Will media challenge first lady's criticisms of media -- now refuted by conservatives -- during interviews?
SUMMARY: Given that conservatives such as
Rich Lowry and Tony Blankley have challenged Laura Bush's assertion that
the media have failed to cover "a lot of good things that are
happening" in Iraq, will the media similarly take on the first
lady's baseless -- and at times outright false -- attacks on the media?
Following first lady Laura Bush's December 14 interview with MSNBC chief White House correspondent Norah O'Donnell, in which Bush asserted that the media have failed to cover "a lot of good things that are happening" in Iraq, National Review editor Rich Lowry, Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley, and New York Times columnist David Brooks have all weighed in, disputing the charge. As Media Matters for America noted, during the December 14 interview, O'Donnell did not dispute Laura Bush's assertion, consistent with a practice, also documented by Media Matters, of journalists not challenging the first lady's criticisms of the media's coverage of the Bush administration. Media Matters asks: Will the media generally take the example of Blankley, Brooks, and Lowry and take on the first lady's baseless -- and at times outright false -- attacks on the media?
President Bush himself offered further ballast for the media to challenge the first lady going forward, acknowledging in a December 19 interview with The Washington Post, that "[w]e're not winning, we're not losing" in Iraq, a statement the Post noted "was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, 'Absolutely, we're winning.' "
During the December 14 MSNBC interview, Laura Bush asserted, "I do know that there are a lot of good things that are happening [in Iraq] that aren't covered, and I think the drumbeat in the country from the media, from the only way people know what's happening, unless they happen to have a loved one deployed there, is discouraging." As Media Matters noted, beyond pointing out that "there are a lot of deaths every day," O'Donnell did not dispute the first lady's assertion; rather, she prompted her to elaborate on "some of those good things that people should know about," at no point mentioning that President Bush himself acknowledged, during a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on December 7, that the United States needs a "new approach" because "[i]t's bad in Iraq."
Writing about Laura Bush's statement during the interview, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz observed in his December 20 "Media Notes" column, "I no longer see most conservatives making this argument," a fact he described as "telling." Kurtz noted that Lowry and Brooks disputed Laura Bush's comments.
In his December 19 column, Lowry wrote, "The mainstream media is biased, arrogant, prone to stultifying group-think and much more fallible than its exalted self-image allows it to admit. It also, however, can be right, and this is most confounding to conservatives. In Iraq, the media's biases happen to fit the circumstances. ... The 'good news' that conservatives have accused the media of not reporting has generally been pretty weak."
On the December 17 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked Brooks to respond to Laura Bush's criticism of the media. Brooks said:
BROOKS: Get off of it. I mean, we've got a hero in our newspaper, [New York Times Baghdad bureau chief] John Burns. Another hero, [reporter] Dexter Filkins, a whole series of heroes over there. They're not biased about this. They want the best for the Iraqi people, they want democracy. Listen to what they're reporting. They're reporting chaos. You have 100 -- I don't know what it is, 1.6 million people leaving Iraq. You've got 9,000 Iraqis every week who are moving to their Shia homeland, or to their Sunni homeland. This is a country -- it's not civil war, it's just disintegration. So the idea that this is some media concoction, you -- I said that a year ago or two years ago. But at some point, face reality.
In addition, on the December 19 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson asked Blankley whether "this is fair criticism for Mrs. Bush, that this is actually much more positive in Iraq than we know?" Blankley responded, "[I]t is now unambiguously the case -- I've talked with enough people who are pro-war, who have been there to agree that the general perception that things are going very badly is accurate. And to say that that's no longer correct reporting --- whatever the media did badly in the past, I don't think is valid."
