Full Version: Bush gets personal with troublesome US editors
The Bush presidency's relationship with the media has been unusual in recent times - the immediate aftermath of 9-11 quite understandably led to a sense of not wanting to undermine his leadership in a time of crisis by being critical.
Consequently, he had something of a media honeymoon, at least until the Iraq invasion.
This article suggests that the time for passively assuming press support and actively suppressing press criticism (as far as can be done in a free society) is now the order of the day.
And
As the article says, Bush's personal involvement in any of this is unclear (for which read they just don't have a clue if he is involved, let alone how much) so PLEASE let's not take this thread into the boggy mire of reflexive Bush-bashing and Bush-cheerleading.
But, questions:
If these reports are true, does it represent:
- unwarranted interference in press freedom
- sensible political PR
- necessary defence of national security
- or something else?
Why?
Is this normal practice for all US presidencies, and only really noticeable because of the "9-11 effect"? (Please cite evidence for it happening under other presidents if you have it).
Or, is the Bush administration taking media manipulation to new levels?
Consequently, he had something of a media honeymoon, at least until the Iraq invasion.
This article suggests that the time for passively assuming press support and actively suppressing press criticism (as far as can be done in a free society) is now the order of the day.
QUOTE
According to Newsweek magazine, which first reported the gathering, the president called in the publisher of the New York Times, Arthur Sulzberger Jr, the executive editor, Bill Keller, and the Washington bureau chief, Philip Taubman, with the express purpose of persuading them not to publish a story that he had authorised surveillance of US citizens without court oversight - a story it had already sat on for a year.
And
QUOTE
Last week, the Washington Post's media column revealed that the Post's editor, Leonard Downie Jr, was also summoned to the Oval Office, before publication of its story that the CIA was running a network of secret detention centres in eastern Europe. In both instances, the stated motive for the Oval Office meeting was national security, and the Post and the Times were warned that publication could damage the national interest.
As the article says, Bush's personal involvement in any of this is unclear (for which read they just don't have a clue if he is involved, let alone how much) so PLEASE let's not take this thread into the boggy mire of reflexive Bush-bashing and Bush-cheerleading.
But, questions:
If these reports are true, does it represent:
- unwarranted interference in press freedom
- sensible political PR
- necessary defence of national security
- or something else?
Why?
Is this normal practice for all US presidencies, and only really noticeable because of the "9-11 effect"? (Please cite evidence for it happening under other presidents if you have it).
Or, is the Bush administration taking media manipulation to new levels?
This is nothing new, especially for stories with national security implications. It used to be that the press would keep certain stories hush-hush when they were obviously related to national security.
You can certainly see from the White House Press Corps that there is plenty of animosity between the press and the White House.
Is this normal practice for all US presidencies, and only really noticeable because of the "9-11 effect"? (Please cite evidence for it happening under other presidents if you have it).
Standard operating procedure. During the Cold War, the press supported the administration. Look at this, from 1994 : Covering the New World Disorder
The Clinton period was free from major international entanglements and the press felt free to cover stories from new perspectives.
The war on terror is akin to the cold war. Covert ops and intelligence gathering is where "the action is". The press laid off stories in that arena during the Cold War and they probably should do so again, from the President's point of view.
Notice how the article says that the press hasn't really agreed on what to cover and how to cover it (this was 10 years ago, however). The press still struggles with this, I think, with certain venues taking one approach and different outlets taking others. It is healthy to have different approaches and let the news-consuming public decide what is appropriate.
Or, is the Bush administration taking media manipulation to new levels?
Hardly. I think they want the slack that was cut to other administrations. They are not likely to get it.
You can certainly see from the White House Press Corps that there is plenty of animosity between the press and the White House.
Is this normal practice for all US presidencies, and only really noticeable because of the "9-11 effect"? (Please cite evidence for it happening under other presidents if you have it).
Standard operating procedure. During the Cold War, the press supported the administration. Look at this, from 1994 : Covering the New World Disorder
QUOTE
American journalists can hardly be expected to admit being nostalgic for the good old cold-war days when covering the world meant finding out who won and who lost the latest global match between Washington and Moscow. But things were a lot simpler back then. Journalists took their cue from the president, who set the foreign policy agenda and used his favorite columnists to send trial balloons to foreign leaders. News organizations followed the Marines to wars and located their bureaus in those foreign capitals with the largest U.S. diplomatic presence. Only when cracks showed up in the national consensus, as it did during the Vietnam War, did the press dissent from the official line. As John Walcott, who covered the superpower rivalry for Newsweek and The Wall Street Journal, puts it, "The cold war provided us with a coherent global road map, in terms of what to cover and how to cover it."
