Dear Leader Bush
Think about this for a moment. The President of the United States has been in power for more than four years but he has yet to grant an interview to the Los Angeles Times. The LAT is the paper of record of America's second largest city and one of the two or three largest circulation dailies in the country. What's he afraid of?
That factoid had not registered on me until just now when it was cited by Slate magazine's press critic, Jack Shafer.
Shafer's piece sticks it to Bush, openly comparing him to North Korea's "Dear Leader," Kim Jong Il. Before some of you begin to hyperventilate"”Shafer is no lefty radical (he's more a libertarian) and he's not suggesting we live in a totalitarian dictatorship.
But he rightfully calls GW Bush a "Propaganda President" who is allergic to critical thought and partial to sloganeering. He's a president who surrounds himself with Yes Men (and Women). And his administration is the first in modern history that shows an open contempt for the press. Now some of you might like to delude yourselves into believing that the news media is some sort of expendable liberal conspiracy"”but then again some people think it was the Commies who put fluoride in the water.
When you shut out the press, you shut out public scrutiny and accountability. If you think THAT is a good idea"”then you really should consider moving to Pyongyang where the press, indeed, has no power or influence. You'd love it there.
The refusal of the administration to acknowledge, say, the L.A. Times evidences an enormous hubris and arrogance. The only victim here is the public.
Here are Shafer's money graphs:
But slogan-chanting is only one small part of an effective propaganda operation. Successful propagandists must also discourage dissenters who might disrupt the party line. And the two best ways to keep people stupid and nodding is by shutting down the information flow and by stiffing the press. At these chores, Bush excels.
The administration's idea of a conversation is a long, platitudinous presidential monologue. Every administration has warred with reporters, but Bush's is the first to challenge the very legitimacy of the press. Inside the White House briefing room, press secretary Scott McClellan controls the topics discussed by playing rope-a-dope with reporters, absorbing and ignoring the tough questions until they give up. When Vice President Dick Cheney didn't like the campaign coverage he read in the New York Times, the Times reporter was tossed off the plane. In the February/March American Journalism Review, Los Angeles Times reporter Edwin Chen complains that his newspaper has yet to score an interview with President Bush. "This White House doesn't need California, has no use for California politically," says Chen, "so we carry no clout."
In a nutshell, this administration plain scorns the intelligence of the American people, preferring to govern by fear rather than by reason. If it isn't an inflated fear of Iraq on the foreign front, then it is scare-mongering over Social Security. On the latter issue, the Bush administration has as much already failed. Polls suggest that a majority of Americans (and their lawmakers) are not about to be stampeded into privatizing one of the few government programs that actually works. Nor are they anxious to reduce benefits that are a lifeline to millions of the elderly. As to the administration's utter failure in Iraq"¦ well"¦ that is going to take some more time to fully manifest itself. But it will surely haunt us for decades to come.
February 4th, 2005 at 4:01 am
Marc, this is a very powerful posting. I shall direct many people to read this.
“In a nutshell, this administration plain scorns the intelligence of the American people, preferring to govern by fear rather than by reason.”
This says it – in a nutshell. Thank you for this.
February 4th, 2005 at 6:03 am
Clearly, to me, President Bush lacks confidence in his ability to communicate his message in an unstructured environment that he considers to be hostile to him or his plans for the government. He is gambling that silence is least damaging to his agenda in the long term. Of course, this leaves him wide open to the questioning of his intentions and motivations.
Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton didn’t lack in confidence in this area. Ford and Carter weren’t self-aware enough to lack confidence. Nixon… well that’s a whole ‘nother subject. And Bush I was just, well, just, ah, shit, words fail me at the moment.
We need transparency. Good ideas and motives aren’t afraid about the glaring light of day.
February 4th, 2005 at 6:15 am
“but then again some people think it was the Commies who put fluoride in the water.”
I’m pretty sure they didn’t do it in large numbers, but I’m sure some of them did it. I knew a number of Communists in my day who said that they often wondered what it would take to get the American people to be shaken out of their unconscious stupor. I don’t doubt that with the large number of people who believe this that it has to be true to some extent.
February 4th, 2005 at 6:43 am
“I knew a number of Communists in my day who said that they often wondered what it would take to get the American people to be shaken out of their unconscious stupor”
Well, surely they knew the true path to enlightment for the masses was to put LSD in the resevoirs.
One has only to listen to the William Shatner version of `Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds’ to realize what an awakening that would have
been.
February 4th, 2005 at 6:51 am
Sorry Marc, Reagan was the “great Communicator”, not W.
When you can show me that the LAT is willing to ask and probe as to the truth about why Kerry did NOT sign Form 180, maybe you’ll have a better point. Notice on the first debate, ALL the questions were implicitly against Bush, not one was a question about the alternative.
In the press conferences he has given, the press has been pretty insistent on questions of the form; “given this mistake, shouldn’t you apologize”… blah blah.
You fall into this trap yourself:
“As to the administration’s utter failure in Iraq”
Less than 2500 Americans have died, and in less than two years Iraq has had the most free election of any Islamic Arab country.
Clinton was an utter failure in foreign policy — Bush has been pretty OK; his Iraq policy has been spetacular.
Be happy about Iraq.