Media Matters has previously documented unchallenged attacks on the media by Laura Bush. On May 14, several media outlets left unrebutted Laura Bush's false claim that, when President Bush's approval ratings were "really high," or "when [his] poll numbers were good," "they weren't on the front page" of major newspapers. In fact, as The American Prospect's Greg Sargent noted on the Prospect's Tapped weblog at the time, The New York Times and The Washington Post published at least nine front-page articles touting President Bush's formerly high approval ratings and his lead in polls taken during the 2004 presidential campaign.
While interviewing Bush during the August 29 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, co-host Robin Roberts allowed her to dismiss an August 28 New York Times article documenting the widespread view that President Bush's handling of the aftermath on Hurricane Katrina has adversely affected his image. Roberts noted that the Times article referred to Bush's handling of Katrina as a "mark" on his administration and predicted that it "will be in every textbook," to which Laura Bush replied, "[T]hat's not right, of course, and I think we should consider the source." But Roberts did not note that the original "source" for the "mark" comment was not the Times, but James A. Thurber, the director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University, who was quoted in the article as saying: "This is a real black mark on his [Bush's] administration, and it's going to stay with him for a long time. ... It will be in every textbook.'' Roberts likewise did not note that the Times article examined the lasting effect of the federal government's shortcomings in responding to Katrina as perceived by Americans, reporting that polling showed 44 percent of American has "little or no confidence at all" in the government's "ability to respond to another natural disaster." The Times also noted that 39 percent of Americans described themselves as "dissatisfied with progress in the region," and "an additional 11 percent said they were angry."
From the December 19 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Very quickly, Tony. I mean, do you think this is fair criticism from Mrs. Bush, that this is actually much more positive in Iraq than we know?
BLANKLEY: Look, I mean, the media is almost always not completely accurate on almost every topic.
CARLSON: Right.
BLANKLEY: There's no doubt that in the early years of this war that the media was not getting out in the countryside and reporting some of the good news that was then occurring. However, it is now unambiguously the case -- I've talked with enough people who are pro-war who have been there to agree that the general perception that things are going very badly is accurate.
CARLSON: I agree.
BLANKLEY: And to say that that's no longer correct reporting -- whatever the media did badly in the past, I don't think is valid.
CARLSON: Right. I agree with you.
From the December 17 broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: It's been an interesting week in terms of the media and our coverage of Iraq. Both the first lady and the secretary of defense made suggestions as to what we should be doing. Let's watch the first lady first on MSNBC.
LAURA BUSH [video clip]: I do know that there are a lot of good things that are happening that aren't covered, and I think the drumbeat in the country from the media, from the only way people know what's happening unless they happen to have a loved one deployed there, is discouraging.
RUSSERT: A drumbeat that is discouraging. Here's the secretary of defense on Friday.
DONALD RUMSFELD (former secretary of defense) [video clip]: I mean, if you, if you just watched what's happening every time there's a bomb going off in Baghdad, you'd think the whole country's aflame. But you fly over it, and that's just simply not the case. There are people out in the fields working, and there's cars in the gas lines waiting to get fuel.
RUSSERT: What do you think?
BROOKS: Get off of it. I mean, we've got a hero in our newspaper, John Burns. Another hero, Dexter Filkins, a whole series of heroes over there. They're not biased about this. They want the best for the Iraqi people, they want democracy. Listen to what they're reporting. They're reporting chaos. You have 100 -- I don't know what it is, 1.6 million people leaving Iraq. You've got 9,000 Iraqis every week who are moving to their Shia homeland, or to their Sunni homeland. This is a country -- it's not civil war, it's just disintegration. So the idea that this is some media concoction, you -- I said that a year ago or two years ago. But at some point, face reality.















Print, television, radio and blogs by MM is so atrociously slanted to the right, and bereft of any real meaningful coverage, that they are their own joke...
Maybe if Laura stopped sleeping with Duhhbya, much less stupidity would rub off and/or be inhaled.
She is sleeping with Hillary.
Laura would be moving up in the world.
then she should by all means GO THERE and LIVE THERE for a while and report what SHE EXPERIENCES!!
