For the record: Media figures admit they have been easy on Bush White House since 9-11
In recent weeks, several prominent journalists have publicly acknowledged that the U.S. media accorded President Bush too much deference following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman and NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams both noted that it was only in observing government failures in the Hurricane Katrina relief effort that journalists began seriously to challenge the administration. NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell conceded that reporters have been "less challenging" since the attacks. Friedman wrote that the 9-11 attacks created in the media a "deference" towards the administration. Williams described the press corps as "settling in to too comfortable a journalistic pattern," a phenomenon he described as the "9/11 syndrome."
On the September 23 edition of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, on which Mitchell was a guest, host Maher referred to Mitchell's tough questioning of Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir during a July trip to Sudan with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's delegation. The Sudanese leader's security guards forcibly removed Mitchell from the press briefing after she asked about his involvement with the ongoing atrocities there:
MAHER: But by the same token, I don't think you would ever be able to ask those kind of questions you were asking to that man to George Bush either, would you?
MITCHELL: Well, I think you can. It doesn't always happen. I've been looking back at all of this -- it's one of the reasons I wrote the book -- and I think there has been self-censorship. And that since 9-11, or after 9-11, there was sort of a rallying around -- and understandable sort of patriotic effect -- and I think reporters were less challenging.
From Friedman's September 21 column (subscription required), titled "Bush's Waterlogged Halo":
Katrina deprived the Bush team of the energy source that propelled it forward for the last four years: 9/11 and the halo over the presidency that came with it. The events of 9/11 created a deference in the U.S. public, and media, for the administration, which exploited it to the hilt to push an uncompassionate conservative agenda on tax cuts and runaway spending, on which it never could have gotten elected. That deference is over.
From a September 17 Los Angeles Times article headlined "TV Journalists Stay on Story, and Say It Will Stay With Them":
[Brian] Williams, the NBC anchor, is now pondering how the press has covered the government -- and whether the news media has been tough enough.
"I think we've always had our voice," he said. Still, "I do think -- and this is a subject for a long-term study -- the news media have been operating under a loose kind of 9/11 syndrome.
"Perhaps we are guilty of settling in to too comfortable a journalistic pattern, and perhaps this tragedy did serve as a reminder that this is what we do," Williams added. "I think too many people had forgotten that. There is a reason we show up after awful events. We really were the viewers' advocates on this."
Look out Scott McClellan! Here comes the questioners!
Please, as long as their corporate overlords have the informational noose, BushieCo can expect the same softballs. You half expect Gannon/Guckert to show up at the next press conference dressed in drag working for the "GE News Service."
"Go ahead, Jeffrina."
"Perhaps we are guilty of settling in to too comfortable a journalistic pattern" -Brian Williams
------------------------------------------------------
Nah...Ya think?
Admitting you have a problem is half the battle. Now we will see if they will actually do something about it. I suspect it will be Business as usual. We will certainly see. I think if the media were to realize that they are pandering to a minority they might think twice about their "marketing" strategy.
Yeah, talk is cheap. It's one thing to admit that you've been negligent, it's another to do anything about it. Like you, I don't expect anything to change. The non-coverage of the Iraq disaster and other improprieties of the Bush administration is likely to continue.
I've been saying this for some time, but, since those posts usually get deleted, I'll repeat myself: the free, independent press that brought Nixon to account is dead; the Conservatives have intimidated it, corporatized it and propagandized it to the point that you have to read the foreign press to find out what's going on.
"...you have to read the foreign press to find out what's going on." by nerzog
I agree with your point but the WWW with sites such as this that aren't foreign also are a great source of info. Our media is beyond pathetic and we are fortunate for sites such as this, just the slander towards MMFA from O'Reilly is enough to show it is clearly a thorn in his and other blowhards side. Daily Kos, Smirking Chimp and the list goes on are great sources of a different viewpoint. We can only hope the conservatives don't regulate our freedom of speech here as some have said they would like to do, the internet is really the only place left for decent info not to mention some good laughs when logging on to Newsmax or some other conservative site.
