After W, Will the Press Get a Spine?
Having failed to nail Bush for his fabrications and fibs, can the mainstream press do a better job of policing political and presidential prevarication this campaign season—and beyond?
it was late into the night of September 2, 2004. I was in the near-empty bar of the Essex House hotel in New York City. George W. Bush had just delivered his acceptance speech at the gop convention at Madison Square Garden. Before a pumped-up crowd, the president had declared that Iraq had been "a gathering threat" before he launched the invasion. He blurred the line between the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and the insurgents in Iraq. He described John Kerry's vote against war funding as a vote to leave US soldiers unprotected. He claimed, "Our strategy is succeeding." As I sat in the bar writing my piece, the tables next to me slowly filled with senior reporters and top editors from the Washington Post. Typing away, I could hear them deride Bush's speech as a collection of misrepresentations. Their consensus was clear: Bush was trying to pull a fast one.
Yet the next morning, the paper's front page flatly proclaimed, "Bush Promises 'a Safer World': Acceptance Speech Sets Lofty Goals." The lead article was a straightforward account of the address, with not a hint at the well-founded skepticism of the paper's own reporters and editors. A media outfit, abiding by the conventional rules of journalism (just the quotes, ma'am), had once again enabled a president who was not being honest. And I was reminded of a 1997 remark by Ben Bradlee, the former executive editor of the Post: "Even the very best newspapers have never learned how to handle public figures who lie with a straight face."
In recent years, Bradlee's axiom has been sorely tested. And while the question of just where Bush fits in the annals of presidential prevarication will soon belong to historians, a related matter is worthy of immediate contemplation: Will the Bush experience prompt the media to perform better next time the Bradlee test is relevant?
The debate over Bush's relationship with the truth was well under way by the time the president took the stage at the Garden. By late summer 2003, a small flood of books had appeared questioning the veracity of the president and his political comrades, including my own The Lies of George W. Bush. Mainstream journalists and right-wing commentators quickly reached a consensus on why these books were being published—not because of any real problem, but because liberals had been driven to irrational hatred of the president. Writing in the New York Times, Matt Bai opined that "the new leftist screeds seem to solidify a rising political culture of incivility and overstatement." Also in the Times, James Traub—while acknowledging that Bush had served up "quite a few actual fibs"—observed, "The sudden rash of jeremiads and their stunning popularity raises a question: Why are so many liberals, including sane and sober ones, granting themselves permission to hate the president?" In Time, James Poniewozik bemoaned "the rise of the anger industry." Going further, columnist David Brooks warned that "The core threat to democracy is not in the White House, it's the haters themselves." On cnn, Tucker Carlson said the anti-Bush books were written to cater "to the paranoia and craziness of the far left" and were "selling because the Democratic Party has gone completely insane with Bush hatred."
The ideologues of the right and the oh-so-calm pundits of the center were redefining the issue: Have the libs gone bonkers? They could not handle a serious discussion of Bush's untruthfulness. As National Review editor Rich Lowry declared, "I don't think the public is going to buy the idea that [Bush is] a liar."
Well, the public did, no thanks to the commentariat. After September 11, as many as 77 percent of Americans described Bush as honest and trustworthy. 
By early 2004 only a little more than half believed that; and earlier this year, 53 percent of the participants in a USA Today/Gallup Poll said that Bush "deliberately misled the American public" about wmd and Iraq.
It is a remarkable and defining fact of the Bush years that half the nation came to distrust him—right around the time he was reelected. Will we wise up sooner next time?
True, there are now more bloggers and websites that vet officials and journalists alike—from FactCheck.org (courtesy of the Annenberg Public Policy Center) to PolitiFact.com (established by the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly). The Washington Post now rates fibbing pols on a 1-to-4-Pinocchios scale.
But there have been few repercussions for those complicit in the Bush administration's truth mugging. Look at the op-ed page of the New York Times, and you will find David Brooks and Bill Kristol (who in a prewar debate with me on Fox News maintained with a straight face that Saddam was "past the finish line" on nuclear weapons) holding forth as if nothing has happened. Karl Rove pens a column for Newsweek. Reporters who functioned as a conveyor belt for false information skated as well, with the notable exception of the Times' Judith Miller.