Do we really need to go after the First Lady?
HOWEVER, the media showed NO mercy towards Hillary Clinton, so IF there's a good reason to challenge Laura Bush, OR any First Lady on remarks they've PUBLICLY made...well then--YES-- do it.
No immunity here.
...I was called out this morning by a particular rightie poster who thought my assertion of a conservative slant to the MSM was 'insane'. I, too, raised the point of how Bill, Hillary and Chelsae were all raked over the coals repeatedly and without mercy. Can't have it both ways. Or can we? I don't know...
If the First Lady (or First Dude) is going to assert themselves as a wholly owned subsidiary of their spouse's political views then they are open to attack when those view do not mesh with reality, be they Democrat, Republican or some impossible to imagine third party that will probably never ascend to power with the formers' stranglehold on the American power structure.
The first lady said the media never mentions the good things that happen in Iraq. She had the opportunity to mention at least one. I just wanted her to name one GOOD thing coming out of Iraq. Just like her silly husband, they talk without being specific. I understand her husband, he just stupid. She must know that.
The interviewers don't even challenge her statement, even after the Iraq Study Group reports that the military is underreporting violence in Iraq.
Where is this good news? When someone finds the good news, how will it stack up against the bad news?
Electricity might be restored to a neighborhood, but should that be the focus of the network news report? Wouldn't the media be negligent if they were to talk about schools re-opening, as tortured bodies are turning up on the streets every morning?
I know a husband and wife need to be close. I know that they need to support each other. One thing a spouse should never become is an enabler. We have a man in the White House who never hears criticism. Some one has to shake him and tell him, enough.
I've noted that a friend of mine was kidnapped with 7 other soldiers straight off the plane in Baghdad earlier this year, where was the news then? They found all eight, dead and mutilated, where was the news then? Can't hear about that great new swingset in Baghdad central when it's getting drowned out by kidnapped and murdered soldiers.
The Media has its own agenda. Right or Left, the Media screws us all. They say nada about the incident you mention, and nothing about a heroic act. You hear more about Madona and Paris. Makes me sick. Plain sick.
There have been GN inspectors in iraq for some time, but they have found none of the promised GN. The president insists that there is GN in iraq, and has fired his staffers and intelligence professionals who insist that, contrary to the opinions of Bush and the project for a new american century, there was never any GN in iraq.
I think that the whole GN thing was a concoction that was used to fool us into the war.
I think Laura said earlier that "most of Iraq" is peaceful. That's true; if you fly over and look down at the desert, it looks very serene, as Rummy pointed out. However, if you look in Baghdad, WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE...it's in the crapper!
In 9/11 most of the USA was peaceful, except NYC.
In last three years the media has been more credible than White House. May be media did not or could not cover couple of good things here and couple of bad things there, but whatever media reported is more or less true and factual. On the other hand, whatever White House said in last three years are neither truth nor factual. Who is more credible? Media or White House?
Same way, I would assume that whatever First Lady is saying is LESS CREDIBLE than whatever media reporting.
It's time White House including First Lady tries to be little bit more credible before complaining about media.
I disagree. The media is full of vermin.
No way I am giving free pass to media. However, I said that media is MORE credible compare to White House.
Your "vermin" comment is irrelevent. Even if media is full of vermins, that does not make White House more credible.
The White House has Zero credibility; the Press, in general, has slightly more, though not much. Despite the ubiquitous bogus yammering on the Right about "Liberal Media Bias", the mainstream press has for the most part given Bush a pass. When you compare the 8-year anal exam they gave Clinton to the puffball treatment of Bush after 9/11, the difference is striking.
I can not compare to the Clinton days because then I was only worried about my band and my next girlfriend. I am on the same page with you, I jsut can not stand the media. The White House, that is a given these days. The Media, is only helping the White House, and the Haters to ruin America.
yes they have credability, no other supposed 'real' news show has been able to retain much if any.