Be unhappy he, and the UN, and the EU, are allowing genocide in Sudan. THERE is an “utter failure” of the world — worse, in slow motion, than Rwanda. Of course, Bush is the most honest about calling it genocide, the others follow a “talk first, then more talk, then more talk … (17 times)… then apologize (too late!)”.
February 4th, 2005 at 6:58 am
The president may feel justified in his strategy to ignore, marginalize, and manipulate the press. The press is going through some hard times getting its own act together, but its biggest challenge is that there seems to be little support from the public for a free press in the first place.
A new study commissioned by the Knight Foundation (Knight-Ridder) finds that a third of high school students thinks the First Amendment goes too far. Half believe the government can censor the Internet. Only 68% believe the government should not be able to restrict controversial speech.
What are these kids learning in civics classes? What does this say about their own parents views on these issues?
This does not bode well for the future of our democracy.
February 4th, 2005 at 7:38 am
Really… This is very petty.
Well, I wrote Bush a letter and he never answered it. Should I be offended and outraged? Give me a break.
The LA Times isn’t entitled to any more special treatment than other publications. Based upon its track record of twisting information to suit its liberal agenda, I would not reward the paper with an exclusive interview; and, I think that our President can do better things with his time.
I have no problem of obtaining enough news from the White House as it is.
This is only worth discussing by people who already hate Bush, so count this posts as 1 through 3.
February 4th, 2005 at 8:19 am
> When you shut out the press, you shut out
> public scrutiny and accountability.
> If you think THAT is a good idea—then you
> really should consider moving to Pyongyang
Marc, this nakedly surrenders the responsibility of the press to do their job. If Dubya was really pulling a fast one this way –and I’ve never heard anyone outside of media circles complain about it– the press could strike back by DOING THEIR JOBS. OF course, many dollars could be shaved in shoe leather, and many beads of sweat could stay off the foreheads of reporters, if they could simply walk up to people in public life and demand concilliatory rhetoric and insight. That’s not going to happen. Our political system is built on competition and contention. The greater problem for a properly contrary press is that they can’t seem to find the energy, or the angles, that will make this administration’s sins apparent to their readership.
The failure is much their own.
February 4th, 2005 at 8:35 am
Wow, when I read Shafer’s article, my jaw literally dropped when I read this quote:
“Two years ago, an unnamed Bush aide told Suskind, “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”"
Speaks volumes.
February 4th, 2005 at 8:45 am
Oh no! Not the dreaded ‘unnamed Bush aide!’ There you are … proof positive that President Bush is a bloody-handed megalomaniac tyrant. He probably eats babies, too.
/sarcasm
February 4th, 2005 at 9:02 am
It appears that Kim Jong Il is the new Hitler*.
And is black the new black, or is it black? Vogue magazine – fashion fascists down to the last scrap of Prada.
*From an unnamed Bush aide.
February 4th, 2005 at 9:09 am
And also,
When you have run out of Hitler references for the GOP, and Kim Jong Il just doesn’t do it for you: “Bush: Klingon warlord.”
Ok, sorry. Having fun. He should give an interview to the LA Times. If a softly lit, starry eyed interview with Sean Hannity is on the cards, then anything should be possible.
February 4th, 2005 at 9:15 am
I’m no journalist, so I don’t purport to know the protocol regarding the use of unnamed sources. As a natural skeptic, I understand skeptical responses to the quote in my last post. I assumed journalists know their trade, however, and wouldn’t use unnamed sources if it were considered a poison pill. But to the journalistically enlightened: is it really considered a faux pas to use an unnamed source?
February 4th, 2005 at 9:23 am
“He probably eats babies, too.”
No, that’s Cheney.
February 4th, 2005 at 9:24 am
Does any one of you Bush defenders here think that the government should be accountable to the people? If the government marginalizes the media, then the major avenue for communication with the public is disrupted. The alternative becomes government propaganda through official spokespeople or through government friendly private media outlets. This situation would be anathema to a free and open society. Can you understand this?
The fact that the press asks difficult questions or criticizes the president does not justify shutting the offending reporter’s access down. The president should be able to handle it. He is, after all, serving the people, we hope.
February 4th, 2005 at 9:30 am
Who needs the truth when you got moral character?
February 4th, 2005 at 9:50 am
The only time I was interviewed by a reporter (for a throwaway medical journal) the first sentence of the article read as if I was in New Orleans, at the conference I was being asked about. I was interviewed from my office in Chicago. My mother read the thing online a few years later. “When were you in New Orleans?” Um, never, Mom. I thought it was cute, personally. I was supposed to present a poster at a conference and didn’t go. The resident on the poster went instead. I don’t remember if I told the reporter I was going or not, but it was written in first-personese. Dr. So and so says such and such from the Blah Blah medical conference. I thought she made an honest mistake. I think that happens from time to time. I am not a journalist-basher. It’s a hard job and most do a good job. I’m sure you have to use unamed sources for certain stories, especially if people are afraid to give their names.
I think, and I’m not being sarcastic, that we should have a Question time like they do in Britain, and we could add questions from bloggers, etc, to the standard opposition rhetorical points. Can you imagine our verbally constipated politicians doing a question time?