A few media big shots did apologize for their prewar failure—sort of. The Times in 2004 published a tepid editor's note conceding that its prewar coverage was "not as rigorous as it should have been." The Post's Bob Woodward acknowledged that he and the Post should have been more aggressive. And some reporters who do fret about being hornswoggled again—say, on Iran—have vowed to be more skeptical.
But not everyone got the memo. That was evident this spring, when ex-White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan blasted his former boss for having relied on a "political propaganda campaign" to sell the Iraq War to the public. McClellan also slammed the national press corps for having been "too deferential to the White House" and having insufficiently challenged its rationales for war. It was rather like a serial killer complaining that the cops had been too incompetent to catch him. But McClellan had a point, and the response from prominent journalists suggested that some still haven't taken the first step on the road to recovery: admitting the problem.
nbc News White House correspondent David Gregory passed the buck. "I think we challenged the president...If there wasn't a debate in this country, then maybe the American people should think about why not. Where was Congress?" He added that McClellan "thinks...if we did not stand up and say, 'This is bogus, and you're a liar'... we didn't do our job. And I respectfully disagree." abc News anchor Charlie Gibson also let himself off the hook: "It was just a drumbeat of support from the administration. It is not our job to debate them."
So could it happen again? "Definitely, it could," says media critic Jay Rosen. "The press got played. There is no way to learn from that until you can say, 'We got played.' They aren't there yet." How the media come to terms with the W era, Rosen adds, is essential to their future. "There is some recognition that if journalists cannot say false statements are false, we aren't going to be needing journalists for long."
Ben Bradlee, too, worries the Washington press corps hasn't been much changed—or chagrined—by the Bush experience. "I've never seen a story that has a lead paragraph that says, 'The president said this,' and a second paragraph that says, 'This is a lie,'" Bradlee remarks. "We just don't have that kind of balls."
What should the media do differently? "My answer is to have a fetish about the truth and to consider the possibility the guys in power are lying on purpose," Bradlee says. "It's always a problem—I can't remember a time when it wasn't a problem."
Page 1 of 1 
Ben Bradlee is saying no newspaper could ever deal with the dilemma of challenging a President who is lying, but he and the Post and Woodward and Bernstein did that with Watergate. I'm a little mystified.
I'm not too enamoured with a number of things said over the recent convention period (notwithstanding all the mindless ad hominem attacks) ... let's pick one from each candidate:
1. McCain says in his acceptance speech that he will not leave it to some unfortunate future generation to solve today's problems. He also says that he will continue to cut taxes and will continue to spend on war as much or more than W has ... this is an Oxymoron that the press should call him on (ha ha! The press!). There is no way that all that spending wihtout taxation is going to do anything other than grow the already mountainous debt burden some "future generation" will be paying off.
2. Obama is brave enough to go into the O'Reilly lion's den ... then capitulates on the malarky that the "surge has been success beyond our wildest expectations". The surge can only have worked if it achieved it's objectives. These were clearly listed at the time. They were to give the Iraqi government time to make advances in 18 areas. None, I believe, have been achieved. At the same time, the lack of remaining targets coupled with the Sunni's changing tack and accepting bribe money to stop fighting has resulted in a return to levels of violence lower than in 2006-2007 (but still too high). So what success? Well done Barry ... the story is now agreed that McCain was right when everyone else was wrong. Does the press call Obama on this mis-statement? Does anyone ever refer back to the definition of success that Bush and Petreaus set themselves? It seems not.
What a shocker ... the rest of the world (I'm not American) is now sh*ting itself that U.S. voters are going to monumentally screw up again to the detriment of the whole world. I fear that four more years of this environment will break something seriously ... the world economy, the environment, the peace that many lucky people experience ... who knows?
By the way, Catherine ... no mystery there. Woodward and The Post's rebellious days were 30 years ago. Woodward has since written two absolutely creampuff books about the Bush administration in order to maintain access. The politicians seem to be far more successful at controlling coverage through access than ever before. Woodward did trail public opinion by publishing two more recent, less supportive books about W, Cheney et al ... but only so far as to still seem "in touch".
IF he had the great access that he purported to have while writing such masterpieces as "Bush at War" then (as he is no question a smart guy) he must have known that he was writing a pack of lies at the least by providing stenography without critique against known facts.
It seems that 30 years makes a world of difference. Nixon was a saint compared to Cheney as his front man.
