Newsweek article on Bush marked by "spinonymous" sourcing, soft-pedaling of Bush's admitted falsehood
A February 12 Newsweek article by senior White House correspondent Richard Wolffe, White House correspondent Holly Bailey, and assistant managing editor Evan Thomas on President Bush's purported tendency to compare himself to Harry Truman granted anonymity to several Bush aides who praised the president, in seeming violation of the magazine's guidelines that state "the burden of proof should lie with the reporters and their editors to show why a promise of anonymity serves the reader."
In addition, Wolffe, Bailey, and Thomas wrote that after the election, Bush "virtually admitted that he held back" information regarding former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation until after the election. In fact, Bush flatly stated that he deliberately deceived the press and the public about Rumsfeld for political reasons.
Wolffe, Bailey, and Thomas twice cited anonymous Bush administration officials praising the president:
Bush's grasp of history may have been a little shaky, but there is no doubting the force of his conviction. Bush wants his legacy to be the long-term defeat of Islamic extremism. Indeed, senior officials close to Bush who did not wish to be identified discussing private conversations with the president tell NEWSWEEK that Bush's plan after he leaves the White House is to continue to promote the spread of democracy in the Middle East by inviting world leaders to his own policy institute, to be built alongside his presidential library.
[...]
Those who see the war as a growing disaster might be surprised by Bush's ability to remain upbeat. When he visits the families of the dead, or sees the casualties come home from the battlefront, doesn't he have crises of confidence? Doesn't he wonder if he's made a terrible mistake that has cost the lives of more than 3,000 Americans and more than 54,000 Iraqis, not to mention the stature and prestige of the United States? Those close to Bush say that such questions misunderstand a fundamental aspect of his character: he doesn't get tangled up thinking about his own mistakes in the raw, recent times of his own making. "He's the least backward-looking person I have ever known in my life," says a senior staffer who didn't want to be named discussing the president's emotional state. Bush laments the casualties, says the aide, but never regrets the decision to go to war.
As Media Matters for America has noted (here, here, and here), Newsweek -- Wolffe and Bailey in particular -- has previously granted anonymity to Republicans and Bush administration officials seeking to praise the president, despite Newsweek's written guidelines. In each instance Media Matters has identified, Newsweek has not explained how allowing Bush aides to anonymously praise their boss "serves the reader."
The article went on to soft-pedal Bush's acknowledgement that he lied about Rumsfeld's resignation:
At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sensed that his long and domineering reign was coming to an end, and offered his resignation. With the mid-term elections less than a month away, Bush could not publicly reveal that Rumsfeld was on the way out. At a post-election press conference, Bush virtually admitted that he had held back because voters would see Rummy's exit as a sign of failure.
In reporting that Bush "could not publicly reveal that Rumsfeld was on the way out," Newsweek glossed over Bush's active promotion of the opposite impression, claiming in the week before the election that he wanted Rumsfeld to remain as Defense secretary until the end of his administration. As Associated Press White House correspondent Terrence Hunt reported, Bush said on November 1 that Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney "are doing fantastic jobs, and I strongly support them." Hunt also reported that Bush "replied in the affirmative when asked if he wanted Rumsfeld and Cheney to stay with him until the end." At the November 8 press conference Newsweek referenced, Bush did not "virtually admit" that he "held back" on Rumsfeld's resignation -- he flatly stated that he gave a false answer to Hunt, who, according to Bush, asked, "[A]re you going to do something about Rumsfeld and the vice president?" Bush explained: "And my answer was, they're going to stay on. And the reason why is I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign. And so the only way to answer that question and to get you on to another question was to give you that answer."
As Media Matters noted at the time, most media outlets refused to characterize Bush's pre-election statements about Rumsfeld as a "lie" or intentional misrepresentation.
Notably, the February 5 edition of ABC's newsletter The Note touted the Newsweek article -- specifically, Newsweek's citation of anonymous administration officials hyping Bush's proposed "policy center."
Well, it's just a bump on the mountain of lies this moron has buried us under, so I guess it's not that big a deal.
