White House Press corp is too chummy with the Prez.

[Tmy]

This isnt about Bush. they do it with all the prez's.

I just notcied it the other day when GW was in the Rose Garden.
It bothers me how the prez is on a first name basis wh the reporters. AND I understand its the same reporters who often travel with the prez.

Isnt this an inappropriate situation? Shoudlnt the press pool have a constant rotation. Otherwise the prez can pick his favorites when answering Q's. And his favorites will serves softballs so that they retain that connection wh the prez. All of a sudden you have a Larry King interview.@!!!

Im sure reporters hold off on getting tough Q's out cause they dont want to be booted.

The press and govt should have an adversarial relationship.

[Lurker]

I agree 100% although I don't think the press has to have an adversarial relationship. A questioning relationship would be good enough for me.

After seeing Bush's last press conference it was plain that the press has trouble asking a properly worded question without the Prez turning it into rambling incoherence.

Lurker

[Luke T.]

They sure weren't chummy during his last press conference.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Luke T.
They sure weren't chummy during his last press conference.

Hmm, I thought there were some softball questions but the majority of the questions were just plain weak. I mean, asking the Prez if he had made any mistakes? What a silly question, one which Bush slip-slid around with no problem.

Shouldn't a journalist find what he considers a mistake and ask the president a pointed question about it?

Shoddy journalism.

Lurker

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Lurker


Hmm, I thought there were some softball questions but the majority of the questions were just plain weak. I mean, asking the Prez if he had made any mistakes? What a silly question, one which Bush slip-slid around with no problem.

Shouldn't a journalist find what he considers a mistake and ask the president a pointed question about it?

Shoddy journalism.

Lurker

You mean these questions? (http://www.kron4.com/global/Story.asp?s=1783060)

Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq: that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers; that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are.

How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series of false premises?

Mr. President. To move to the 9-11 commission, you yourself have acknowledged that Osama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before September 11th. I was not on point, you told the journalist Bob Woodward. I didn't feel that sense of urgency.

Two and a half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?

Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked.

One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9-11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism, and do you believe that there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

[JesFine]

The Daily Howler (http://www.dailyhowler.com/) is a good resource to see the ineptness of our press corp. It is especially good if your blood pressure is hovering at dangerously low levels. Sure, he sometimes gets a bit overdramatic at some minor editorial but overall it does a good job at debunking lies and exposing silliness. Two screamers that he pointed out in the last few weeks that stand out in my mind were this one by Elizabeth Bumiller about why they didn't ask Bush any hard questions before the war:I think we were very deferential because…it’s live, it’s very intense, it’s frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you’re standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country’s about to go to war. There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time. Nice, huh?

And this one by David Ignatius about why the questions the military had about the Iraq war (before we went there) were rarely reported:In a sense, the media were victims of their own professionalism. Because there was little criticism of the war from prominent Democrats and foreign policy analysts, journalistic rules meant we shouldn’t create a debate on our own.Yep. He is incompetent because of his damn "professionalism".

And this one from Margaret Carlson from four years ago should scare everyone:You can actually disprove some of what Bush is saying if you really get in the weeds and get out your calculator or you look at his record in Texas. But it’s really easy, and it’s fun, to disprove Gore.And more Carlson:I actually happen to know people who need government, and so they would care more about the programs, and [less] about the things we kind of make fun of…But as sport, and as our enterprise, Gore coming up with another whopper is greatly entertaining to us. And we can disprove it in a way we can’t disprove these other things.As an informal experiment I would like everyone to try to pull some of this crap at your job and see how long you remain employed.

[Lemastre]

I assume that a local reporter who chases fire engines and does weather standups in the rain and covers city hall for several years considers being assigned to Washington a big reward. And if he gets to cover presidential press conferences, he isn't going to jeopardize his status by irritating the prez. I expect it's possible to survive by just rewriting the handouts from the press offices at the various agencies and the White House.

No wonder the degree of confrontation is pretty low.

[Regnad Kcin]

JesFine:

I agree that the Daily Howler is required reading. And more Carlson:I actually happen to know people who need government, and so they would care more about the programs, and [less] about the things we kind of make fun of…But as sport, and as our enterprise, Gore coming up with another whopper is greatly entertaining to us. And we can disprove it in a way we can’t disprove these other things.Sure, it's easy to disprove "whoppers" when the man never said or implied them in the first place!

The media isn't liberal -- it's human. So there's incompetence a'plenty!

[waitew]

Following the president is probably a cushy assignment,would you do something to jeopardize that?They were a hell of alot softer on Clinton the Bush!!So,what's you're point?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by JesFine
The Daily Howler (http://www.dailyhowler.com/) is a good resource to see the ineptness of our press corp.

In a sense, the media were victims of their own professionalism. Because there was little criticism of the war from prominent Democrats and foreign policy analysts, journalistic rules meant we shouldn’t create a debate on our own.