The President should give interviews to as wide a variety of news sources as he can. It’s just that I don’t think this tightly controlled administration (which is not to it’s credit) is quite up to Kim Jong Il’s standards.
February 4th, 2005 at 9:58 am
The legacy media is facing power assaults on two fronts – The first is the Bush admin and Marc talks a lot about that in his superb post. The second assault comes from The People. Whatever the reason, the legacy media is less popular and people like Woody don’t give a shit if the President of the United States tells the LA Times to go to hell. In his mind, we can just get that info elsewhere. I think that’s not true. Even with the web’s gift of decentralized reporting I find I rely on the legacy media for my Washington info. More tellingly, Woody doubts the veracity of reporters at the LA Times. Woody identifies more with George Bush than the average reporter, and more importantly, than the aggregate wisdom of reporters. I happen to think that is insane. However neatly your views dovetail with a sitting president, congressman, or mayor, it is impossible to imagine her preferred image matches the truth. And I can’t imagine genuinely wanting to give any leader’s PR department a free pass.
February 4th, 2005 at 10:05 am
Are you the REAL Mavis Beacon? Do you type your commemts really fast?
February 4th, 2005 at 10:06 am
Are you the REAL Mavis Beacon? Do you type your commemts really fast?
February 4th, 2005 at 10:15 am
The “unnamed source” angle is generally the only way reporters can get answeres to certain questions from the White House and other agencies. It’s used fairly relentlessly to control the message getting to the press – it allows for stuff to be passed into the media without anyone taking any responsibility for it. Sometimes it’s a way for an insider to register some dissent from the party line (although I think that one is usually framed differently – “refused to be identified” or “requested anonymity” is a clue that the view is contrarian. “Unnamed sources” is the proper form for official background information that they don’t want to have haunt them by being on the official record.) But without using this channel, journalists would get even less info than they do. They’d mostly be stuck with McClellan’s Morning Dodgeball and Talking Press Release.
(Marc – correct me if I’m wrong.)
Also, I think that any reference to Kim Il Jong as the new Hitler is – if any such thing is possible – an insult to Hitler. Whatever else one may say about that madman, he had a plan, some core beliefs and – although it’s not something one wants to go on about in polite company – a fairly rational economic program, the political and moral context aside. Hitler’s racial and nationalist megalomania were the sources of his greatest evil and ultimately of his own destruction. Hitler was dangerous precisely because his grandiosity was linked to what has to be acknowledged as insight and ability, twisted though it obviously was. Pulling a nation out of depression and building a precision war machine doesn’t happen by accident. Kim Il Jong may have a large army and some rudimentary nukes, but he’s not a political or economic force in Asia – except as a guy holding a grenade – and his only principle is personal dynastic preservation. His sole military and political strategy is based on his not wanting to actually risk anything, including being toppled for monumental incompetence by his own people. Hitler was rather awesomely dangerous because he had a maniacal vision for which he was willing to risk everything, even what he had successfully built in Germany itself.
Weird post…tangential as all hell…hope it doesn’t ruin anybody’s day. But if you can’t actually contemplate what drives the varieties of evil dictators and their actual circumstances, one is reduced to quixotic, strategically incoherent responses (as in “quess where”). And MD – please don’t hesitate to make funny quips in the future out of fear that it will trigger another exercise in boring you to tears with pretentious ruminations on my part. Oh…also since the subject – sort of – of Hitler and fashion came up, I had no idea until I read a WaPo column today by Anne Applebuam that Phillip Johnson actually followed the German army into Poland and apparently approved of what he saw. What an execrable piece of shit. No wonder his buildings were so soulless.
February 4th, 2005 at 10:43 am
sorry…that’s “Kim Jong Il”
February 4th, 2005 at 10:57 am
“Who needs the truth when you got moral character?”
Who needs truth when ya got myths?
February 4th, 2005 at 11:07 am
Excellent post reg, even if it is tangential. Although I have to say the phrase “execrable piece of shit” strikes me as redundant.
This whole press access bit is a problem. I’m sympathetic to the notion that good reporting – thinking back to the post from a few days ago too – is the result of hard, tedious work. Checking sources, making phone calls, and doggedly chasing down new leads and sources. I’m not in that business so I don’t know how much of that goes on these days and I don’t know if the fabled reporters of the past (Woodward and Bernstein) are even an accurate example of the way the world of the Press was and should be. Just don’t know.
Here is the paradox: whether the topic is sports or politics or business, the reporters that get the good stories are the ones who can get close to the subject of the reporting; in order to get close to the subject of the reporting they need access; in order to secure access the subject needs to believe that they will be treated well (I don’t think an expectation of being treated fairly is enough), so the reporter ends up coloring the reporting in order to curry favor with the subject for fear of losing access. End result: a steady stream of puff pieces from the usual sources and critical pieces that rely too heavily on conjecture and the “unnamed source” who just might have an axe to grind.
Can hard scrabble, old tyme reporting techniques solve this problem? Are there reporters out there willing to take the chance?