The Clinton period was free from major international entanglements and the press felt free to cover stories from new perspectives.
The war on terror is akin to the cold war. Covert ops and intelligence gathering is where "the action is". The press laid off stories in that arena during the Cold War and they probably should do so again, from the President's point of view.
Notice how the article says that the press hasn't really agreed on what to cover and how to cover it (this was 10 years ago, however). The press still struggles with this, I think, with certain venues taking one approach and different outlets taking others. It is healthy to have different approaches and let the news-consuming public decide what is appropriate.
Or, is the Bush administration taking media manipulation to new levels?
Hardly. I think they want the slack that was cut to other administrations. They are not likely to get it.
Is this normal practice for all US presidencies, and only really noticeable because of the "9-11 effect"? (Please cite evidence for it happening under other presidents if you have it).
I think it's pretty rare, but it most certainly has happened in the past when the nation's security is at stake. One of the most extraordinary examples of something like this happening was during the Cuban Missle Crisis. John Scali, then a reporter for ABC News was contacted by the Soviet embassy and rather than simply report on the situation, he instead helped to negotiate a resolution of the crisis - with the encouragement and knowledge of JFK. From his bio on the Arlington National Cemetary website.....
Scali died in 1995 and received a waiver by President Clinton allowing him to be buried at Arlington even though he never served in the US Military. One of the few decisions made by Clinton with which I completely agreed.
I think it's pretty rare, but it most certainly has happened in the past when the nation's security is at stake. One of the most extraordinary examples of something like this happening was during the Cuban Missle Crisis. John Scali, then a reporter for ABC News was contacted by the Soviet embassy and rather than simply report on the situation, he instead helped to negotiate a resolution of the crisis - with the encouragement and knowledge of JFK. From his bio on the Arlington National Cemetary website.....
QUOTE
Scali, John A. Correspondent, ABC News. Scali was contacted by Soviet embassy official (and KGB Station Chief) Aleksandr Fomin about a proposed settlement to the crisis, and subsequently he acted as a contact between Fomin and the Executive Committee; however, it was w without government direction that Scali responded to new Soviet conditions with a warning that a U.S. invasion was only hours away, prompting the Soviets to settle the crisis quickly.
Scali died in 1995 and received a waiver by President Clinton allowing him to be buried at Arlington even though he never served in the US Military. One of the few decisions made by Clinton with which I completely agreed.
Is this normal practice for all US presidencies, and only really noticeable because of the "9-11 effect"? (Please cite evidence for it happening under other presidents if you have it).
I believe it has been relatively uncommon practice for recent times.
It seems to be part of that atmosphere of entitlement in which the President, Vice President and cabinet currently reside. While some rationale can be dug up for their secretive ways, the Bush administration has taken the secretiveness to new levels--e.g., opposing the formation of a 9/11 Commission.
The White House is still not forthcoming as to the culprit in the scandal where the CIA agent was exposed ostensibly to take revenge on her husband who pointed out that the Niger yellowcake document was a forgery.
The news media also did not report the Abu Ghraib prison abuse story but sat on it for some time before the accounts finally hit the news.
Why should it be any surprise to anyone that George W. Bush wanted the news media to sit on the story that he personally authorized wiretaps that could have and would have been handled, lawfully, by the FISA court?
But this was all ridiculed in another thread--just stuff for wearers of tin foil hats on which to ruminate, or so some of us have been told. The "normal" people don't let it bother them: the censorship, the administration's lack of cooperation with the Congress, the loss of privacy, the opening of mail...
I believe it has been relatively uncommon practice for recent times.
It seems to be part of that atmosphere of entitlement in which the President, Vice President and cabinet currently reside. While some rationale can be dug up for their secretive ways, the Bush administration has taken the secretiveness to new levels--e.g., opposing the formation of a 9/11 Commission.
The White House is still not forthcoming as to the culprit in the scandal where the CIA agent was exposed ostensibly to take revenge on her husband who pointed out that the Niger yellowcake document was a forgery.
The news media also did not report the Abu Ghraib prison abuse story but sat on it for some time before the accounts finally hit the news.
Why should it be any surprise to anyone that George W. Bush wanted the news media to sit on the story that he personally authorized wiretaps that could have and would have been handled, lawfully, by the FISA court?