<>I can't wait to see how Puddinhead performs as an ex President...Middle Eastern policy conferences? Yeah, right. Picking his nose at Exxon Board of Directors meetings is more like it.ain't that a laugh? after he leaves office he's going "to continue to promote the spread of democracy in the middle east". perhaps it will be an extention of powell's "you break it, you bought it" theory. maybe on the order of let's break it into smaller pieces.
This is reaching at best. These Newsweek guidelines specifically referenced a Guantanamo story, however they do state they are reaffirming larger principles.......however this piece on Bush hardly rises to same level as the Guantanamo story regarding anonymous sources does.
These are staffers and aides of Bush, of course they will be complimentary. Any reader can certainly discern this for themselves so it appears Newsweek's guidelines are not compromised in the least.
Why not?
Why does a "promise of anonymity serve the reader"? Why is Newsweek insistant on writing these 'soft' pieces about Bush? Why do they deserve a pass by you?
I wasn't commenting about the worthiness of this piece, where did you get that? I was taking issue with the contention here that this piece violated the guidelines outlined by Newsweek. In my opinion, the reader certainly can see by whom is being interviewed, aides and staffers, that they will be complimentary towards Bush. There is no disservice to the reader and their anonymity does not violate any guidelines.
They did not get a pass from me, as you say.
Oh. Then, my mistake. I guess I read your 'does not violate', etc as a 'pass'. You seemed fairly adamant. Newsweek, in my view, has been a rag of little substance for some time. Perhaps because of that, I'm a bit biased against them. I do believe that their guideline does not jibe too well with what they wrote. Or rather, they're giving themselves a pass... letting their own stringent guidelines off the hook because they wanted to write a fluffy Bush piece.
I read into your comments a little too much I suppose.
Perhaps it was "This is reaching at best" that might make people think Tommy was questioning the value of the item. Don't kick yourself too hard.
"however this piece on Bush hardly rises to same level as the Guantanamo story regarding anonymous sources does." --tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Moot point. Newsweek stated when anonymous sources could be used in the future. Period. Do only big stories have to meet this guideline? Seems like what constitutes a big story is quite subjective as well. I didn't see where Newsweek wrote that either.
I took Newsweeks guidelines a general principle on when or when not to use anonymous sources and who would be accountable for such a decision. It is pretty clear that there is no real good reason given by Newsweek (despite their promise to do so) why anonymous sources were used in this story.
Good job, MMFA at making journalists live up to their own professed standards.
It appears Newsweek satisfied their own guidelines when they expressly wrote "private conversations" and "the president's emotional state".
Apparently they believed this anonymity served the reader perfectly fine as these were personal, not public policy, statements. I agree with them. You disagree.
Or they presented readers with a pretense to inject propaganda into the story anonymously. Why on Earth does it serve the reader to grant anonymity to people within the administration that aren't being critical in any way of the President? What did they say that would warrant needing the protection that anonymity gives?
Newsweek needs to tell us which editor signed off on this and why they did it.
Didn't anybody learn anything from the Scooter Libby trial? Libby was often granted anonymity to spread the administration's propaganda and apparent lies about Joe Wilson. This isn't much different.
What did they say? It's there. Obviously they wanted anonymity because they were speaking of personal conversations or experiences they had with the President. And much of it went to his emotional state. It isn't hard to figure why they would cooperate only if their identity was not revealed.....this is nothing new on any public figure.
Your attempts to link it to something nefarious don't hold water. It is what it is. This has nothing to do with policy or national security decisions, it is by and large a personal account of Bush. The anonymity of staffers and those that talked to Newsweek is understandable. It's the fact that you don't like what they said that is the real issue with you.......but that is not relevant, in my opinion.
"it is by and large a personal account of Bush." --tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is more precisely a favorable account of Bush spoken by anonymous persons.
If the reporter had not granted anonymity and the story died, then it is no big loss. Reporters shouldn't just grant anonymity willy-nilly just to put out questionably sourced stories. That's no justification. They should apply their own standards.
The reasons given were not adequate IMO. You can state them over and over, but I don't think anonymous sourcing should be used so liberally. I guess you do.
"he doesn't get tangled up thinking about his own mistakes in the raw, recent times of his own making."