February 4th, 2005 at 11:10 am
Broadly speaking, I think the case that Bush does not interact enough with the media is one that holds some water. I don’t think it carries enough water, though, to make the conclusion that Bush is not “accountable to the people.” As long as mid-term elections remain tied, even loosely, to Presidential performance and we continue to have Presidential elections every 4 years, this or any other President is just as accountable as any other. The exact number of pressers and exclusive interviews a President grants is mostly a matter of style, IMO. Surely, no one is going to make the argument that they do not know where Bush stands or that there is not enough criticism of it.
As for Marc’s comments about the LA Times, in particular, he is a newspaper man and it seems that his perspective is that the President should pay more attention to the medium. That is perfectly understandable. However, modern politics is not played in the print media any longer, it’s a TV sport now.
February 4th, 2005 at 11:15 am
I would offer Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker as an example of a good journalist, uncomporomising but with good connections to all the dark corners of government.
Judith Miller of the NYT, among others, would be his antithesis, seriously compromised by her relationships with her sources.
February 4th, 2005 at 11:18 am
Note to “too many” – yeah, it’s repetitively redundant.
February 4th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
I am not being snide but why is the president “required”, “obligated”, or even “supposed” to give interviews or even press conferences to a select section of our society? Why do journalists such as Jack Shafer think that they are entitled to a section of the president’s time, other then being a citizen of the US?
I think the MSM has tried to set itself up as the new nobility. They communicate what is to be discussed in public forum and what is to be ignored. They can condemn you or pardon you all with a simple printing of a story. The desire to validate actions or to claim they are of no consequence reeks of “I am better then thou” type attitude one associates with concepts of noblity. I also think blogs such as this are successful because the MSM has tried to control the public debate.
As for being accountable to the people, we have elections every 4 years, the ability to censure, the ability to impeach, and prosecute for criminal offenses. Why do we need an unelected body of journalists to participate in the “checks and balances†when journalists cant even police their own?
February 4th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
“In a nutshell, this administration plain scorns the intelligence of the American people, preferring to govern by fear rather than by reason.”
You’re so polite Marc. There is of course a word to describe people who engage in this type of behavior. They are demagogues. I can think of a few others, but I wouldn’t want to upset the children (think of the children!)
And with respect to Mr. Bush not sitting down for an interview with the LA Times, I think it says as much about the Washington establishment’s view of LA, California, and the west in general (and the long tradition of ignoring the west) as it does about this president’s dictator complex. For the Washington political establishment, California is little more than a place to rhetorically flog as decadent and un-American (particularly our culture industry, which creates many, many thousands of jobs and tens of billions in revenues every year), meanwhile taking the tax dollars produced by our vibrant economy and redistributing them disproportionately to people who claim to hate government and government services. The east coast media establishment does its best to ignore, ridicule, or exoticize us. If California were to secede it would be one of the ten wealthiest nations on the planet, and nearly self-sufficient. Washington should not forget this.
February 4th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
I also am annoyed that Bush steers clear of the press. He’s the president, for God’s sake.
But I understand why he does it. He’s just plain awful in public. (Even the most fawning Bush admirer must be aware of this fact on some supressed level.) And it would be politically stupid of him to put himself out there. All politicians make calculations like these. They do what will help them and eschew what will hurt them.
The press isn’t very kind to him, either. Of course it’s not their *job* to be kind to him. This isn’t Syria.
I’m not excusing, just explaining. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I don’t think arrogance is the problem here. Rather, it’s Bush’s survival instinct.
February 4th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
“But I understand why he does it. He’s just plain awful in public. ”
I think there’s more to it than that. It plays well with his base [or part of his base, his real base is, like Democratic Party Pols, the crowd that can pay 250K to meet with him personally at conventions, inaugural balls,...) that sees him as a real populist who is 'just like them'. Of course, he has little in common with the average person, the act aside. He's never had to work for a living, never struggled economically, never had to worry about the economic consequences of his actions, etc. But, that doesn't matter, he plays the role and that's appealing.
The media bit plays into that well. He pretends he's too dumb or ill equipped to answer those 'washington elitist' journalists' trick questions because he's too 'plain spoken'. Of course, that's contradicted by the pretty good debating performances he does under considerable stress [I wouldn't wanna debate John Kerry or Anne Richards with millions watching me].
In reality Bush isn’t much different from most right leaning pols, they have contempt for the idea that the masses should have access to their offices and unearned wealth. But that’s not what comes across by the folksy ‘dumb’ act that he gives when talking to the media.
February 4th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
Bush was a Cheerleader!
I’ve dated cheerleaders, they are all about image and sparkle, and as shallow as a puddle.
February 4th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
“If California were to secede it would be one of the ten wealthiest nations on the planet, and nearly self-sufficient.”
Some days that just seems like one hell of a good idea. I hate sending my tax money to Mississippi and then having some cornpone hypocrite like Trent Lott or demagogue witn low morals like Newt Gingrich not only not showing the grace to say “thank you” but calling ME decadent…
February 4th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
Green Dem: “If California were to secede it would be one of the ten wealthiest nations on the planet, and nearly self-sufficient.”
That ‘nearly’ being the crucial matter of water, which we import in vast quantities. We wouldn’t be wealthy long. Or even ‘nearly’ self-sufficient. Or alive, most of us, since a lot of that agua goes into agriculture.
February 4th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Marc: You disappoint me. Look this up, if you will, please and observe, in particular, the last sentence. The idea that ’self-suppporting annuity plans’ would ultimately be needed was inherent in the original Social Security proposition. You’re ordinarily more dispassionate.