That is exactly correct. The media is supposed to be objective in their reporting. Think about it. It could just as easily turn the other way and have another Hearst beating the war drums as was done in the Spanish-American War.

[RandFan]

Sam Donaldson! He gave Reagen hell and did a damn fine job of it. He didn't let up for Bush Sr. or Clinton.

[Crossbow]

Well, I have noticed that when things tend to be going well, the press is normally quite friendly and deferential to the president, but when things get bad, the press can quickly turn.

Just take a look at how the behaved with Johnson, Carter, Regan, the first Bush, and Clinton.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Lurker
I agree 100% although I don't think the press has to have an adversarial relationship. A questioning relationship would be good enough for me.

After seeing Bush's last press conference it was plain that the press has trouble asking a properly worded question without the Prez turning it into rambling incoherence.

Lurker

Press conferences are almost pointless now that Bush is president. He has about three stock answers memorized that he tries to apply to anything he's asked. He's like one of those dolls that you can pull a string and they say some recorded statement.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.

That is exactly correct. The media is supposed to be objective in their reporting. Think about it. It could just as easily turn the other way and have another Hearst beating the war drums as was done in the Spanish-American War.

This is bollocks. The media is supposed to be as objective as possible, which means not being mere standard-bearers for their publishers such as Hearst of old (these days Murdoch). But the media is also supposed to examine all the issues, and stimulate public debate.

Think about this, what if the Democrats and Republicans colluded to give themselves a 200% pay-rise, which wouldn't be publicly recorded to avoid voter backlash? Would it be reasonable to say that the media couldn't present an opposing view because it wouldn't be 'professional'?

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Luke T.


That is exactly correct. The media is supposed to be objective in their reporting. Think about it. It could just as easily turn the other way and have another Hearst beating the war drums as was done in the Spanish-American War.

By your logic journalists should never engage in investigative reporting. Just report the "facts" as told to them by the Dems or Repubs, eh? No need for journalists to actually investigate to see how valid those "facts" are.

Lurker

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
This is bollocks. The media is supposed to be as objective as possible, which means not being mere standard-bearers for their publishers such as Hearst of old (these days Murdoch). But the media is also supposed to examine all the issues, and stimulate public debate.

Think about this, what if the Democrats and Republicans colluded to give themselves a 200% pay-rise, which wouldn't be publicly recorded to avoid voter backlash? Would it be reasonable to say that the media couldn't present an opposing view because it wouldn't be 'professional'?

What gives you the idea that "objective" means "not publicly recorded" or not presenting an opposing view?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Luke T.


What gives you the idea that "objective" means "not publicly recorded" or not presenting an opposing view?

Modern journalism. One of the prevading "ethics" of the jouralism profession is that the media shouldn't report on a story that doesn't come from a "source." Usually that "source" is a press release, speech from public officials, or major event. Journalists are allowed to present an opposing view, but how often do they do that? How often do they even check the facts that are presented to them? That's the thing I take from the Daily Howler - most journalists are failing in their job to inform.

I'll have to pull out "Rich Media, Poor Democracy" book, but the modern press seems geared to maintain the status quo.

[specious_reasons]

I think I should correct what I said, because all of the ethics codes I could find didn't mention the primary use of official sources. I think it is consider standard practice.

I found this, but McChesney doesn't source where the "professionalism makes official or credentialed sources the basis for news stories" practice comes from.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/McChesney/Media_Crisis_Times.html
The main reason for this distorted coverage is due to the weaknesses of professional journalism as it has been practiced in the United States. Professional journalism itself arose in the United States in large part as a response to concentrated newspaper markets, so monopoly newspaper owners could offer a credible "nonpartisan" journalism to prevent their business enterprises from being undermined. To avoid the taint of partisanship, and to keep costs lower, professionalism makes official or credentialed sources the basis for news stories. Reporters report what people in power say, and what they debate. This tends to give the news an establishment bias. When a journalist reports what official sources are saying, or debating, she is professional. When she steps outside this range of official debate to provide alternative perspectives or to raise issues those in power prefer not to discuss, she is no longer being professional.

[JesFine]

Originally posted by Luke T.
In a sense, the media were victims of their own professionalism. Because there was little criticism of the war from prominent Democrats and foreign policy analysts, journalistic rules meant we shouldn’t create a debate on our own.

That is exactly correct. The media is supposed to be objective in their reporting. Think about it. It could just as easily turn the other way and have another Hearst beating the war drums as was done in the Spanish-American War. That quote is faulty for several reasons, one of which you seem to be implying in your reply -- namely, that the media is supposed to be objective. That means reporting facts, and facts don't require approval by "prominent Democrats" or "analysts". That's one reason. Another reason is that there was plenty of criticism of the war from all kinds of people. The fact that he doesn't know this means he is lying or uninformed, and those are two traits that you wouldn't really like to see in your press.