... make that "Cheney AND his front man".
I think our 'fourth estate' is really more of a 'fifth column' now.
We are still living in denial - the journalists of yesteryear are gone, and their probing integrity has been replaced with corporate shills.
The media is largely going to continue to merely parrot the talking points written for them by the same sorts of liars who have gotten us to this point.
If we want challenges that lead to the truth, then we need new media groups, like MotherJones, to lead that charge. We will not see it from the traditional main-stream media, as there is no upside for them in the truth.
What a quaint and innnocent sounding word 'fib' is. I always thought it applied to small lies like, "I didn't eat the last cookie."
I don't think misinforming your country so you can start a war qualifies as a fib. I don't think killing almost 100000 civillians qualifies as fib. And I don't think trying to create the impression that there is a war between factions in a country you invaded qualifies as a fib.
Why is mainstream American media so soft on politicians? Could it be too many large corporate ties? Is there a major American newspaper that isn't owned by a large corporation?
Years from now historians will look back on the war in Iraq and say with absolute clarity that America was manipulated into it. Misinformation was fed to the media and therefore the public at every opportunity. Just ask ABC News about that Anthrax-Iraq-connection tip-off.
The purpose of the media is not to inform the public; rather, its purpose is to manipulate public opinion.
Did that come from the Manifest Destiny?
I've debated a lot with conservatives and they're always complaining about the "liberal" media and I'm always trying to point out that they're not liberal, they're wimps. Any way you slice it, conservative and liberals agree that the press has vast problems that need to be addressed if we, the people, are to adopt a more perfect union.
The press in Amerika are only concerned with maintaining the status quo. More precious than freedom of information is the coveted White House press pass. To retain this these "murdocks" are easily manipulated into writing anything the president wants them to write, regardless of its basis in fact. The newspapers could save a lot of money if they just rented the chair and placed a recorder on it. Most murdocks couldn't ask a pointed question if they tried and accept any answer, relevent or not to the question, and report it as fact. With a few exceptions, Mother Jones and truthout being among them, investigative journalism ended with Reagan and has never recovered. The two wars and America's continued use of torture are the result. The press is as much to blame as Congress.
If Press treated Bush with kid gloves why would they not fawn over a fellow liberal like Obama?
Thanks David for the call to order. The Germans have a nice term: Hofberichterstatter. Reporters to the Court. Came to mind yesterday reading the Times' report on Paulson's meeting with top bankers. The author of the piece was apparently awestruck by the ability of one of the bankers to do the calculations in his head - the man must be worth millions! Certainly now that Bush has handed it over to him.
Whichever candidate the "left" press chose in the Democratic race, it has now had 18 months to remove its every last tooth in addressing the obfuscations of that person, now, finally, Obama. Rather like a crocodile carrying its young in its mouth. We cant' have the public programs I think are needed for greatest public good at minimum cost, including public health service, without distinguishing between wants and needs, consumption and investment, paying and borrowing for. With the last 4 years of Bush confirming for the most dim-witted what was obvious about the nature of the first 4 years, the left press has been as fearful of strong analysis of Obama as McCain has been of standing up for whatever was ever sound about Republicans by that name.
Finally: Example. No, earmarks are not a large portion of spending; pork and "bringing home the bacon" have always been part of republican politics. But, do we need a president who will not tell voters how and why it is corrupting, the same way small programs, such as NCLB can exert such influence on major institutions? Wow, THAT is leverage, to make State and local schools conform because to do otherwise would leave a few % of total school spending on the table. A cynic, charlatan, and conman knew an empty package when he saw one: Bill Clinton had it right about Obama -- a fairy tale.
The "press" has lost me. I don't need a source of information I can't trust. Am I being spun to forward the Publisher's corporate interests? Is the reporter just stupid? After 8 years of credulously repeating every slander about the Clinton administration, they ignore the defiance of the constitution, manifest national and international criminality of Bush and the Republican Party as an institution. Starting next year I expect an avalanche of reporting of this news we could have used. The failure of the press to act in the public interest this century has earned the press as an institution our enmity. They didn't do the job - they sold out America.
"so could it happen again?"
"definitely it could."
oh, [deleted]...
Cheney is getting away with exclusive defense contracts on Haliburton stock that he should have been forced to divest himself of and taken the Country to war and the Press has not said a word! The media is the new "panacea" of the masses and does their role well!
