Reporters finally kicked back hard today against the White House and Scott McClellen out of sheer frustration and anger over years of stonewalling, exaggerating, legalistic wordsmithing and outright lies by this administration.

The White House press corps can't win. If they don't press this administration hard for any shred of news that isn't pre-packaged or manufactured, then they're called weak and ineffectual.

If the WH press corps throws a few well-deserved hardballs among the softballs, reporters are called bullies looking for partisan blood.

All I saw was a group of frustrated reporters looking for the truth after two years of fruitless questioning and an investigation that has gone virtually nowhere.

I say it's about time!

It's because of the death (so to speak) of real investigative journalism. Nothing's easier than quoting two people who disagree with each other, thinking that "balance" has been achieved, and calling it a night. Real reporting lies in finding out which claim is more accurate. Being unbiased does not mean a reporter must give equal time to every ludicrous, contrary position.

"Reporters finally kicked back hard today against the White House and Scott McClellen out of sheer frustration and anger over years of stonewalling, exaggerating, legalistic wordsmithing and outright lies by this administration."

No.  They kicked back because they caught McClellen and the administration in a clear lie, and McClellen refused to take responsibility.

Several months ago, I saw a headline at CNN.com that said something like:

"Poll Shows 48% Say Bush is a Divider, 47% Say He's a Uniter."

That is, imo, emblematic of the problem we have in the press today.  They seem incapable of looking a poll with the stated results and say "Poll Shows Bush is a Divider."  It is implicit in the results themselves, but because it is not explicit, and I'm not sure how it could be much more explicit, they report the results as some kind of draw.  Tie goes to the runner, so advantage Bush.

The Plame affair may well drag on for awhile yet and devolve into this kind of bifurcated reporting where, since the bushies will stick to their story, the WH denials and stonewalling will be given the same weight as the facts that continue to stack up against them.  Nobody looks at the patterns that started on day one of this Admin.  Did the WH shape intelligence RE: Iraq?  Well, clearly, they aren't going to confess and they, to a great degree, control access to the facts, but it sure looks like they did and it fits a pattern.  They've been caught fixing every f-ing item on their agenda since the first EPA report on Global Warming back in 2001.

Somewhere, maybe it's all the Law & Order reruns, the Press got the idea that they can only consider the facts in play on any given scandalette.  That 'prior bad acts' can't be taken into consideration.  Somebody needs to disabuse them of this 'jury-complex.'  You'd think the way they screwed up the pre-war coverage would shake enough of them up, but it hasn't yet.  I guess you have to throw one of them in jail occasionally to get their attention.

I think there is another crucial difference between McClellan's previous poor showings in press conferences and today's: I don't remember any previous poor showings resulting in an A1 story in the New York Times.  I could be wrong, but I am getting a sense that perhaps the White House press corps is smelling the blood in the water - and with everyone waxing nostalgic over Deep Throat, the journailsts must be thinking of how much this story would seal their place in history if treated properly.

 The sheer volume of rancor is really surprising - they were throwing out terms like 'ridiculous' and 'tough spot'..if you actually hear the press briefing itself, David Gregory sounds plain angry while Terry Moran and John Roberts settle for incredulous. 

 We can at least hope, yeah?

It's disgusting that there has to be blood in the water before the journalists will do a barely competent job.

"When you get more sophisticated reporters and commentators, such as might be found at the Economist, or with Paul Krugman, you get statements based on analysis that the authors, and their editors are willing to defend.  They are the exception rather than the rule."

They're not more sophisticated,  They're doing opinion journalism.

In addition to Matt's comments, what worries me is when the media's responsibility for getting the truth out might conflict with more parochial concerns. I have to wonder just how hard the Times is going to pursue this matter after, in defense of Ms. Miller, it editorialized TWICE about how there may not have even been a crime committed.
If you read the Times' story on the gaggle today, that point is very boldly made.  One has to wonder if the Times will investigate deeply to find out whether, in fact, a crime was committed and, if that's where the story leads, whether their reporter was a (knowing or unknowing) factor in such a commission.

I wonder if McClellan is playing his own, very dangerous Rovian game.  What if Scotty is actually telling the literal truth:  he cannot comment, because he is a target of the investigation?  Leaving a person who is legally required to lie as your chief spokesman would be the kind of move one would expect from Rove.  Why anyone would be foolish enough to continue in that situation is another question, but then again I don't understand why anyone would take that job in the first place.

sPh 

Investigative journalism can be just as much a non-partisan activity as beat reporting, but it's just not what the beat reporters do. It is apparently someone else's job to do investigation.

Beat reporters seem to think their job is to (i) serve as a conduit for for official statements (ii) report on the communications strategy behind the official statements.