“In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.”
— Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Message to Congress on Social Security. January 17, 1935
http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html#message2
Plus, I don’t think that suggesting that the President ’scorns the intelligence of the American people, etc.’ is balanced, either. Since when does an intellectual disagreement become scorn? The people who voted for him don’t feel scorned. Are we beyond the point where we can debate the solution to a problem without resorting to sand-box tactics? When I voted for Clinton and he pursued a couple of political lines I disagreed with I figured, hell, I wasn’t going to agree with him on everything. I gave him credit for giving it his best shot. Government is a work in progress, it’s not a gang fight. At least, I hope it’s not.
February 4th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Totten’s point is well taken. I really do think that it is our job as citizens to demand that he make himself available, that we ask reporters to disrupt the slick image sold by handlers and through staged appearances. I want my press to do that to any politician – Democrat or Republican. Any disagreements? If so why?
MD, I think that’s a great idea. If the conservative objection is that they don’t like who gets to ask questions, why not have more people asking questions? The president should have to answer tough questions from the left, right, and center. We shouldn’t let him reject the whole process because too many questions come from the wrong side of the aisle.
February 4th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
“That ‘nearly’ being the crucial matter of water, which we import in vast quantities. We wouldn’t be wealthy long. Or even ‘nearly’ self-sufficient. Or alive, most of us, since a lot of that agua goes into agriculture.”
Hyperbole my friend, but if you want to talk water a generation from now nanotechnology will quite possibly replace reverse osmosis as the chief form of turning sea water into fresh water, making the long-held dream of cheap and efficient desalination a reality. It will transform the west, not to mention many other arid coastal and inland regions around the world.
February 4th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
I loathe Michael Totten but he’s basically got a point about Bush being awful in interviews. Although saying the press isn’t nice to him implies a supreme level of head-up-the-*ss-ism.
Anyway, I’m a good chunk of the way through “The Price of Loyalty” now. I’d seen Suskind present the work on C-SPAN before, so some of the good bits weren’t surprises.
Bush never comes off as evil, simply as ignorant and easily manipulated, a stupid man who has placed his trust in reactionary ideologues.
I’m sorry the word “inevitability” didn’t show up in your post. Bush often treats his proposals as inevitable.
February 4th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
Alright, well, this is definately off topic but since there’s a raging debate on this thread already about California succession I don’t think I’m too out of line. Just wanted to pass on the word about the death ossie davis; the famous actor and long time civil rights campainer who delivered a famous and beautiful obituary at malcolm x funeral. I encourage people to check out the AP news story which gives a wonderful account of Ossie as an artist and an activist, whose life spanned the history of the modern civil rigts movement. Personally, I’ve known him through his humane, sensitive and often sorrowful performances in a variety of spike lees productions. There are few if any prominent intellectually and politically engaged artists like Ossie, I’ll miss his warm and delicate presence on screen.
February 4th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
Oh, and please consider calling it “the establishment press.”
The MSM thing implies there was either a) no word for it before, or b) one simply was ignorant of the word.
February 4th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Josh Narins: “I loathe Michael Totten”
Well, nice day to you too, pal. I’m sure you’re a real peach to hang out with.
February 4th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
Mavis Beacon – yup. Question time for all Presidents – they work for us and as their voter-supervisor I demand more!
ahem – that is a mighty interesting quote. I believe Instapundit also has a link to said quote. ‘Voluntary contributory annuities’ from, can it be, FDR?
Teehee.
(reg, tangents are fun. And I needlessly slandered Vogue in one of my previous posts. I hope this doesn’t come back to haunt me when I run for office someday. The Vogue website has a list of ‘ten top fashion’ whatevers. You know. One of those lists. One of the top trends are silly, frilly, girly, 1930s blouses sure to make any Great Depression era gal proud. Think Merle Oberon in the Divorce of Lady X with Laurence Olivier. Perfect fashion choice for the moment apparently – just in time for the new Great Depression affecting the left-hand side of the land! Ok, sorry again. Apologies to the left-hand side of the land, many of whom are people I love and respect. Ciao and have a good weekend all, as I am already past my comment limit. Sorry marc.)
February 4th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
Marc, the LAT is a very poor excuse for a newspaper. It is openly partisan, waiting until the very last minute to run the stories about the Gropenator (I loathe Arnold, but even I had to acknowledge the purely partisan news coverage designed to derail his candidacy). The LAT might as well be the publishing arm of the Democratic Party. It’s coverage of the Prop. 66 was abysmal and factually WRONG, as is it’s coverage of Sacramento, the budget battle, or the recent Senate Race.
Criticizing Bush for not giving interviews with the LAT is like criticizing him for not giving interviews with the Weekly or Village Voice. All three publications going in would have only one agenda: gotcha. Therefore, it’s prudent to avoid them.