But this was all ridiculed in another thread--just stuff for wearers of tin foil hats on which to ruminate, or so some of us have been told. The "normal" people don't let it bother them: the censorship, the administration's lack of cooperation with the Congress, the loss of privacy, the opening of mail...
QUOTE
If these reports are true, does it represent:
- unwarranted interference in press freedom
- sensible political PR
- necessary defence of national security
- or something else?
Why?
Is this normal practice for all US presidencies, and only really noticeable because of the "9-11 effect"? (Please cite evidence for it happening under other presidents if you have it).
Or, is the Bush administration taking media manipulation to new levels?
- unwarranted interference in press freedom
- sensible political PR
- necessary defence of national security
- or something else?
Why?
Is this normal practice for all US presidencies, and only really noticeable because of the "9-11 effect"? (Please cite evidence for it happening under other presidents if you have it).
Or, is the Bush administration taking media manipulation to new levels?
After a fruitless, frustrating online search for historic references to presidents’ relationships with the press, this is the only relevant source I found, and it deals with one subject – drug abuse. And all that is available of that without subscription is the abstract of the report.
QUOTE
This agenda-building study examined the presidencies of Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush to determine to what degree they influenced media and public concern for the drug issue. This study found a complex reciprocal relation between the president, the public, and the press, with results differing depending what president and newspapers were studied. However, when the data are examined across the various presidents rather than on individual leaders, the agenda-setting process is especially powerful with 8 of the 9 predicted paths proving significant. This study discovered that the president plays an equal or greater role than the media in the agenda-building process. The path between presidential statements and public approval was higher than the one between the media and the public. Although public approval polls drove both media coverage and presidential statements, the polls had a greater effect on the media. Finally, the path from presidential statements to subsequent media coverage was just as strong as the one from media coverage to subsequent presidential statements. Agenda-setting researchers, then, should not ignore the effects of the president and other officials on the agenda-setting process. LEA online
This is at least a hint that manipulation of the press by modern era presidents isn’t entirely unknown.
Just from my personal observations throughout the years, I believe that this president’s influence on the media is unprecedented. I vaguely recall from waaaay back in US History classes that in days gone by, the press was always a thorn in the side of politicians. That’s not such a bad thing.
The media is not supposed to be a compliant lapdog. They should be nasty, mean pitbulls - all the traits that people hate journalists for is what makes them invaluable; they are obnoxious, nosy and tenacious. When they smell fear or sense vulnerability or weakness, they pursue and don’t relent. Well, in a perfect world, anyway. Journalists in all media today seem to be quivering, peeing little neutered poodles, cringing and fawning at the feet of their masters. Profit-driven, corporate journalism has made all investigative journalism suspect; who is the journalist’s master, and how has that affected what they wrote/said?
Personally, I want to hear the truth. Not the censored, simplified for the masses pap that passes itself off as journalism. The code of ethics for journalists is supposed to hold them to truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability. I think modern day journalists (in general; there are still individuals who have proven they still know what journalism is about) have failed in nearly every category. Profit, cronyism and protectionism seem to rule the day now.
It remains to be seen whether the NYT and WAPO editors will be poodles or pitbulls after their tête á tête with Dubya. If the past is any indication, I believe they'll be in the market for some neuticles.
If these reports are true, does it represent.......:
I vote "necessary defense of national security." The articles revealed intelligence information that it was a crime to reveal. Asking a newspaper not to further a criminal act seems reasonable. There is no whistleblower exception at play here; the law is clear.
I'm predicting here that, at some point, we will learn that it wasn't just "dubya" having these conversations. I'm betting that senior Democrats in Congress and non-partisan intel / security types also urged the papers not to reveal these secrets. I have no proof, no links, nada. Just a hunch. Maybe we'll see when they supoena the leakers, but I'm betting we find this out sooner than then. About the time we find out that Harry Reid was lying when he said he was informed "a couple of months ago."
I vote "necessary defense of national security." The articles revealed intelligence information that it was a crime to reveal. Asking a newspaper not to further a criminal act seems reasonable. There is no whistleblower exception at play here; the law is clear.
I'm predicting here that, at some point, we will learn that it wasn't just "dubya" having these conversations. I'm betting that senior Democrats in Congress and non-partisan intel / security types also urged the papers not to reveal these secrets. I have no proof, no links, nada. Just a hunch. Maybe we'll see when they supoena the leakers, but I'm betting we find this out sooner than then. About the time we find out that Harry Reid was lying when he said he was informed "a couple of months ago."
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.