Okay, but when congresspeople like Conyers, Slaughter and Nadler or senators like Boxer do raise a fuss, what chance do they have of being heard widely if the MSM doesn't report on their protests? Sure, in an ideal world even the party in power would take "oversight" seriously, but that's simply not our system. We depend on the Media to filter and focus public attention on what's important.

And while it's true that conservatives have ALWAYS whined shamelessly about the so-called liberal media, Kurtz should know better than anyone else what an outrageous skewing of reality that is. 

Agreed, Matt -- but you don't go far enough up the food chain. The House and Senate Republicans are operationally subservient to Rove & Bush.

(And I'll resist the temptation to wax LGFian and point out that "we" had the opportunity to vote those two out of office and didn't.)

Bush, remember, campaigned in 2000 on "restoring honor and dignity to the White House." At the time, this seemed to be simple Clenis-bashing.

In retrospect, however, it's clear that this was FundTalker code for "restore the imperial-papal-Nixonian-'it's-legal-if-the-President-says-it-is" presidency.

And part and parcel of that imperial-papal presidency is eliminating Legislative oversight of the Executive Branch.

What's more, Rove et al clearly understood the very thesis you laid out above -- they realized that eliminating Legislative oversight would be a self-reinforcing move: not only would you eliminate pesky Congressional meddling, but you would dry up the media's source and occasion of internal data on the Executive.

I think you're right about the reasons for this lack of coverage, but I don't think that lets the press get off the hook.

What this means is that the people in power get to set the agenda, and that the press won't bother to follow up on a story unless a politician from the ruling party tells it to.  If this is indeed the way the press decides which stories to follow up on (and I think you're right that it is) then that's a press that's begging to be manipulated.

The key instrument we lack, I think, is a special prosecutor or independent counsel who can issue subpoenas and demand that the White House give up sensitive information.  GOP control of Congress prevents us from getting one of those.  

The thing the Democrats have done to get extra documents on Bolton -- blocking his nomination until papers get released -- is nice to see.  I wonder if we could use this to get documents that aren't quite so related to the nominee at hand.  Maybe we need to analyze future controversial White House nominees for the possibility of making Bush pay a sort of "document tariff."  Basically, we only let the nominees through if Bush coughs up some tangentially related but revealing document.  

"We haven't gotten that kind of day-in, day-out coverage of any of the many credible allegations of criminal conduct by members of this administration because..."

Because those "credible allegations of criminal conduct" only exist in the overactive imaginations of the hysterical Bush-hating left, that's why. 

I agree that the White House pulling the strings in Congress.  Unless the blessings of the Oval Office is given no congressional oversight will be undertaken.  It is part of the erosion of the separation powers that is occuring.  But I do think the media should be reporting on how Congress is not upholding their responsibilities as an equal but separate arm of government. 

The real blame for this stuff, though, isn't in the press, it's in congress. Whitewater produced story after story largely because there were all manner of hearings on the Hill, special prosecutors lurking around, and various other official goings-on that provided constant news pegs and a drip, drip, drip of facts, speculation, or anecdotes.

I think the lack of Congressional investigations certainly plays a part in the lack of "new material" for presstenographers to report, but (as I also noted in the comments to Drum's entry) according to Kurtz's compatriot John Harris (in 2001), the main reason is:

There is no well-coordinated corps of aggrieved and methodical people who start each day looking for ways to expose and undermine a new president.



"There was just such a gang ready for Clinton in 1993. Conservative interest groups, commentators and congressional investigators waged a remorseless campaign that they hoped would make life miserable for Clinton and vault themselves to power. They succeeded in many ways. One of the most important was their ability to take all manner of presidential miscues, misjudgments or controversial decisions and exploit them for maximum effect."

Republicans managed to get media coverage of their manufactured "Clinton scandals" even if there weren't any investigations in Congress (remember the $200 haircut?) just by keeping up a constant clamor about them. As Harris futher noted:

Reporters and editors do not work like commentators. There are no newsroom deliberations about how "soft" or "mean" to be on a president. And we aim to make our own judgments about what's important, rather than respond in Pavlovian fashion to whatever ideologues or interest groups are inveighing about. But there's no denying that we give more coverage to stories when someone is shouting.

What's interesting is that Kurtz referenced this article in his own column. I guess he just forgot in his zeal to imply a (false) equivalence between Democratic and Republican "complaints."