Moreover the media as we’ve seen from “fake but accurate” cBS and Dan rATHER, and most recently Eason Jordan’s “fake but accurate” claims that the US military deliberately murdered 12 reporters in Iraq (something even Barney Frank called him on) are quite openly anti-American, anti-Military, and pro-Arab. Given that the media’s prime interests are to be applauded by Arab tyrants and their sycophants at places like Davos, to the point where they MAKE STUFF UP (and have regularly done so even in trivial matters like Jayson Blair) you have to ask yourself WHY anyone would consent to an interview. Look at NBC. They have a senior reporter covering the UN who also wrote a propaganda book for that institution. Would you trust ANYTHING from NBC about the UN given that conflict of interest. We also have the shoe that has not dropped … according to the Duelfer report, Saddam BRIBED numerous reporters for favorable coverage.
It all comes down to trust. The media must, in order to gain access, have a non-partisan agenda and convince people that it will present their side of the story fairly. Otherwise, we will see the current situation (which echoes the partisan press of George Washington through Woodrow Wilson’s days); where Democrats give interviews to the Democratic Party media (LAT, NYTIMES, WaPo, CNN, cBS, NBC, etc) and the Republicans give interviews to Republican Media (Fox, WSJ, WaTimes, etc).
Final thoughts on Eason Jordan. He publicly (in an interview) acknowledged that CNN did NOT report on Saddam’s atrocities in exchange for exclusive interviews and to insure the safety of his bureau in Baghdad. He was also warned in advance by Saddam that he (Saddam) intended to murder his sons-in-law when they returned to Iraq; and Eason did nothing to pass that info along to save lives.
We can judge “America’s most trusted name for news” by that actions … CNN, and by extension the equally partisan LAT, is nothing more than a propaganda outlet, like Pravda, WSJ, Fox, Al-Jazeera, and the BBC. Nothing they report is actually the truth as we’d know it, but rather fake but accurate stuff, things made up of out whole cloth, or skewed for partisan agendas. In such a world, the consumer should not be surprised that folks make partisan judgments about who they talk to, and the reporting itself must be viewed in the light of it’s partisan agenda. Seymour Hersh is a perfect example … a tool of the CIA who’s used to leak stuff for infighting and who’s often just dead WRONG factually (his big stories came “in over the transom” as Graner’s Defense attorney leaked the pictures to him wrt Graib as blackmail, and My Lai; Hersh never actually dug around for stories or left Washington).
[Note: the vast majority of the Media hews the anti-American, anti-Military, pro-Arab/Democratic line; however the same thing can be said for the conservative media except they haven't been caught out as much/at all in obvious factual lies, though I'm cynically confident they're equally as guilty]
February 4th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
“Note: the vast majority of the Media hews the anti-American, anti-Military, pro-Arab/Democratic line;”
You plainly were asleep when the media was busy helping Bush push the so-called “WMDs” are everywhere in Iraq and about to attack us all, grandmas, little innocent pubescent girls, puppies, and poison our american apple pies and free markets” business.
Really asleep to have missed the promotional element of their pre-official invasion coverage, Jessica Lynch hype, great capture of Sodom hype, and most recently hype over the “transition” to US occupation and a Mayor ALlawi of the Green Zone along with the Elections of Iraqis for Bush…
Really, you had to have been asleep to miss that all. Or you believe in conspiracy theories about news companies owned by military suppliers like GE…working to undermine American militarism. Boy, that guy who replaced Jack Welch must be a dye in the wool Al Qaeda loving Commie to believe jim Rockford’s conspiracy theories about the “anti-american” media.
February 4th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
Marc, I’m not sure exactly why you’re so hot for Jack Shafer’s take-down of how the Bush Administration runs its press relations. First of all, he’s late to the game. This stuff went on all during the campaign and, well, no one like Shafer squawked then. How come? One reason, of course, proves the Bush folks’ point: The national press corps are a bunch of lap dogs who think access is the same as importance. They’re not going to bite so why shouldn’t the Bush flacks kick ‘em from time to time just for yucks? It’s a great way to edit the White House Christmas Party list. It’s telling not that the Bush folks haven’t talked to the LATimes but that the editor is bitching about the political irrelevance of California in the administration’s calculation about who’s important. Since when do you need a presidential interview to do a good story? I’ve written some of my best stuff about folks who have refused to talk to me.
What’s really interesting is that no one at Slate has figured out that that the reason the Bush folks think they way they do is contained in Mickey Kaus’ dead-on take-down of Bernie Weinraub’s lame “tell-all” that was in last Sunday’s Times. Kaus is right in pointing out, as has for yeas, that Weinraub had no business covering Hollywood and being married to a studio head. He’s also right in saying that Weinraub had status envy. He couldn’t figure out why – until he married – no one in Hollywood thought he was important. Well, that’s how the Bush administration feels about the press. They’re not important. They are tools to be used at will. Oh, and I’d point out one other politician who feels the exact same way: Our own Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
You’ve heard me talk a lot about what’s wrong with American journalism. Shafer’s complainst are just one more symptom of the problems. The business’ economic underpinnings are in shambles, it hasn’t “hired smart” in almost a generation, folks who do have jobs are under enormous pressure not to “miss” stories (or do something no one else is doing) and now its threatened in new and constant ways by site like yours and mine. The Bush folks are simply seizing an opportunity and while I agree with you and Shaffer that it’s un-American, dangerous and ought not to happen I don’t see a whole lot of folks on the business side of this business really and truly trying to really change the way things are done. Do you?