My oversight stands corrected. Without links from websites like those you mentioned, I might never have found those British articles. The bloggers have been fighting the good fight, and are to be commended. I admire the work MMFA is doing, but their delete-happy moderator is out of control.
"I admire the work MMFA is doing, but their delete-happy moderator is out of control." --nerzog
---------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely!
Nerzog and Open_mind. I agree as well. WorldasMaya
Nice of these "journalists" to finally come clean about what most of us already knew, that they were soft on this administration. The 9-11 excuse doesn't wash, they should have been able to rise above that, acted like the professionals they're supposed to be. Such a shame these "journalists" are just coming around now, think what they might have accomplished by putting this administration's feet to the fire during the buildup to the Iraq War. As far as I'm concerned they, along with the Bush administration, have blood on their hands.
Our advocates? Oh please, don't make me laugh.
Tommy,
I agree with you. The media should ask the tough questions no matter who they are interviewing, both left and right. Politicians and bureaucrats are always trying to pass the buck, pass the blame, and pass the plate. We need objective, hard punching journalists to keep these people pinned into the corner.
However we need these reporters to be unbiased and fair at the same time. The problem today is that it seems like everyone has an agenda including MMFA and the mainstream press. If Williams/Friedman/Mitchell would admit that point, they would go a long way to alleviating the cynicism that most people feel toward the press.
The difference between MSM and MMFA is that MMFA clearly states their "agenda".
Here's an indication. L. Brent Bozell III, the clown who runs the reactionary "Media Research Center," announced that his org's avowed mission, after Sept. 11th, was to act as a propaganda arm of the Bush White House. Here's what he to say on the matter, in promotional material for his organization:
"We are training our guns on any media outlet or any reporter interfering with America's war on terrorism or trying to undermine the authority of President Bush."
Regular followers of Bozell and the MRC (and readers of Media Matters, which has also noted this fact) are already aware that the MRC's idea of "liberal bias" in the press is the failure of the press to strongly enough (and consistently enough) parrot conservative talking points--they can find a socialist "tilt" in a weather report. Here's what Bozell was saying about the press in the aftermath of the terror attacks:
"...in the unforgettable present, as now our own land has come under attack, as our own citizens have died needlessly in collapsing heaps of metal and cement, as the crushing reality hits that our very freedom is now imperiled, our national press corps has responded, showing that in a real crisis, they are the best of the best. I know I speak for millions when I offer a heartfelt thank you to our entire national media for their sobriety, their sincerity and their refreshing sense of national purpose. Like all our leaders, they have responded to tragedy by showing us how to display the best of ourselves when we're feeling the worst." --Bozell (09/17/01)
In the weeks after this, Bozell would, from time to time, use his column as an opportunity to slander a few critics of the "War On Terrorism," but his position on the performance of the press remained unchanged:
"Surely, the media are doing something right when this Blame America First crowd accuses them of 'pandering to the public's appetite for revenge.' In this conflict so far, our media have not succumbed to the above-America lobby, that the high calling of journalism is all about alienated 'independence,' somehow above being a neighbor or a citizen. They have suffered with all of us, and they are welcome in our saddened homes." --Bozell (09/21/01)
"Much has been written about the terrific job done by so many in the wake of the Sept. 11 horror. Now Hollywood is weighing in, and it's played it well so far." --Bozell (09/26/01)
"...in this struggle, the far left is all alone, thoroughly out of the mainstream of political thought. As America struggled to process the toll of death and destruction, even the media elite cast aside their usual usual wartime cynicism. In the days following Sept 11, there was no wave of obnoxious claims that this President Bush had something to prove about his manhood or his military record. There was no declaration that this was somehow a conflict masking greedy designs for oil or other resources. There were no breast-beating demands for a reporter on every secret mission. As the war began, there was very little liberal bias, and conservative critics could only respond by thanking the media for the sobriety of their coverage. This must be driving [liberal columnist] Norman Solomon nuts." --Bozell (01/03/02)
When I saw Andrea Mitchell on Maher's show, I saw what happens all too often these days: when the shoe gets slipped onto the other foot, it doesn't prevent tap dancing. Several times, Mitchell weaseled out of a direct answer.