In other words, he's about as introspective as a fence post, and feels not one twinge of guilt over the countless lives he has snuffed out needlessly, in a war built on a scaffold of lies.
or, as Stephen Colbert said...'Bush still believes on Wednesday what he believed on Monday- no matter WHAT happened on Tuesday...'
Guidelines are guidelines, and Newsweek has violated them. Good catch, Media Matters.
"Doesn't he wonder if he's made a terrible mistake that has cost the lives of more than 3,000 Americans and more than 54,000 Iraqis, not to mention the stature and prestige of the United States?"
"He doesn't get tangled up thinking about his own mistakes".
His minions describe a monster.
Hey King,
This guy has no conscience. That's damn scary.
I'm so glad he doesn't worry about the blood on his hands. Unfortunately I still carry the guilt of having voted for this "monster"...and there are not enough Hail Mary's or Our Fathers I could say that would absolve that sin :-(
Newsweek's softball article is just another pathetic attempt by the media to try to prop up this shiit for brains President and convince us he's a *tough* leader.
And as for Bush's Policy Institute...might I suggest a Mental Institution instead?
Jeter--Don't blame yourself for the voting for this sack of baryard chips. After all, he's the decider, and he decided that our kids lives were less important than going to war under false pretences.
Be careful though. You may have just taken the first step out of the darkness toward the daylight of Liberalism. :-)
Hey Rick,
I'm aligned with the Democrats/Liberals and the SANE Republican/Conservatives when it comes to Iraq.
I don't consider Bush a true Conservative. While he does have an R by his name he has actually done more harm to the GOP than any Democrat has ever done.
I didn't like Gore or Kerry, but that's no excuse for voting for this moron. I didn't really support the guy, but he had an R by his name...dumb reason, I should have sat BOTH of the elections out.
I'm not sure I'll ever come all the way over to the other side...BUT I do agree with Liberals on more issues than I disagree.
Actually I consider myself more of a Centrist these days. Which makes me just about perfect ;-)
Here's a hat tip to ya, Jeter. :-)
Back at ya Rick :-)
54,000 Iraqi's dead? Nothing like taking the lowest possible number out there. That number is just based on press reports, but the press isn't seeing or counting most of what's going on in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands is more like it.
I think the article should have named it's source: IraqBodyCount.org
At least those numbers seem to be in line with reported deaths. Some groups have attibuted the death toll at 10 times that number.
The Lancet puts the number between 426,369 and 793,663 violent civilian deaths since the war began.
"He's the least backward-looking person I have ever known in my life." This statement is amazingly ironic. While an argument can easily be made that Bush is doing nothing but looking backward to a some essentialistic, edenic utopia existing only in his limited imagination, this quote also brings to my mind the socratic aphorism that the unexamined life is not worth living. How pathetic NOT to look back and learn from your mistakes.
I've got to ask this question, and I don't want to sound facetious about it, but considering the damage that this guy has done, the people killed and maimed, the exhorborant amount of money spent, massive deficits, etc. how is it that there has not been a more aggressive approach to stopping him and his crew? You would think that the Congress would slam the brakes and say "GET OUT" as quickly as possible so that we can do the things necessary to get back to some sense of normalcy. Does he have something on them that is preventing them from going full steam ahead? I mean it is as if Bush and company has got the people that can do something to stop all of this by the shorthairs. I don't mean to sound impatient , but if I had employees that had their track record, I would fire the whole lot of them and start from scratch. And to keep it real, it just seems like there is something else under the surface that no one is fessing up to.
I think part of the problem is that the Democrats are so cowed by the Right Wing propaganda machine that they are afraid of being labeled "Against the troops" or "soft on terrorism". Rush Liimbaugh and other professional liars will harp constantly about the "drive by" media or the "liberal media", but these are fabrications they have created to keep their sycophantic audiences in the dark about what is really happening. After being scourged by these lies for fifteen years, the Democrats are just a little too skittish.
If Limbaugh and the right wing liars are so powerful and their influence is so overwhelming, then why was the most recent election one of the worst defeats and "thumpings" that Limbaugh and his fellow liars ever experienced directed at their own party?
