Libby, Bush and the lapdog press
The Scooter Libby leak investigation has shamed the Beltway press corps for four years running. From the moment in July 2003 when syndicated columnist Robert Novak recklessly printed the name of CIA covert agent Valerie Plame, to Judith Miller's jail time, to Bob Woodward's playing dumb, to Tim Russert's forced courtroom testimony, the media elite managed to embarrass themselves at nearly every turn, often revealing themselves as lapdogs, not watchdogs.
So it was fitting that in covering the final chapter of the Libby saga, the press, as if on cue, badly bungled the commutation story last week by often downplaying its significance, reading off White House talking points, and leaving gaping holes of context for news consumers trying to make sense of Bush's audacious power grab.
The media's performance simply highlighted scores of unflattering newsroom deficiencies that have become calcified during the Bush years.
For instance, on July 4, The New York Times tried to shed some light on how Bush came to the decision to wave off a convicted felon's jail time. The news article was headlined "Bush Is Said to Have Held Long Debate on Decision," and in it readers learned that a deliberative Bush had "delved deeply into the evidence" of the Libby trial, consulted with aides, and oversaw "almost clinical" dissection "with a detailed focus on the facts of the case" that had stretched out over several weeks. How did the Times reporters know that Bush had done his due diligence? Because anonymous Bush aides and Republican sources told them so.
Let's put a very fine point on this: The New York Times has no idea how Bush came to his decision to commute Libby's sentence. None. The decision was arguably the most momentous political verdict of Bush's second term and Times reporters were absolutely clueless -- lacking a single independent source -- as to how Bush came to it, and what went into the White House deliberations.
Their only insight was provided by obviously partisan aides who painted for the Times a portrait of a serious and thoughtful Bush poring over his legal options, which the Times gladly printed as fact. (Read Newsweek's similarly lame, anonymous-only, "behind the scenes" account, featuring a deeply "conflicted" Bush.)
Think about it. More than 70 months after Bush took office, Beltway reporters are still clinging to anonymous Bush aides for the most basic information and granting them anonymity in exchange for providing so-called inside (i.e., fawning) details. This is the box the press corps finds itself trapped in after allowing the Bush White House to re-write the news media rules when the administration first set up shop in 2001. That's when Bush essentially walked away from press conferences, his staff short-circuited traditional back-channel communications with the media, and his senior advisers made it known that they viewed the press corps as just another special interest looking for access.
In other words, Bush stiff-armed the press, and the press rolled over. So much so that by 2007, when a big White House story broke, reporters had no choice but to allow Bush aides to narrate the story without interruption, just as the White House had hoped.
Of course, the Times and Newsweek were not alone in playing the role of court stenographer. Journalists all across the Beltway couldn't even find out whether Vice President Dick Cheney had weighed in on the Libby topic, let along whether he'd urged Bush to free Cheney's former chief of staff.
In fact, one moment of unintentional humor last week came during a White House press briefing given by Tony Snow. When asked about what role Cheney played, Snow pleaded ignorance: "I have no idea, and I'm -- you'll have to ask the vice president's office."
The dark comedy revolved around the fact that for all practical purposes the vice president's press office stopped returning reporters' phone calls -- or at least stopped giving serious answers to substantive questions -- sometime around 2005. The truth is there has ceased to be a continuous flow of useful information between Cheney's office and the press. Indeed, reporters for the first time in modern history often cannot even find out where the vice president is physically located on a day-to-day basis. Why does Cheney's office function that way? Because it can. Because the press corps has allowed Cheney's office to disappear into the ether, behind an unprecedented cloak of secrecy.
So much so that by 2007, when a big White House story broke, reporters could not even get the simplest questions answered about the vice president's role in it.
Valerie Plame was not covert, right?
Another recurring newsroom ailment on display last week was journalists allowing conservatives to spread purposeful misinformation. We heard that during NPR's Talk of the Nation on July 3, which featured as a guest Stephen Moore, an editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal, which has defended Libby's role in the Plame saga for years, often by misstating the facts. Sure enough, on Talk of the Nation Moore made up central facts about the Plame investigation. And sure enough, the NPR host did nothing to challenge Moore when he made up facts about the Plame investigation.