February 4th, 2005 at 7:42 pm
Steve –
There’s plenty enough evidence to support my assertions. Jordan Eason (CNN); Dan RaTHer (cBS); ABC (Marc Helprin and his “work for Kerry” memo); NBC and their UN conflict of interest; the lunatic ravings of Keith Olberman, etc.
Moreover, the media missed the major parts of the Saddam story, or were simply unable to report it, due to being either BRIBED by Saddam, or having extensive “in-bed” relationships with him like CNN admitted. That Eason kept quiet about Saddam’s plans to murder his sons-in-law says it all. As does no one in the Media talking about it. Very likely they were bribed by Saddam.
Certainly no real reporting was done about Ramzi Yusef, Zarqawi, or Abu Nidal all finding refuge in Baghdad before the war. Gee I wonder why?
You may have wanted to take Saddam’s “good word” that he wouldn’t ship off the nasties to whoever, but most Americans didn’t and wouldn’t. Afghanistan and 9/11 showed the risk of taking tyrants word for it. You can’t trust them. I wouldn’t trust Saddam if he told me the sky was blue.
I’m not surprised most of the Media sided with the head-choppers, torturers, or murderers. Most of the Left has too; given a choice between ballots and peaceful change and outright murder (using retarded kids as suicide bombers) they chose the monsters. Hey, most of the media in the thirties LOVED Hitler. This is nothing new, the Media and the left LOVE their tyrants, as long as they spew out the anti-American slogans.
Jessica Lynch? The LAT is exhibit A on the shameful reporting. Buried very carefully in the back of the stories following up her progress was the admission that she had been sexually assaulted so severely that she must wear a colostomy bag for the rest of her life, and contrary to reports DOES remember her torture and rapes by the Iraqis, as well as the murder of the surrendered troops with her, including Piestawa (beheaded in front of her) and others. Yet the LAT had no problems detailing the sexual and medical histories of Kobe Bryant’s accuser.
The LAT essentially colluded with the Pentagon, Bush Administration, and Congress to suppress important news so as to serve their diverse interests (Pentagon and Bush for putting women in harms way of monsters; Congress for the women in military pulling essentially combat duty). Also unreported was the briefing post-Lynch to female military people in Iraq and Kuwait; and their resolve to never be captured alive given Lynch’s brutal treatment (which itself was given female combatants in Gulf War 1). These are things worth knowing and discussing, but the Media and LAT will never cover them because it doesn’t fit their anti-American/pro-enemy agenda.
February 4th, 2005 at 9:22 pm
“this administration plain scorns the intelligence of the American people, preferring to govern by fear rather than by reason. ”
Yeah, the left never scares people, does it? They never lie. Give it a rest. I read this crap on PressThink and it doesn’t pass the smell test. Furtllhermore, it would appear that there is nothing Bush could do that wouldn’t be demonized, ridiculed or denounced by the stuck record needle of the west.
No, the administration rightly despises many in the MSM. The LA Times long ago lost the privilege of interviewing Bush. Why should Bush give presents to routinely hostile and dishonest media outlets? This has been hashed out in the journalism world, with the adoption of the comfortable but insane concept that the media is in the “reality based” community and the White House is not.
This administration communicates with the people. It just chooses to do so through the ever increasing alternative media. Conservatives hear lots from the White House, because he talks to our pundits and reporters. That’s his choice. Nowhere other than in the arrogance of the MSM echo chamber is there a belief that the president owes THEM anything.
This administration SCORNS the attitude and dishonesty of the MSM, but TRUSTS the intelligence of the American people. Were it not for the unpredictable failure to find WMDs, almost all of these arguments about lies and fears would fall flat. The left was very lucky that Saddam played his little game. If you want to denounce liars and fear mongers, go after Saddam the killer rather than Bush, the liberator.
There is an area of valid criticism. Bush isn’t that good at talking to hostile media. Hence he avoids them for that reasons also. But when he is talking to friendly media, or to just plain Americans, he usually does a fine job of it – scripted or ad hoc.
February 5th, 2005 at 12:03 am
Here’s an article in the LAT that I believe makes my point (registration required, http://www.bugmenot.com for registration info):
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-tookie3feb03,1,3491803.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
The headline reads “A Nobel Nominee Faces Execution” and goes on to describe the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denying Tookie Williams effort to get a new trial and his conviction for murders thrown out. One judge is quoted “a prosecutor publicly castigated by the Supreme Court of California for his pattern of racially motivated peremptory jury challenges, removed all blacks from Williams’ jury. In declining to [rehear] this case, our court bestows an implicit imprimatur upon the trial court’s denial of a constitutionally mandated jury selection process.”
The story further details Stanley “Tookie” aka “Monster” Williams founding the Crips, and his nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize. Williams committed the murders and was tried and convicted in 1981. Do the math (the LAT won’t) and you find he’s been on death row for 24 YEARS.
This is the typical misleading LAT story; since it only discloses further down that raging Conservative Racist California Attorney General Bill Lockyer (a very liberal Democrat in case you didn’t know) is quoted through a Spokesman as saying “the trial prosecutor had “good reasons not related to race” for dismissing the three black jurors. He said one was excused because of a work hardship, another because she said she would require prosecutors to meet a higher standard of proof than normal and the third out of concern that he would be guided by his background as a psychologist rather than the evidence.”