Blaming the media won't cut it anymore.
The power of Limbaugh and his ilk is on the decline. A big reason for the decline is that average Americans are tired of bullies beating on the victims of tragedy.
Americans are tired of allowing pompous asses like Limbaugh etc. constantly blame Vietnam Vets, 9/11 widows, people with Parkinson's, hurricane survivors, minorities, Gold Star Mothers and everyone except those in positions of power in this country.
In November, the bill came due. The voters held the congress responsible for all of the administrations failures.
That's not to say that the scales could swing back anytime if there is enough fuel thrown on the fire from people like Limbaugh.
I agree for the most part, well said. I just think that by continuing to point the arrows at Limbaugh and the rest is misplaced. They will always be there, they have their audience and they LOVE the publiciity......negativity thrown their way only emboldens them. I think that the last election really showed their waning influence, you are correct. And that has them a bit concerned perhaps.
So they must think they need to be more controversial and partisan - they probably secretly hope for a Democratic win in 2008........Limbaugh was at his most popular during the Clinton years. Their first allegiance is to themselves and their egos - and pocketbooks.
MMFA and other sites like this have helped stamp out the the lies. It gives references to refute those friends, aquaintances, and relatives who want to take the Lying Division of The Right Wing Machine at their word.
more of tommy's ignore them and the public will ignore them. if he's said it once, he's said it 2,094,571.......
First of all, I said "part of the problem". There may be other factors contributing to the Democrats' lack of balls.
Secondly, the Limbaughs aren't as powerful as they have been, partly because of the explosion of Left-leaning blogs and partly because they find themselves in the uncomfortable position of defending the indefensible. Rush's vow to stop carrying the GOP's water notwithstanding, that's what he does; that's all he does. I can't prove it, but I believe that Rush was "discovered" for that very purpose. At some point, all but the most ignorant began to realize that the Republican leaders are liars and profound hypocrites.
OK, Nerzog, that sounds plausible. But what gets me is that the rhetoric of bipartisanism versus the realities on the ground. Maybe I am asking too much (no, not really); I expect people that are in charge to do the right thing and especially in light of a fresh budget (2.9 trillion), an escalation in Iraq, and a possibility of attacking Iran. Not to mention the war on the middle class. Pelosi made a big mistake in saying impeachment is off the table (and I am still wondering why she would say something like that), and the overall impression is that there is too much self preservation on the part of the Dems. I admit I want more heat, I want folks that have been misbehaving on the other side of the aisle to get a taste of leather in debate, I want to see the pubbies get stomped on for a while. I want to see things get done from the Dems and I think that when they got voted in, people expect swift, decisive action. If I sound partisan or contentious, it is only because of the situations out here in the real world need addressing now without all the beauricratic BS.
I tend to agree. I was hoping that the White House would be buried in subpeonas by now. My greatest fear is that the Dems will fall right back into the same bad habits that cost the Republicans their majority. Unfortunately, they are all beholden to the same corporate sugar daddies, so the chances of a progressive agenda going forward are pretty slim. No national health care or alternative fuel initiative is likely to evolve out of this Congress. I could be wrong, but that's the way it looks to me now.
You said it. I think the sugardaddy statement fits the bill, which then calls into question the how and why for government by the people, for the people if the people Congress listens to are only rich corporatists. If the money was never in the equation, everything would be different. It's off subject, but definitely on, and that is the subject of public financing. And to take it a step further, elimination of lobbying by corporate interests. Our elected officials have to be impartial and altruistic, and if they can't get the job done, they have got to go. I know that there have been new ethics reform packages, but there have to be severe penalties and stricter requirements for public office. I guess the most ideal combination will be no corporate money, no corporate influence, mandatory 25 years to life for politicians who choose to enable corporate crime with no ability to practice again. If the candidate never served the public at the lowest levels, then they do not qualify. I could go on...........
"Doesn't he wonder if he's made a terrible mistake that has cost the lives of more than 3,000 Americans and more than 54,000 Iraqis, not to mention the stature and prestige of the United States?"
"He doesn't get tangled up thinking about his own mistakes".
Wasn't it Socrates who said that an unexamined life was not worth living?