The typical stand-up report goes like this: "The White House is officially saying X; but even though they are saying X, White House officials have told me that they really believe Y, and that the reason they are saying X is that they are trying to pre-empt the Democrats who are saying Z.  Speculation among the press corps is that what they really believe is W, and that they are still fashioning their communications strategy"

The White House beat reporters seem to spend most of their time recording official statements, finding White House officials who will hint or explain to them the communications strategy behind the official statements, and hob-nobbing with other reporters to gossip about what these officials really think and are really trying to do.  The point is to learn more and more about what people think and say - not to find out what is really happening.

There is not much time left for investigation.  They have to be at the White House all the time for important hob-nobbing, and to make sure they don't miss anything. And they hae to be on call to get a quote and do a stand-up if some important event occurs.  The biggest sin for a CNN White House correspondent is to be beaten on the air by ABC and FOX in the event that some serious shit hits the fan.  So they have to be there at the White House on their launch pads, ready to go.  They can't very well go off to meet with cigarrete-smoking bean spillers in dark parking garages, or read thick tomes on history, or pore through piles of official documents dropped off by leakers.

A White House correspondent is paid to sound authoritative and look attractive on TV, so that in the battle of remote control channel selection during a flash or crisis, viewers will stick to that reporter's channel, while the reporter conveys the perfunctory.  They are not paid to dig up deep dirt and save the Republic. 

in the press corps kid gloves treatment of the Administration  will change after one day of tough questioning.

Scotty seems regularly dishonest and evasive in these gaggles day after day and I heard a report on one program, Today I think, that he is "well liked" by the press corps.  How could that possibly be?

<div><span class="421053912-12072005">josh,</span><span class="421053912-12072005">too much deference by the center/left, as usual.</span></div><div /><div><span class="421053912-12072005">You published this letter:</span></div><div><div><span class="421053912-12072005">&quot;</span><span class="421053912-12072005">I am wondering......<br />(a) it is reported that Karl Rove referred to Valerie Plame as being &quot;fair game&quot; after her cover was blown by Robert Novak's article. (b) Presumably, Karl Rove would have known by then (as did everyone else) that she was an undercover CIA &quot;operative&quot;, and disclosure of her name was illegal/immoral/unethical.<br />(c) If he referred to her as being &quot;fair game&quot; after her cover was blown, does that not imply that he wasnt stunned (to say the least) by her status, and there is a good chance that he did know about her status beforehand.&quot; <div><div>Doesnt that line of questioning deserve to be raised?&quot;</div><br /><div><span class="421053912-12072005">I ask you Josh:&nbsp; What did 'fair game' mean?&nbsp; Rove lied to Cooper about Plame.&nbsp; So, what did 'fair game' mean.&nbsp; as for a 'Line of questioning'?&nbsp; I am an attorney and I wouldn't even ask the next question.&nbsp; Put me in front of a jury and just give me what we know so far.&nbsp; 'No comment'= GUILTY as charged.&nbsp; This has all been out there for the press to see if it really cared for 2 years.&nbsp; They don't mind that the administration fixed the case for war.&nbsp;&nbsp;The US&nbsp;violated international law, so what are a few domestic spy laws when the NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST required the war.&nbsp; One of my conservative friends commented yeterday, &quot;There was an election last year, wasn't there?&quot;&nbsp; This is all old news to people who went, to quote atrios, i think, 'bathit crazy' on 9/11/01, and now look as though they'll never recover.</span></div><br /></div></span></div></div>

<div><span class="421053912-12072005">josh the letter you published and the act of publishing it, gives too much deference to these criminals, as usual.<br /><br />&quot;</span><span class="421053912-12072005">I am wondering......<br />(a) it is reported that Karl Rove referred to Valerie Plame as being &quot;fair game&quot; after her cover was blown by Robert Novak's article. (b) Presumably, Karl Rove would have known by then (as did everyone else) that she was an undercover CIA &quot;operative&quot;, and disclosure of her name was illegal/immoral/unethical.<br />(c) If he referred to her as being &quot;fair game&quot; after her cover was blown, does that not imply that he wasnt stunned (to say the least) by her status, and there is a good chance that he did know about her status beforehand.&quot; <div><div><div>Doesnt that line of questioning deserve to be raised?</div><br /><div><span class="421053912-12072005">What did 'fair game' mean?&nbsp; Rove lied to Cooper about Plame.&nbsp; So, what did 'fair game' mean.&nbsp; Line of questioning?&nbsp; I am an attorney and I wouldn't even ask the next question.&nbsp; Put me in front of a jury and just give me what we know so far.&nbsp; 'No comment'= GUILTY as charged.&nbsp; This has all been out there for the press to see if it really cared for 2 years.&nbsp; They don't mind that the administration fixed the case for war.&nbsp; They violated international law, so what are a few domestic spy laws when the NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST required the war.&nbsp; One of my conservative friends commented yeterday, &quot;There was an election last year, wasn't there?&quot;</span></div><br /></div></div></span></div>

I am serious when I say I wish we could rate threads Matt because I would rate this one a "5".

