Tumulty said it's "absurd" to attack U.S. press for not challenging Bush, while Froomkin praised U.K. press' "different tack"

On December 8, Time magazine national political correspondent Karen Tumulty and washingtonpost.com columnist Dan Froomkin appeared to offer very different takes on questions from American and British reporters at the December 7 joint press conference with President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In response to an email read on the December 8 edition of the National Public Radio-distributed Diane Rehm Show, in which the e-mailer mentioned a "very tough" question asked by a British reporter and wrote that it is "infuriating" that "[r]eporters in this country are still not taking this president to task about Iraq or any of his other botched policies," Tumulty said "the idea that the American press has not raised these questions is absurd." Tumulty added: "I don't think that, you know, one particular question in a press conference, where reporters tend to be asking to impress each other as much as anything else, is a measure of the entire American press corps." By contrast, in his December 8 column, Froomkin wrote: "Long live the British press!" He added: "American reporters dutifully but fruitlessly tried to get Bush to explain what he meant. Their colleagues from across the pond took a different tack."

The press conference was held to discuss the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report, which was released December 6. The report characterized the situation in Iraq as "grave and deteriorating." During the press conference, Bush and Blair called on six different reporters -- three American and three British -- for questions about the ISG report. BBC News political editor Nick Robinson said Bush's response to the report "won't convince many people [who believe] that you're still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq, and question your sincerity about changing course."

Below is a list of the questions asked by American reporters and British reporters at the December 7 press conference:

Questions from the American press:

• Terence Hunt, the Associated Press: "Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister, neither of you has shown much doubt about your Iraq policies. Do you acknowledge that your approach has failed, as Baker-Hamilton suggests? And are you willing to engage directly with Syria and Iran and pull out most combat forces by early 2008, unless there's unexpected circumstances?"
• Steve Holland, Reuters: "Thank you, sir. You mentioned Iran and Syria as part of this regional effort. Are you willing to engage with them directly as the report -- as the report recommends? And back to the issue of the troops, is it possible to get them out of Iraq by early 2008, as the report talks about? And when do you hope to have this report?"
• James Gerstenzang, Los Angeles Times: "Mr. President, you have said that you have the Baker-Hamilton report, you also have the -- you're waiting to hear from the Pentagon, you're waiting to hear from the State Department. This report was prepared by a bipartisan group, the only one you'll get. Secretary Baker has a special relationship with the family. Should this report not get extra consideration? Does it not carry more weight than any of the others?"

Questions from the British press:

• Nick Robinson, BBC News political editor, to Bush: "Mr. President, the Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as 'grave and deteriorating.' You said that the increase in attacks is unsettling. That won't convince many people [who believe] that you're still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq, and question your sincerity about changing course. ... Why did it take others to say it before you've been willing to acknowledge it for the world -- "
  
  Robinson to Blair: "I just wanted to ask you about your Middle East mission, if I may. Given your trip to the Middle East, isn't the truth of what the Arab-Israeli solution -- sorry, isn't the truth of what the Arab-Israeli problem requires is not, however hard you try, another visit by a British prime minister, but the genuine commitment -- and not merely in words -- of an American administration that's serious about doing something about it?"
  
• Unknown British reporter: "I'll try to be succinct. Mr. President, two years ago, you said that you were ready to expend political capital on the Israel-Palestinian situation. With hindsight, do you think you've fulfilled that intention? How closely do you see a linkage between what happens in Israel-Palestine and a settlement in Iraq, achieving your goals?
  
  "And Prime Minister, given that you were so recently in the Middle East and the situation hasn't exactly improved since then, is there anything specific you're hoping to achieve next week when you go back?"
• Bill Neely, ITV News, to Bush: "Mr. President, the Iraq Study Group said that leaders must be candid and forthright with people. So let me test that. Are you capable of admitting your failures in the past, and perhaps much more importantly, are you capable of changing course, perhaps in the next few weeks?"
  
  Neely to Blair: "Prime Minister, you promised the British military whatever it takes to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the former head of the British Army says the British military is not being funded properly for the job it's being asked to do. Do you accept that?"

From the December 8 edition of WAMU's The Diane Rehm Show:

REHM: Welcome back to our Friday news roundup. And here is an email from Ellen, who says, "The first thing I said to myself when I heard a British reporter asking President Bush that very tough and obvious question about Iraq yesterday was, "Why doesn't a U.S. reporter ask it?' Reporters in this country are still not taking this president to task about Iraq or any of his other botched policies. I find it infuriating."

JOSEPH CURL (Washington Times White House correspondent): Well, one of the things that happens in press conferences is the -- usually what the president will do is take two questions from each side. So then you have almost always the AP and Reuters reporters asking the questions, and they are very strictly on policy. They are on minutia and moving things along. So both of them asked the same question yesterday -- the question about, you know, pulling out troops by 2008, talking with Iran and Syria. There were two questions on that. If she's referring to the --

REHM: No, she's referring --

CURL: -- she's referring to the question on denial. Whether President Bush is still in denial.

REHM: Exactly. Because he said -- I think Tony Blair was asked the question afterwards, but Bush's answer was very equivocal relating to the conclusion of the Baker report.

CURL: Well, but he was very stern, though. I mean, he, you know -- he made that flip little answer first, like, you know, "I know what's happening. Is that good enough?" But then to this reporter, he repeatedly jabbed his finger at him saying, "I know what's going on over there. I understand. I'm not in denial." So it's -- it was again -- you know -- U.S. reporters have asked this question many times, you know, "What do you blame yourself for? What are the biggest mistakes you've made?" This president doesn't do that. He's not a navel-gazer. He doesn't look in the mirror and think about these things or certainly admit them. So it's a question that really actually doesn't go anywhere. It has been asked and not answered.

TUMULTY: Well, and the idea that the American press has not raised these questions is absurd. I mean, there is right now a best-selling book written by one of the premier American reporters, Bob Woodward, called State of Denial. So I don't think that, you know, one particular question in a press conference, where reporters tend to be asking to impress each other as much as anything else, is a measure of the entire American press corps.