Absolutely right. The First Amendment says the press can talk all they want. Nobody has any obligation whatever to talk to them.
Perhaps we should all unearth our three year old writings? Somewhere back in my personal archives I've probably still got a memo I wrote to myself in which I figured our best post-liberation option was to partition Iraq along ethnic lines...with the Shia part eventually going to Iran once Iran becomes a free nation...
The Administration has not followed my script, either...and I do have at least some expertise in these matters...funny thing, though, is that I wasn't awarded the power of the Presidency by 62 million of my fellow Americans. Gosh and oh, shucks, I don't have the power to make President Bush carry out the war according to my wishes...guess I'm just going to have to allow him to do it as he sees best...
Still, haven't seen a mistake...haven't seen that we've lost the war (as too many on both the left and the right are idiotically asserting these days)...haven't seen anything which calls into question the essential competance of President Bush and his team to conduct the war...
Its nice to criticise and it is highly tempting to second-guess, but those of us who are not burdened by the weight of responsibility should give every benefit of the slightest doubt to the people who do bear the burden.
Nice of you to go looking for evidence AFTER you accuse Dean of dishonestly smearing the press.
:p
Two kids? Try three. All teenagers. Dating teenagers.
Gives you something to look forward to--being as short fused an grumpy as me.
But isn't there something satisfying about seeing a question be asked and answered in person? Television is a powerful medium. A written statement is never going to carry as much weight as a well-delivered response to a question.
And, on television, written statements tend to come across poorly. I mean, watch "60 Minutes." I always have more respect for the CEOs or whoever who sit through a grilling by Mike Wallace than the ones who issue a weasly written statement.
In Britain, the prime minister appears before parliament and undergoes rough questioning by MPs. But nothing like that really happens here. Congress might interrogate a cabinet official or two, but not the president or the VP.
I agree with your sentiments about a "special-certified" press corps, though. Any blogger who wants to sit through the daily White House press briefings should be allowed in. And, in fact, in March the White House granted press credentials to a blogger.
Just out of curiousity -- can you give some examples of the "seasoned, respected and respectful" reporters you have in mind? Obviously, the members of the WH press corps for the major news organizations are all seasoned, and probably respected at least by their colleagues. A year or two ago the WH press corps got a lot of flack for one particular Bush press conference where some people perceived them to be too respectful and passive, and I think they've tried to be more aggressive since then.
But no President nor anybody else has any Constitutional or moral obligation to talk to the press at all.
What the President DOES is no secret. If he wants to tell people WHY he does what he does, that's his right, but if he prefers to be judged by results, that's also fine.