Specifically, Moore announced Plame "was not a covert agent" at the CIA, and that "under the statute of that law, she was not a covert agent." (WSJ columnist James Taranto went on CNN last week and spread the same tale.)
The fact remains that Plame testified under oath before Congress that she was covert, the CIA first asked for a leak investigation because it considered Plame to be covert, and in a court filing in May, Fitzgerald spelled out why Plame qualified as a covert agent at the time of the administration's 2003 leak, writing that the CIA "declassified and now publicly acknowledges the previously classified fact that Ms. Wilson was a CIA employee from 1 January 2002 forward and the previously classified fact that she was a covert CIA employee during this period." Moreover, according to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), CIA director Michael Hayden approved a statement given by Waxman at the hearing in which Plame testified, saying, as The Washington Post reported, that "Plame worked in a covert capacity at the time of Novak's column and that her employment status was classified under an executive order."
Yet, incredibly, that discredited claim about Plame's status remains the linchpin for the conservative argument for why Libby should go free -- no real crime was committed. Libby apologists are able to repeat their invented claim about Plame's status because so few journalists question it, which is why -- to close the loop -- it remains the linchpin to their argument.
Indeed, as the Daily Howler noted, on Talk of the Nation, it was listeners calling in -- everyday citizens -- who were forced to do what NPR journalists would not: point out that the claim made by Moore has been rebutted by the CIA.
Elsewhere, media elites seemed to shrug their shoulders over the Libby story. On CNN, host Anderson Cooper framed the story as just more partisan sniping: "No matter what the Democrats do on the Hill, Scooter Libby won't go to jail. Much of this is political theater. Some might even say 'politics as usual.' " Just days after the Libby story broke, readers visiting Newsweek or Time online had to scrounge around the websites in order to find the Libby-related coverage.
For the Beltway press, the Libby commutation was, at best, a three-day story. Yet try to imagine if, in 1995, President Clinton had stepped in and tossed out the 21-month jail sentence for Webster Hubbell, his senior aide and minor Whitewater player who was convicted of tax evasion. Would the press have treated that as a two- or three-day story?
Perhaps nowhere last week was that collective shoulder-shrugging more apparent than on the nightly network newscasts. NBC's Nightly News aired just three reports on the Libby story -- one on July 2, one on July 3, and a very brief 30-second update on July 5. Not one NBC story quoted a Democrat on-camera reacting to the Bush commutation. The same with ABC's World News -- just three Libby reports last week, none quoted a Democrat on camera. CBS's Evening News also produced three stories and quoted just one Democrat.
Back in the winter of 2001, when President Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich became controversial, those same ABC, CBS, and NBC network evening news programs aired more than 80 reports on that story.
Also, note that none of those nine network news reports about Libby last week ever addressed the fact that Bush ignored Department of Justice guidelines in making his Libby decision. (For instance, candidates receiving commutation are supposed to have served some jail time; Libby served none.) The network reports also failed to note that Bush had ignored protocol by not consulting with anyone at the Department of Justice about the Libby case.
Meanwhile, all of the Nightly News and Evening News reports failed to report that polls indicated a vast majority of Americans opposed the idea of Bush shortening Libby's prison sentence.
Indeed, there appeared to something of a boycott among journalists covering the Libby story, a concerted effort to ban any reference to polling data that could give news consumers some context about the Bush's decision as well as the public's response. Based on the polling information, the commutation was, in the very real sense, radically unpopular. Indeed, it was an extreme act. But the press consistently looked away, maintaining one of its cardinal rules of reporting for this administration: Never portray the Bush White House as radical.
Note that Libby polling data from the spring was both readily available and overwhelming in its findings; a bipartisan majority of Americans wanted Libby to serve jail time and were opposed to any effort by Bush to alter Libby's sentence.
More recently, a June Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that only 20 percent of the public favored pardoning Libby. And last week, a SurveyUSA poll taken immediately following Bush's announcement found that a strong majority, including an amazing 40 percent of self-identified Republicans, wanted Libby to serve his full prison term.