Not that it's a valid excuse, but maybe weaseling is contagious.
One thing is certain: over the past four years, Mitchell's been exposed to an epidemic of it.
drafted - I agree with you about the weaseling by both sides. One of the reasons I like listening to talk radio, (both left and right,) is the fact that they don't mince their words.
I wish politicians and media personalities could see how foolishly they look and sound when they don't answer direct questions.
Its too bad that politics has devolved to the point where evasive non answers are considered less harmful by those sophists than truthful ones.
I heard Mitchell on NPR's "On Point." The host asked her about being too "establishment" and being unable to connect with the poor. She was agreeable until he used a photograph of her at Gerald Ford's 90th birthday as an example. She attended that with her husband, Alan Greenspan, wore a gold dress, had her picture made with Ford, etc. She explained that her life wasn't really like that. That particular party was a very, very special occasion.
Apparently if you only go to one Washington insider high-society party every couple of years vs one every couple of weeks, it means you can still totally connect with people in abject poverty.
Clearly Mitchell is trying to sell her book and the voracity of her, or any 'reporters', pradle will be in their actions or lack thereof.
Where'd the Karl Rove questions go? Where'd the 8+billion dollars go in Iraq? Why is Brownie being paid as a consultant? Why is Tom Delay able to 'skate' around with his buddy haster? Why is the FDA getting involved with proffering religious opinion? WHY is there NO bi-partisan investigation of failures related to Katrina Why didn't Amtrak run on time?
Her 'lip-service' is nothing more than a job...of sorts. I find the press' failures and their allowing of shifting power from that of the WHPB room seats to the person behind the lecturn to be veiled and disgusting abdication of 'freedom of the press'. Freedom of the press...what an absurd notion brought about by those who peddle it.
If the press views reporting on Hurricane Katrina as some sort of sophomoric vindication for their performance the last 4-5 years.....it's only a start! They've a long way to go to resemble anything that could be construed as 'integrity'.
WorldasMaya
Enough of these scripted news conferences and wishy washy hold hand press conferences. The media, if it had half its wits about it, could bury this administration. They let everyone dance around questions without appoaching anything that romotely resembles a coherent answer. How about a president that will "shot from the hip" and give an answer about something, anything. He claims to be a straight shooter/talker, but he can't say more than one sentence in a row without pausing and saying something about hard work. It's been time for the media to step up for a long time and demand these answers. Questions about the war, poverty, deficits, tax cuts and who they're going to, education, big business, government contracts, appointments........you can probably add to that list quite a bit. Scott McClellen probably laughs his ass of after every update he gives thinking to himself "how much more B.S. can i say until they catch on." I think the "Journalists" should start with McClelland and move their way up.
Media admit
That they were total lapdogs
Still won't change a thing
What I find a bit amusing here is the idea that some think the "Media" is really being objective here and finally confessing its sins. They are not. It is simply a few partisan hacks on the left patting themselves on the back for essentially nothing.
Look at who MMFA uses as the examples. Noted lefties Andrea Mitchell, Thomas Friedman, and Brian Williams. Hahahah.. of course they think the media has been too soft on Bush, but I only ready the supporting article once, but I don't remember seeing any of the three saying they personally were too soft on him; they just say it is the media in general.
Of course they think the media is too soft on Bush. These three media personalities are pushing their own leftist agendas.
I am of the opinion that Williams, Friedman, and Mitchell further marginalize themselves and their profession by making these partisan and biased remarks. They are telling all the world that they think their profession has not been doing its job. (The irony is that both left and right agree that they do not.) They want us to believe that this disaster in New Orleans, where anybody can see the government at all levels failed, supposedly woke them up? Come on! It doesn't take a genius to see that the government failed. Everyone is asking the tough questions, (as well they should).
Williams/Friedman/Mitchell are flat out wrong. The media isn't out in front reclaiming their lost legacy. No, they are simply riding the along as they always have. They just have some fresh material to work with.
It seems obvious to me that these three, (and of course, MMFA,) are just pandering to their own constituencies which we all know, is mostly the far left Bush haters.
