Spinonymous sources: Time's Allen granted anonymity to White House sources hyping Bush's "recovery plan"
SUMMARY: Time White House correspondent Mike Allen granted anonymity to Bush administration sources promoting new White House chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten's five-point "recovery plan," which Allen reported 'is aimed at pushing him [President Bush] up slightly in opinion polls and reassuring Republican activists." Allen also allowed an unnamed "Republican frequently consulted by the White House" to attack Democrats over rising diplomatic tensions with Iran.
In an article in the May 1 edition of Time magazine, White House correspondent Mike Allen granted anonymity to Bush administration sources promoting new White House chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten's five-point "recovery plan," which Allen reported "is aimed at pushing him [President Bush] up slightly in opinion polls and reassuring Republican activists." Allen also allowed an unnamed "Republican frequently consulted by the White House" to attack Democrats over rising diplomatic tensions with Iran. Allen did not indicate why he granted anonymity to sources praising Bush and this new initiative, nor did he provide a Democratic response to the "recovery plan" or to the unsourced attack.
Additionally, Allen identified one source simply as "a proponent of the [recovery] plan" -- completely obscuring from the reader not only the source's name but also any position of authority or experience from which that person may have been speaking.
Allen has previously allowed White House sources to anonymously praise Bush in the pages of Time. As Media Matters for America documented, Allen quoted a White House "aide" in the March 20 edition of Time claiming that Bush "quickly realized" that the conflagration in Congress over the deal that would have allowed Dubai Ports World to assume control of operations at six major U.S. ports was a "fiasco."
From Allen's May 1 Time article:
This is an unabashed play to members of the conservative base who are worried about illegal immigration. Under the banner of homeland security, the White House plans to seek more funding for an extremely visible enforcement crackdown at the Mexican border, including a beefed-up force of agents patrolling on all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). "It'll be more guys with guns and badges," said a proponent of the plan. "Think of the visuals. The President can go down and meet with the new recruits. He can go down to the border and meet with a bunch of guys and go ride around on an ATV."
[...]
In an effort to curry favor with dispirited Bush backers in the investment world, the Administration will focus on two tax measures already in the legislative pipeline--extensions of the rate cuts for stock dividends and capital gains. "We need all these financial TV shows to be talking about how great the economy is, and that only happens when their guests from Wall Street talk about it," said a presidential adviser. "This is very popular with investors, and a lot of Republicans are investors."
[...]
Presidential advisers believe that by putting pressure on Iran, Bush may be able to rehabilitate himself on national security, a core strength that has been compromised by a discouraging outlook in Iraq. "In the face of the Iranian menace, the Democrats will lose," said a Republican frequently consulted by the White House. However, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll this April 8-11, found that 54% of respondents did not trust Bush to "make the right decision about whether we should go to war with Iran."
Parts of this story seem to be so ridiculous that if the piece had appeared in, say, Rolling Stone, the anonymous quotes would be proof of administration absurdity.
"Guys with guns and badges..." Yeah! Could this story possibly be trying to make an anti-spin point? Or maybe it started that way and was toned down, deliberately or not, in the editing?
Or could it be "have your cake and eat it too" journalism, the best example of which was probably a cover on one of the newsweeklies in the early '80s during an exhaustively overcovered visit by the Prince and Princess of Wales.
"Princess Diana: Exploited By the Media?" screamed the cover, which of course allowed the publication to reap the same sales boost for which it was sanctimoniously criticizing other magazines.
I slept with Cheney and had his demon love child. Don't believe? Too bad, I don't have to prove it.
You can just make s**t up, and print whatever you want. Ranks up there with "many reliable sources have said" , "many experts and scientists agree" , "Our military sources have told us" , " 4 of 5 dentists agree" (just added that to see if anyone is paying attention). It's just amazing to me how the MSM can use unnamed sources to bolster their story and the public just eats it up without skepticism.
The White House expects these reporters to GO TO JAIL rather than reveal WHO in the White House it was that provided them with their "material" ... which is White House spin, wishful thinking, and outright lies.
Why would a "NEWS" source PRINT this garbage?
We are constantly being bombarded by White House statements that our economy is great, vibrant, and growing every year............and now these clowns acting as White House messengers are telling us about " recovery " .Recovery from what ??? and what I think is worse, the " White House " shakeup is really the " White House Musical Chairs ".
CBS let drop what appears to be a small bombshell yesterday, reporting that millions of Americans, who may not have read the fine print of their creative financing, will be in for a big surprise when (if I understood correctly) their heretofore low monthly payment, adjustable rate mortgages get readjusted later this year.
Fine. But at least give me the credit of knowing I am being lied to. Just have the "source" show up and go, "Are you ready, here comes the lie?" I at least would feel like I got a phone call after the one-night stand. At this point I really am not expecting anything else from these people.
How did stuff become MORE credible when provided by anonymous sources? This is a press release wrapped up to look like top secrets re. saving America. It reminds me of when corporations try to create buzz & mindshare to make something seem counter-culturish, hip & cool.
Just wait until the Republicans discover hip-hop.
Since when do we need a recovery plan if our country is supposedly doing so great?
Now cons want it both ways. They give Bush supporters the option of believing that the economy is fantasiticly booming or the option of believing that we need a NEW plan to recover from the recent economy for those Bush supporters that aren't falling for the previous Bush BS.
You are reminding me of something. Maybe it was an interview with Tom DeLay after he said he was leaving Congress. Maybe not. But some GOP figure broke with the party line about the great economy when it served his purpose (blaming Democrats of course) -- and the interviewer just let the (to me) glaring comment pass without further question or notice.
..you'd have to be cited as an "anonymous source" when speaking positively about the Bush administration.. that is, if you ever wanted to be taken seriously in politics again..
Well, obviously, that's Clinton's fault. I mean, things are great! Of course! Don't be ridiculous! The, uh, stocks are, record highs! Yeah! Consumer confidence is at an all-time high! But anyways, we can still improve even more! But uh, if you wanna quote me on that, do it anonymously!