Searching the Libby coverage last week among the country's major metropolitan newspapers, I could only find three -- The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, and The Dallas Morning News -- that even made passing reference to polling results that helped put Bush's action in context. I could not find any newspaper that dwelt on the fact that Bush's controversial reprieve was so clearly at odds with mainstream public opinion.
In fact, on July 3, a Washington Post article reported that "there is "comfort" at the White House that the decision will not hurt [Bush] politically despite the Democratic outcry." That Post article failed to mention any polling data that would have raised serious doubts about the "comfort" claim. The same article referenced the "avalanche of criticism" the Bush decision had ignited, yet did not quote a single Democrat. It did however, quote four Republicans.
Writing in the July 6 Washington Post, columnist E.J. Dionne, cutting through the Beltway clutter, expressed his outrage and wondered if others felt the same way. "We spent months talking about Clinton's pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich. This [Libby] commutation is an even greater outrage because it involves the administration taking steps to slip accountability for its own actions," Dionne wrote. "Are we just going to let this one go by?"
Sorry, E.J., but the press already has.
The Whitehouse says "have it our way"
Either that, or there's the highway
With Darth Cheney in command
The lapdog press can't demand
Any stories that might make some hay
The press that once built this nation
Seems to be on vacation
The truth they once tackled
But now they're unshackled
Declaring their Libby-ration
At some point party politics will have to fall by the wayside. Even if the numbers arn't there. Will there be anything recognisable about our government pior to the next presidential election? Put impeachment on the table and see what kind of wildlife collects arround the idea. Even if the effort fails, its the right thing to do.
This has been borrowed from where I don't recall.
If the White House said tomorrow that the world was flat, the headlines the next day would say "Parties Differ On Shape Of Earth."
One of those "some people say," as in some people say the sun rises in the east. However...
Balance only gives dishonesty an equal footing with the truth (also borrowed).
I think a lot of the anger about our country being headed in the wrong direction is partly due to people feeling betrayed by the mainstream media (not just our politicians). That's why you see so many outraged CALLERS correcting Steven Moore's misinformation about the Plame Affair on NPR. People are angry that the actual "reporters" are failing to do their jobs and correct blatant lies.
I see this portrayed perfectly in the recent Michael Moore interview where he rips CNN and Wolf Blitzer. I've seen post after post of people just thrilled that somebody finally called the mainstream media out on their lies and pandering to Republicans.
I think you also see it in all the internet support for people like Ron Paul, who gained fame recently for pointing out the bogus talking points on the War on Terror.
People are sick of being lied to about these issues, so they embrace any figure who dares counter the corporate/administration spin.
If the mainstream media is not careful, THEY will become more and more irrelevant. Newspaper circulation will continue to drop. Ratings for network and cable news will continue to drop or remain stagnant. The public will make them pay by ignoring them more and more, and turning to new media like blogs in order hear the truth.
Thanks, Mr. Boehlert, for pointing out the situations that should have occasioned embarrassment throughout the Corporate Media. We needed the refreshers, or at least *I* did. But the sale of their respective souls includes the little-noticed clause that shame and embarrassment are no longer functions of the residual entity. So long as the Corporate/Repugnant alliance remains in effect, these creatures will demonstrate none of the characteristics of humanity, including shame for unworthy actions.
Actually the Rich pardon is currently getting more coverage than the Libby commutation. The very framing of the Libby/Plame matter has been as favorable as possible to Bush/Cheney. The whole focus was from the outset the narrow question of whether or not a specific statute had been broken. The real issue was that the administration was BY THEIR OWN STATEMENTS so reckless with the intelligence info which exposed Brewster Jennings that none of the men in positions of high authority bothered to determine if the information should be kept secret before giving it to the press. this failing was not an isolated mistake by just one of them it was an endemic recklessness. By allowing the issue to become the narrow violation of a single statute, the press allowed Bush to distract from a fundamental and simple issue. This administration is not sincere about the war on terror!!!
A major research institution (probably funded by a government subsidy) has just announced the discovery of the densest element yet known to science. The new element has been named "Bushcronium". Bushcronium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311.