I would have to respectfully disagree with your point that MMFA and these three are pandering to the far left Bush haters. MMFA is doing what they do and pointing out these media figures are admitting to going easy on Bush. If one doesn't like or hates Bush is not really important, and their agenda left or right doesn't really matter as well. For example, I would have to call Friedman just left of center, barely, not very leftist in my opinion, and he has been soft on Bush. It could be Novak saying these things and it wouldn't matter. Pandering or not, the media has been soft on Bush and now a few figures involved have had the guts to admit it, pretty simple.
"Noted lefties Andrea Mitchell, Thomas Friedman, and Brian Williams."
What on earth are you basing that on?
"I am of the opinion that Williams, Friedman, and Mitchell further marginalize themselves and their profession by making these partisan and biased remarks."
Your "noted lefties" joke is explained above. Without painting them absurdly as such, you have no basis for calling the remarks partisan or biased. You might actually have to admit the media HAS been soft on Bush, which many of us (including me, many times) have pointed out.
"No, they are simply riding the along as they always have. They just have some fresh material to work with."
This is a veiled lie, suggesting that this is the first big story they could have jumped on en masse. It's not. There have been many truly damaging stories that have been largely or completely ignored, and you full well know that. Your attempt to discredit the notion that Bush hasn't had any serious scrutiny from the MSM up until Katrina reeks of desperation.
The evolution of the phrase "far-left Bush-haters" has been interesting to watch. It has basically become a strange saftey net, not only for the preisident, but for any member of his administration, or any republican in general. Someone says we have an enourmaous defecit, well, they're just a "far-left Bush-hater." Someone questions the logic of our current course in Iraq, well, they're just a "far-left Bush hater." We are living in an age of denial. And this is the man (Bush)who promised to restore "integrity and personal responsibility" to the white house during his campaign in 2000. Now, he can neither do, not admit, any wrong. The ability of the president and his supporters to be self critical is non-existent. How many times have we heard "Clinton did this" or "Clinton did that." News flash for Bush's inner circle: You guys are in charge now. It's time to step up and be leaders.
Maybe right after 9-11 I can understand being caught up in some kind of patriotic fever and not asking tough question. But the current moron-in-chief quickly showed that his true intention was Iraq and a very shallow look at the "facts" show no real evidence of Iraq involvement. At that point I can't believe intelligent people could not see that tough questions were needed. To let this go for years is inexcusable. Too late now, the idiot is president for 4 more years due to their laziness or stupidity I hope they sleep well at night.
Right friggin' on.
Before he was first elected, I believed that Duhhbya was nothing more than a puppet and, like then, I am still amazed at how gingerly he has been pummeled by marshmallow questions from the press.
Whether or not his mental midgetness is an act, it's like the MSM doesn't want to pick on someone that appears to have ridden to school on the short bus.
The MSM can try all it wants to hold Bush and his cronies responsible for their incompetence, it won't make any difference. Rove and company will smear the attacker, spin like a top, issue talking points for all the Righty media talking heads to parrot and by the next day we'll all be lapping up the lies.
tonight, flipping the channels, i inadvertently lighted on the fox, and saw colmes talking to neil cavuto; something about wearing American Flag lapel pins. and maybe they were discussing whether it signifies pro-administration, or whatever, i didn't hear enough of it, so i don't know (and don't care); but then i heard cavuto take the controversial position of, yes, i wear one, and then he offered the insightful...
NEIL CAVUTO: I'd rather be a good American than be a good journalist.
...that's an exact quote, not a paraphrase or words-to-that-effect.
now, i know he was referring to flag lapel pins, but given that his (and fox’s') "journalism" seems more a public relations campaign for the RNC in general, and the bush administration in particular, than it does an objective reporting of the affairs of government, does this mean that a critical analysis (and critical questioning) of this administration is not being a "good American"? or that a "good journalist" is not what a post-9-11 America needs? i know he didn't say that, but think again about what he said, not in the context of lapel pins, but in how he (and fox) reports their brand of "news"; and think of the distinction between being a "good American" and a "good journalist" (he made that distinction, not me); and think of bob woodward and carl bernstein, and see if you don't agree, that...