This at the VERY end of the story. Buried right next to it is the actual CRIMES Williams was convicted of: a 1979 shotgun murder of a 7-11 clerk in which he and three others split $120; and the murder two days later of motel owners and their daughter.
The LAT deliberately slanted the story of “racist railroading of a poor, oppressed Nobel Peace Prize Nominee” … not that a brutal murder of FOUR PEOPLE will finally get what’s coming to him in what Liberal Democrats view as a fair trial.
You can’t trust the LAT; it’s not fit for much but lining birdcages Marc. You can’t blame Bush for bailing on them; even the LA Weekly with it’s porn/sex ads all over the place has more class.
February 5th, 2005 at 12:11 am
Jim.. you’re just plain wrong. We can debate all day and night the shortcomings and/or biad of the LA Times. That’s not the point. The president of the U.S. has a responsibiity to make himself available for media scrutiny. I’d worry more about his reluctance than your ideological differences with the Times. In any case, ur wrong that the Times is liberal. It’s corporate, man. Corporate. You think the Tribune Corp is in the business of running liberal rags? Please.
February 5th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
“essica Lynch? The LAT is exhibit A on the shameful reporting. Buried very carefully in the back of the stories following up her progress was the admission that she had been sexually assaulted so severely that she must wear a colostomy bag for the rest of her life, and contrary to reports DOES remember her torture and rapes by the Iraqis, as well as the murder of the surrendered troops with her, including Piestawa (beheaded in front of her) and others.”
Why do I get the feeling you probably also think that *you* remember seeing these things to along with Elvis.
February 5th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Marc, great job on the blog. One thing bothers me, though. It has nothing to do with the content or anything like that, just a pet peeve.
I would click the links you recommend more if the border of your page and the url of your page didn’t stay in my browser. it makes ir more difficult to look around the recommended pages, and ruins the look of the pages.
i know it’s ridulous, but i had to finally say something.
February 5th, 2005 at 8:23 pm
I know.. we’re working on it.
February 7th, 2005 at 9:11 am
Interesting how projection works…
The Democrats constantly campaign from a position of fear…
The Republicans are going to…
steal old peoples money, lynch blacks and homos, and put women back into the kitchen…
Oh, and don’t forget about black churches burning down.
But it is the Republicans who govern from fear.
And when the Democrats say there is a threat or crisis, damned if a Republican comes along right after them saying the same thing, and the Democrats look like he’s grown a third eye in his forehead.
February 7th, 2005 at 10:50 am
Marc, you are absolutely right that the owners of the LAT are corporate — whatever brings in the bucks is OK. But the editors, reporters, and human resource folk are almost exclusively anti-Christian, anti-Bush.
“government should be accountable to the people?”
Yes, both in being asked questions, and answering them.
When did LAT ask John Kerry about his Form 180? When did LAT run a front page story that Kerry was LYING in his 1986 Senate testimony (against Reagan), when he said his 1968 Christmas in Cambodia story, that was seared, seared into his memory?
Until LAT asks tough questions of Presidents AND Senators, of both parties, they are (mostly) correctly viewed as Dem Party hacks.
Where are the reports on black children’s reading scores in Watts, over the last 40 years? Those in gov’t schools AND those in Catholic/ private (voluntary) schools should be compared.
Both Bush AND all gov’t agencies SHOULD be more “open” to the public — all gov’t reports should be available on the internet to anybody. All organizations who get gov’t money to do research, or write reports, should have that research published and available for all.
The entire trillion dollar budget of the Federal gov’t; and every state budget, and every county and city budget, should be fully listed.
We don’t need press conferences (and wonderful tear jerking Clinton style apologies for Rwanda) — we need facts. Names of gov’t pork recipients — and everybody who gets a gov’t check because they filled out some form, should be signing that they agree the amount of money they get from the gov’t will be publicized. There’s no need for gov’t secrets (OK, a few military/ tech related) in ANY social/ economic program (farm aid, airline aid, steel aid).
There should also be a gov’t register of all corporations who enjoy the limited liability privelge, and their reported Gross Income, and Taxes Paid.
And then honest/ lying opinionated pundits who take the facts and make a story.
Dems should be fighting for more gov’t transparency, not more press spinnings.
[And I think Michael Totten is fantastic. No accounting for taste.]
May 5th, 2005 at 6:27 am
I would offer Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker as an example of a good journalist, uncomporomising but with good connections to all the dark corners of government.
Judith Miller of the NYT, among others, would be his antithesis, seriously compromised by her relationships with her sources.
-
http://usuarios.lycos.es/iconosmessenger/
http://membres.lycos.fr/messenger7mx/
http://usuarios.lycos.es/yahoomessengermx/
http://membres.lycos.fr/messengerbetamx/
http://membres.lycos.fr/messenger70mx/
http://usuarios.lycos.es/webmessengermx/
http://membres.lycos.fr/msnmessengermx/
August 11th, 2006 at 11:15 am
blackjacks blackjacks
August 29th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
FedEx overnight shipping and free prescription, http://MyRxPill.com
June 4th, 2009 at 10:16 am
hello!
i will be back…