As the media is corporate owned, and there aren't that many "real journalists" these days I don't believe the press as it currently is will ever tell the real truth! I believe that if Nixon were alive today we the people never would have found out about Watergate!
What spine?
They are slithering Reptiles!
Part and Parcel of the Problem.
Censoring the News!
Broken Jawed,
Propaganda Spewing,
Rovien Parrots!
Great to hear someone(else) deride all media as liars everytime they call the Iraq invasion a "WAR." Especially CNN "the best political team on television"
my foot! And is that saying anything considering the company they are in? I just hope Obama grows a pair instead of coasting to a second term by being MOR.
The mainstream media is owned by people who are also members of the so-called 'elite' who get to choose the president. Having chosen, they will hardly give their puppet a hard time - other than over trivial matters. Nothing will change.
This President and this Congress in large part caused the economic collapse. Bush and his appointees are in the process of socializing the financial and automotive sectors, and potentially homes. If we do have a socialist President, he should have a very smooth transition. Obama says he has a “righteous wind at his back.” True and I hope good wins over evil in this election.
Forget the Press. Will the Democrats finally get a spine?
"...can the mainstream press do a better job of policing political and presidential prevarication this campaign season—and beyond?"
Obviously, no. The key here is the word 'mainstream'--it is not in the economic interest of the handful of media giants to challenge the status quo because they are part of it. (Not to mention the whole Mockingbird thing, which writers like David Corn dismiss with a roll of the eyes...)
Look at it this way, via energy, another institutionalized scam, one of the most powerful in the whole fraudulent "free trade" myth that's been rammed down our throats ever since the Owners strung up the last Luddite along the busiest thoroughfares 200 years ago as a message for anyone else who wondered why we had to work at all when it only takes 5% of the population to produce the essentials of life.
The "news" business works the same way as any other racket: it's all about creating and controlling scarcity. "Supply & demand" is mere agitprop or, occasionally, a useful stage prop for those trusting souls who still believe all that crap they were taught in school. Otherwise, David Corn and Glenn Greenwald could talk about the serially obscured fact that all economic and environmental imbalances are the result of social dominance & oppression. Murray Bookchin explained this dynamic in Remaking Society...a book that grows more relevant with each passing day.
Another resource that exposes the collusion between the Owners and the "press" is Eric B. Ross' The Malthus Factor, available online at the Corner House. Free your minds of the insidious, enduring lies planted there by the drones from the Ministry of Truth and you might just see how easy it would be to make heaven right here on earth.
the energy racket
Of course they'll get a spine because they don't fear questioning a democrat (Clinton) let alone a Black man whose actions, associations and motives have been under intense scrutiny from the beginning. Only republicans can avoid the press for 8 years and be allowed to destroy the economy and our country's status in the world.
After W, Will the Press Get a Spine? Not Likely !.! They will probably go after Obama when he's elected - an easy target, one that will not be as vicious as the present administration.. You can see that already, with not going after John McCain's flip-flops.
..It should not be called the free press BUT the PANDERING PRESS who worry more about their status at a presidential press conference than the truth.
True journalist like Dan Rather were kicked out of their jobs for doing the right thing.
Other journalist became scared and didn't want to loose their job as well.
Never have and never will. it good to wakeup on occasion from the fantasy world of bought and paid "press" and smell the coffee. but there is no chance of that happening anytime soon.
.Will the press stand-up?.? NO for some reason they have shed their courage for job security and in the process lost both.
..This is an example I find interesting. In the last thirty days of the campaign Senator John McCain decides to "re-invent" himself ?.? Good Timing !.! Or his (?????) pick of Sarah Palin for a running mate. Women make up something like 50% of the population (give or take) I ask those I know "would you vote for someone to take your "rights" away from you ?.?.?
Not One Has Ever Said Yes.......If you alienate 50% of the population.... in in the last thirty days of the campaign flip-flop with an re-invention scheme -.-.-.- YOU WANT TO WIN THE ELECTION ?.?.? Meantime in Washington Presdent Bush is gutting all the rules and regulations for Big Business & and the Bailout....
I'll Bet He's Happy With the SECRECY ACT.
Not effing likely. The press will be perceived to "grow a spine" only when they go after Obama. But, the media itself is the problem, not the solution.