America (and all good Americans), now more than ever, need good journalists.
in flipping channels, and inadvertently catching fox’s' cavuto, reminded me that, i'd much rather see "good journalists" on the tv "news", than "good Americans"; that is, if being a "good American" means being a highly-paid suckup to the bush administration, as is cavuto.
heck, i'm as lazy and inaccurate as the fox itself; having previously posted...
"NEIL CAVUTO: I'd rather be a good American than be a good journalist.
...that's an exact quote, not a paraphrase or words-to-that-effect."
...i find a subsequent mmfa item [link to mediamatters.org] doing a better job than me, and giving the truly exact quote...
NEIL CAVUTO: I would much sooner go down as a pretty good American when I try to be versus a good journalist. The good journalist thing is not nearly as important.
...as opposed to the hastily (and lazily) inaccurate quote of mine.
good job as always, mmfa. accuracy counts; it's the whole point.
and if lazy, inaccurate quotes, are where the fox and i share common ground, then a regretful correction in pursuit of truth and accuracy, is where we differ.
Frist, Delay, Cheney (Haliburton), Bush (Haliburton, energy, drugs), Rove (Rovegate, master of dirty tricks) . . . the five heads of our Administration, the Senate and House . . . which family, the mafia?
And we say the media's flaming liberal/pinko communist.
Blame Clear Channel and NewsCorp for going TOO easy on Bush. Between the two of them (companies), only own the majority of the market.
I know I'm getting ahead of myself as, barring impeachment, we've still got years of Bush leadership to suffer through, but I started thinking about George W. Bush as an ex-president. Will he be seen as some kind of "elder-statesman?" What will he do? What role will he play in Amercian and global politics? Will he do something to help mankind, like Carter? Will he get even more involved with big business, like his father? What does the future hold for G.W.B, ex-president?
"What does the future hold for G.W.B, ex-president?"
I couldn't help but to recall these lines from one of my very favorite movies;
"I say, the higher he climbs, the harder he drops. I say, yes, the kid has a future, and in it I see shame, dishonor, ignominy and disgrace."
brabantio - Wednesday September 28, 2005 11:15:19 AM EST
Hopefully the future for Bush, if there is any justice in the world will include a trail for war crimes at the Hague and a long prison sentence. If the Nuremberg laws were applied he would be hung
as an ex-president, gwb will not only enjoy all the glory, adulation, and immunity that he presently basks in, he'll enjoy more of it, and enjoy it more; there's nothing like the weepy reminiscence of the greatness of our former leaders; and there's no easier job than sitting back and uttering the occasional wise saying while enjoying that weepy reminiscence of greatness, as ex-presidents do.
but boy o boy, when the 28 page conclusion of the Congressional Report: Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 is finally declassified (as we must see to it that it is), then the poop will hit all of gwb's fans, and his ease (and immunity) will disappear as quickly as one can say INDICTMENT.
the report is found here...
[link to www.gpoaccess.gov]
...and the conclusion, which is part 4 of that report, is here...
[link to a257.g.akamaitech.net]
...and while it's a bit frustrating trying to read the 28 blanked out pages of that conclusion, what they say is that, the saudi royal family (gwb's "good friends") was the sponsor of the attacks on 9-11; and not only that, but that an fbi informant was not only close to the hijackers, but actually lived with them!
boy o boy, such a (suppressed) conclusion hasn't wrecked gwb's presidency, but maybe that 28 Page INDICTMENT will someday ruin his glorious retirement (as we must see to it that it does).
e gads and little fishes!
it only know presents itself to my eyesight; of the two links i provided which give you the joint congressional inquiry's report on 9-11: while the first, and front door, of those two, is the gpo's server, the second is of a server maintained by Akamai Technologies Inc.
i got dollars i'll bet against donuts, nobody except a handful of folks beside me, knows how Akamai Technologies Inc. is related (tragically) to the 9-11 attacks.
e gads and little fishes! the coincidence boggles my mind!