Stenographers?  Yep, that describes the WH press corps well.  I am so tired of hearing WH reporters going "this is what the WH said" without showing any interest if the statement is accurate or even factually correct.  Then on the other hand I see other reporters like Ms. Judith Miller being sent to jail for protecting a source for a story she didn't even write.  What up with that?

In a day or two the McClellan episode from yesterday will fade from the collective memory of the WH press corps and it will be back to SOP.

While it is true that Krugman is doing opinion journalism one thing that distinguishes him from most journalists is that he is an expert in his field of economics. Most journalists may know nothing about what they are covering.

It is an interest contrast. During the Clinton Administration every pseudo scandal and every outrageous charge appeared daily and often above the fold. We also had large debates about when the Clintons lied or not.

The contrast with the coverage of the Bush Administration is stark. Where is the day after day coverage of the genuine lies and scandals?

Is this because journalists just did not like Clinton, he was too smart for them, and Gore, too much the prig, and like Bush? Is it that the media companies most journalists work for all want something from the Bush Administration. Or was the existence of the Arkansas Project, led by Ted Olsen and using Mellon Scaife money and the Rightwing echo chamber far more effective than they are given credit for?

Oh, don't get me wrong. Liberals complain, but they also make excuses: the media sucks up to power, it only wants money/ratings, it's beholden to journalistic conventions. But that doesn't explain it, and no one's probed deep enough.

Being stenographers does not explain the stories the media runs with or the framing they choose for their articles. Being stenographers does not explain why the media chooses GOP chosen phrases like "nuclear option" and "Privatize SS", and then chooses to change their terms to those poll-tested as most favorable to the GOP when their previous phrases don't poll well. It doesn't explain why the media then rewrites history and claims Democrats invented the phrase "nuclear option", never runs a correction for saying so, and continues to say so long after they've gotten thousands of letters correcting them.

How do any of these excuses liberals make for the MSM explain sinking the DSM story? Or skipping over a story of a White House approved male prostitute posing as a journalist? How do journalistic conventions force news shows to stack their panels heavily conservative? Why would journalistic conventions for fairness shut out liberal opinions? 

There's something else going on. I hear the complaints, but not an explanation. What I'd like to see more of is people explaining how smart people who are well aware they are being snookered willingly write stories they know will mislead their readers. People who have asked, "So, where the hell did you get the idea Democrats invented the term 'nuclear option'?"

What journalistic convention requires such obvious double-standards? No one has come up with an answer. 

Dan,

Why don't you submit this as a Reader Blog?  It is very good and deserves wider distribution than just a comment.

sPh 

The key will be the thumbsuckers that run on Sunday the 17th.  If those "deeper" pieces, which are assigned and published purely at the discretion of the senior editors and publishers, hit Rove or just ask deep questions, then the scandal will run.

If, as I suspect, they don't (I am guessing at most one of the big  mainstream print outlets will take this on), then it will die out.  I would have to think Rove is working every lever he has, including the K Street money lever, to make sure that nothing is published.

sPh 

There is a tendency for people to want simple, clearly defined rules that spell out the proper way of doing something (Libertarians have an exagerated need for this). It is not necessarily a bad thing. I t can, when done properly distill complex knowledge into something that is easy to grasp, and from there people can take on more complex things using the new simplified base as aspring board, standing on the shoulders of giants, so to speak.
What has happened here with the press, is that they have established some conventions (one side says this, the other side disagrees), and they have their formats (television is a sound bite format, talk radio is a hot format, etc.). The current GOP has done a very good job of coming up with a media strategy that cynically takes advantage of those conventions.
The news people need to re-evaluste whether or not their conventions are working, or if they are being manipulated. It is time to adjust their conventions, but it is difficult and unclear exactly what to do. Add to that the problem that the media has two not necessarily complimentary objectives, getting the truth out and ratings/money making, and it is and will be a long process.
My thoughts are that media people should come up with the proper metric and adjust their techniques to optimize that. Currently, I think they look at the number of eyeballs as their metric, whereas a better metric would be, what proportion of our regular media consumers can accurately describe the events in the world. If they were using that metric instead of ratings, we might see a quicker adjustment to the cynical manipulation of their conventions that the Bush administration has acheived.

vocation, selling sex on the internet. Yes, all his hustler sites are still active. He is another White House scandal, gathering dust on the shelf.

 
http://www.epluribusinvestigates.org/

It'sw a combination of things.  This WH are masters at manipulating the press by alternately stroking reporters' vanity and making them fear loss of access.  The Press is devoted to the scoop over truth and they don't want to work particularly hard, so they go with he said/she said stories or print planted stories that further the Admin agenda.  That's why Judy Miller's statement that it was her job to report what the Admin said, not investigate whether it was right or not is so typical.