These particles are held together by dark forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. The symbol for Bushcronium is "Du", as the symbol "W" was already taken by Tungsten.
Bushcronium' s mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons in a Bushcronium molecule, forming isodopes.
This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Bushcronium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass".
When catalyzed with money, Bushcronium activates Foxnewsium, an element that radiates orders of magnitude more energy, albeit as incoherent noise, since it has 1/2 as many peons but twice as many morons.
The "nucular" reaction alluded to below where Du combines with Foxnewsium (Fx) when bombarded by a moron beam yields: Du + m (morons) + Fx = DumFx which is sometimes phonetically pronounced to describe the nature of the isodope produced.
Although Faux Noise is the only “news” element mentioned in the formula, any other “news” element, i.e., CNN, ABC, CBS, WoPo, WSJ, etc., could be used just as well and get the same isodope.
You've advanced the physical sciences a generation or more in this single post. And some though e-mc2 was the final word!
I would like to say that I come up with this witty but overlooked scientific discovery.
However, it was sent to me via e-mail and I know not from where it came. I just want as many citizens as possible to think about "Bushcronium" and ponder its effect on our country.
My apologies if I've missed it, but has Media Matters ever asked NPR to explain its increasingly dismal performance? In particular, I'm infuriated by their reporters and anchors allowing neocon falsehoods to go unchallenged.
I'm eager to hear what NPR has to say. Does it even concede that its on-air talent does a piss-poor job at questioning the veracity of its guests? If not, how would NPR respond when presented evidence to the contrary? Would it simply insist that it does a stellar job without responding to the speficics of the question? Would it admit that its hiring standards have slipped and that some reporters are not bright enough to know when they're being jobbed? Or would it admit that it's scared witless at the power of the neocons and their regulatory/appropriations cudgel, and feel compelled to cater to the right wing.
I'd love to hear what NPR has to say. It might give me some material to give my local affiliate during its next fundraising drive.
Scurvybro,
You have made some great points and I will be asking my local NPR affiliate some hard questions as to why I should make a donation to them now or in the future.
Thanks for the suggestion..
....bush had a long debate on scooter's pardon.
from here >< to here. uncle dick said, junior, this guy might talk.
Rove I have a suggestion for your next circus act. When chimpy comes out to pardon Libby have him do a Nixon imitation of I'm not a crook.
Then have Cheney give chimpy a pretzel for doing good work.
The media will think the whole act was the right thing to do.
Scooter Libby found guilty on four counts; decides to cut a deal? Recent clues point to Abbott and Costello as original architects of Plame Leak. Grand Jury testimony of Scooter Libby, former Chief of Staff of the United States (COSTUS) for the Vice President, leaked by Rove-ing reporter (humor).
It is posted at: Libby Knows who Leaked First
Bobbing and weaving, a tangled web we do. Book him, Danno. Please keep my identity a secret. Double super Secret. Middle-aged, Middle-of-the-road, Mid-Westerner
We can only hope that Fitz doesn't fizzle. I think Mr. Fitzgerald's motto should be: "If you do a white collar crime then you will serve blue collar time." Look where he lodged Judith Miller. A few months in a blue collar jail and she was ready to sing. Unfortunately, she says she forgot the words
The Times the Post & the New Republic They Should Be A-Changin
Bloggers Request:
Come writers and critics Who prophesize with your pen And keep your eyes wide The chance won't come again And don't speak too soon For the wheel's still in spin And there's no tellin' who That it's namin'. For the loser now Will be later to win For the Times & Post should be a-changin'.
Good Bye Sulzberger, Keller, Miller, and Woodward!
Fitzgerald's response:
Come politician's, journalists Please heed the call Don't stand in the doorway Don't block up the hall For he that gets hurt Will be he who has stalled There's a battle outside And it is ragin'. It'll soon shake your windows And rattle your walls For the Sentencing, its a-comin'.
--Bob Dylan Perhaps for Rove?
Do you ever post comments under the name WritingIndependence?