The day Laura made her " Good things" comment I saw a vidio clip on Micheal Moore site where a G.I. in back of a truck diriving the streets in Baggdad was teasing little boys with a bottle of water. The boys chased the truck long enough that I got the idea that the bottle of water was more than a novelty. When the asshole finally threw the bottle and adults jumped into the street to westled over it , I came to the conclusion that clean water is hard to come by. After 3 years of occupation is this a" Good thing" ? Lettem drink Coke.
That when the US was being formed it was years before things were "good". After the American Civil War it was years of reconstruction before things were "good". Why does everyone seem to think that Iraq is supposed to be a utopia overnight? It takes time to build a government and rebuild and infrastructure destroyed by Saddam Hussein and his oppresive regime. It will even take longer with these poeple for hundreds of years they have had someone else telling them what to do. They now get to choose trheir own path and that will take time. It is important to encourage them by reporting all of ther news. The Iraq economy booming despite the war, water treatment plants opening, electrical grids being repaired, and soldiers volunteering to go back because they know they are doing good. All the media is doing is reporting soldier death total and false civilian death totals. (I say false becaue the largest numbers coming out of Iraq for civilian deaths is not based on an actual body count but rather door to door interviews). Don't get me wrong this is news. However, if any news outlet is to consider themselves fair or balanced they need to report on every aspect.
'The Iraq economy booming despite the war, water treatment plants opening, electrical grids being repaired, and soldiers volunteering to go back because they know they are doing good."
How much weight does any of this carry when compared to weekly reports of dead mutilated bodies being found around the country in Iraq. Even if they followed a story like that up with a new pwer grid being turn on, how many people would pay attention.
What is a more news worthy?
4 marines die in an IED explosion or Elementry school opens doors and it even has running water (even though there are gun fights happening a block away).
Three unfortunate mountain climbers go missing here and the media treats it like that's the only thing going on in the world for a week.
Like I said the bad news should be reported but not at the expense of good.
yo know who are the biggest threat is all the people who came to the us after ww1, African American has been here since the beginning of this country, we have fought and died for this country and by this country, and in the year 2006 we still have to put up with this bull, it is only our fault, we fight for a country that still think we are second class citizen, but we won't fight for our selves, so we get what we we are given and accept, so it's on the African American community to say to itself that we paid our dues, and still we are being treated as second class citizen, it time to step up to the plate.
Where did that come from?
African Americans are a perceived minority. They have more power and influence and than any other so called minority in the US. Also, unless you were born in Africa and immigrated to the US and got citizenship you are not an African American you are simply American. Black leaders need to follow Bill Cosby's example and teach responsibility to their youth and community as a whole.
I think comparing the early history of the US with the currnet situation in Iraq is unwise at best. YES, there was a space of year between independence and the ratification of our Constitution. 4 years in fact (1787-1791). But that's where all similarity ends. While we did have militias, lacking as we did a standing army in those days, our militias were loyal to the states, not clerics or other non government entities. They did not roam the streets of Boston, Philadelphia or New York killing anyone who might be associated with the royalists, prior to the revolution. Ours was not a case of newly freed colonials taking revenge for past oppressions. Nor was ours the case of having an occupation by a foreign army. We were liberated because we chose to be. This was not decided for us by some other government. But I digress.
I agreefully with those who ask the simple question "If the administration wants to complain that the media is not covering ' all the good things in Iraq ' why don't they name these ' good things '? ".
Oh, and one small thing Loki, the Iraqi infrastructure was destroy by us, not Saddam. It was part of the war plan. Cut communications, power grids to put the Iraqi Army in the dark and unable to communicate. We did broke that, WE need to fix it.
Saddam Hussein prevented many advances in his country. The infrastructure was allowed to crumble all just to try to show the World that sanctions were hurting them when they weren't. IF the only infrastructure that was destroyed was by us in our targeted attacks then it would already be fixed.