Further, for a story to gain traction requires a critical mass of people interested in it.  Barring that, because of the press's herd mentality, it doesn't take off.  Collectively they take the safe way out and congratulate themsleves.  If they step too much out of line, their publishers and network heads might reel them in, unless it sold a lot of papers.  That's the way out.  The bottom line is the bottom line here.

Can someone post a link to today's press gaggle?

many thanks

Here's Froomkin on a brief photo op/press opp with the president this morning:


At an Oval Office photo-op with the president of Singapore this morning, Bush took questions from two reporters -- one American, and one from Singapore. The Singaporean reporter asked about trade. Fair enough.

But instead of asking about Rove, Deb Riechmann of the Associated Press asked Bush how close he was to a Supreme Court nomination. She used a follow-up to ask his reaction to a comment about the nomination by the first lady.


When Bush shut the event down, other reporters spoke up -- but their White House wranglers yelled them down. I heard one reporter shout "Will you fire him?" but Bush just grinned. What a missed opportunity.

Yep, that's the DC press corps we all know and love - toothless and clueless.

There are lots of good comments on this post already. I'd like to add a footnote to the--amply justified--claim that the MSM acts much of the time as little more than a stenographer. A proper stenographic transcription is of direct speech. So and so said, followed by his or her exact words enclosed by quotation marks. The press often reports the views of its subjects in indirect quotation. There is nothing wrong with that except that it can open the way for a form of laziness that is extremely common and can have very pernicious consequences. One forever sees reports along the lines of: "the president says that he will propose new measures to combat Sandinista-sponsored communist insurgencies in Brazil." If the reporter stuck to direct quotation, it would be clear that he isn't endorsing the idea that there are Sandinista-sponsored communist insurgencies in Brazil. Consider: "the president said 'I will shortly propose new measures to combat Sandinista-sponsored communist insurgencies in Brazil'." Putting things in the first way, however, can suggest that the existence of such insurgencies is uncontroversial or is something accepted by the reporter. Contrast "Paul thinks that his yacht is longer than it is." This sounds odd because one might think that Paul is being credited with a thought that he could have expressed with the words "I think my yacht is longer than it is". Actually the person reporting Paul's view knows (or takes himself to know) how long Paul's yacht is and he means only to be crediting Paul with a false view about its length by calling attention to the gap between the length Paul thinks his yacht has and the length it actually has. The yacht's actual length is not part of Paul's thought but of the thought of the person reporting Paul's view. When we report someone else's words or thoughts we can use terms and descriptions different from the ones they use, even terms or descriptions they wouldn't recognize. If Oedipus says "I'm eager to marry Jocasta." We can say "Oedipus is eager to marry his mother." But Oedipus wouldn't say and wouldn't think "I am eager to marry my mother."

In the kind of claim I'm complaining about we see the opposite problem. A way of looking at things that is part of the way of conceiving things that is peculiar to the thought of the person whose view is being reported is treated as though it were uncontroversial---part of the way the reporter or any other sensible person would conceive matters. Just as a reporter would say, writing about a criminal case, "Joe Bloggs hopes the alleged murderer Smith gets what's coming to him" rather than "Joe Bloggs hopes the murderer Smith gets what's coming to him" so in a case like the above a more scrupulous reporter would say " "the president said will shortly propose new measures to combat the Sandinista-sponsored communist insurgencies that he believes are taking place in Brazil." Needless to say, just about everything Bush says is packed with phrases like "the war on terror" or "social security reform" which reflect a highly questionable way of conceiving of things to put it kindly. A reporter who spoke of "alleged war on terror" and "alleged reform" when reporting Bush's would convey the right impression.

Because it smells like Watergate. If you recall. A feeding frenzy. And because Joe sixpack will think Bush is defending his friend at the expense of national securtiy, while arguing the rest of us need to give up rights in Patriot Act Redux. (I have an idea, ask the President what he thinks of strengthening the 1982 covert agent identity law, to further strengthen our governments hand against terrorists who we are trying to stop from getting WMD's.)

Bush will manage it better than Nixon, but the frenzy won't stop until the 2006 election which will be taken as a referendum on the Bush/Rove dishonesty. Liars. It is the cause of half the internet flamewars. Did Bush lie? Check Fark, there are only a pathetic few Bush stalwarts even willing to defend the proposition that Bush didn't knowingly deceive us. Let's ask the voters in 2006. 

Bush, at Rove's behest, will throw Rove overboard before the 2008 presidential election. Anything to stop Hillary.

Do the honorable thing, Karl, fall on your sword now.