I have lost patience with msm, and rarely watch or read it, but will note that amazingly, MSNBC has let David Schuster vehemently call out the Libby apologists as he covered the trial.
The "vast right-wing conspiracy," of which the msm has allowed themselves to be a part, is so organized in getting the talking points out and endlessly repeated. I realize the left is rarely even allowed to comment, but when they are, for God's sake, why can't they do a better job of refuting said talking points? When Libby lovers bring up Clinton's on-the-way-out pardons (totally irrelevant,) remind them that Libby was Marc Rich's attorney, and that Saint Ronny gifted as many felons as Clinton did.
remind them that Libby was Marc Rich's attorney
As an interesting but maybe irrelevant aside, Fitzgerald was Rich's prosecutor.
Apart from trying to ignore the whole story, the MSM has tried (as did Mara Liasson on Fox Noise on Sunday) to compare the Libby pardon to the Clinton pardons (notably Marc Rich).
Of course the real precedent is the Bush 41 pardons of the Iran Contra felons as the trail led closer to him. In fact, one of the felons, Elliot Abrams. who pled guilty, is comfortably ensconced in the White House as a senior advisor to W.
This is the real story, but of course memories are very short in D.C.
There has been no shortage in the world of Libby commentary. The Times interviews sources and tells us what they think. They tell us that the sources are from inside the White House and so we are smart enough to know that the story we're hearing comes from people with an interest in spreading it. The Times didn't hide anything. They treated us like adults which Eric apparently doesn't find useful. I just hope he doesn't come running with the tissue next time I find myself on the potty.
Shoveling loads of BS is treating us like adults. Thank you for that perspective...
There's another line of argument that I've seen many of the Libby apologists make that I've never seen a journalist question.
First, when asked about other perjuries or other commutations, they immediately get this glassy-eyed look and say that "each case is unique and must be judged on its own merits...on its own merits...on its own merits."
However, after another question or two, the same person who said that each case is unique IMMEDIATELY brings up the Marc Rich Pardon. I have yet to hear a reporter call the apologist on this. "You just said that each case must be judged on its own merits. How is the Rich pardon pertinent to Libby's commutation?"
Lastly, maybe this has been asked, but I haven't heard it: Did Libby ask for the pardon or commutation himself, or did Bush grant it without a request? If Libby did ask, should his request be made public? I would think a reporter who wants to know about a story would be interested in this little tidbit.
Classic editorializing from Isikoff in that Newsweek piece:
Dems 'howl', then 'lose steam' as White House aides 'remind the country' of something-or-other. This crap just sort of writes itself. Isikoff, of course, should have been fired after his disgraceful self-promotion during the Clinton 'scandals'....In the phrase "a serious and thoughtful Bush pouring over his legal options," you almost certainly mean "poring" --- though with Bush, who knows?
You write, "Indeed, as the Daily Howler noted, on Talk of the Nation, it was listeners calling in -- everyday citizens -- who were forced to do what NPR journalists would not: point out that the claim made by Moore has been rebutted by the CIA."
The irony here is that the inside-the-beltway press is scornful--often openly-so, as during their mutual stroke session with Tony Snow on The National Press Club, [link to thinkprogress.org] "regular folks." I well remember how scornful and resentful Cokie Roberts was on NPR when one of the Clinton debates (I can't remember which one) featured questions from "ordinary folks." Cokie told us that there was no way that regular people could ask the same kind of hard-hitting questions that trained members of the press could ask. They couldn't *possibly* get the answers that the attack dogs of the White House press corps would pry out of those secretive politicians, no sir!
It makes one ill.
"a serious and thoughtful Bush pouring over his legal options,"
The word in question is actually "poring" - somebody was in a rush or lacks a tiny piece of knowledge regarding the English language.
Really, Eric, if I didn't know it was you, I wouldn't know it was you.
Well, OK, the use of the word "lapdogs" kind of gives it away, but only for people who already know.
Who owns most of the media outlets? Who are the managers, editors, and decision-makers?
There is a serious problem with the media and their reporters and editors act oblivious to their implied or outright misinformation. Even though we can complain, there does not seem to be any action on the media's part to correct this centrist type attitude.