Yeow! Knoller Feels Readers' Wrath
Update:
I've got to admit I was stunned by the nature, depth and fury of the responses to my blog post yesterday (below) about the Bill Moyers Journal report on the news media and the War in Iraq.
Read those comments and you'll see there's alot of anger, no, make that rage directed at some of us – maybe all of us – in the news business.
In fairness, some of you had legitimate points of view to express. Fair enough. Others just wanted to tell me I was a jerk or worse. One of you even called me something that got Don Imus fired.
Sorry you feel that way.
Look, all I was saying was that reporters were not willing dupes of - or accomplices to - the President's decision to go to war in Iraq.
Most of us try to report honestly and fairly on Administration decisions, intentions and statements. If there were doubts and reservations about those matters, it got reported too.
Clearly, many of you disagree. So at the risk of poking an angry lion – let me try this.
YOU be the reporter!
It's March 6, 2003. Pres Bush is moving closer to ordering an attack on Iraq.
You're in the East Room for his primetime news conference – and he calls on you.
What do you ask?
What finely-crafted question do you pose that both serves the public interest and will get a meaningul response?
I assure you my colleagues and I will read what you write.
April 26, 2007
Last night, PBS aired "Buying The War," "a 90-minute documentary that explores the role of the press in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq." The program, which Tom Shales called "one of the most gripping and important pieces of broadcast journalism so far this year," makes the argument that after Sept. 11 the media "abandoned their role as watchdog and became a lapdog instead," as Shales puts it.
CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller watched the broadcast last night, and he wasn't so enthusiastic. Here are his comments.
To hear Bill Moyers tell it last evening on his PBS program "Buying The War," the White House press corps was a willing participant in its own deception about the President's case for war in Iraq.
He portrays us as easily-manipulated stooges on bended-knee to the President and his top aides.
Now, I'm the first to concede there are plenty of good reasons to criticize the White House Press. We're an irascible and unlikable bunch. I'm one of us and I don't like us very much. But the point made by Bill Moyers at the start of his program last night is just off base.
The broadcast began by focusing on the performance of reporters at President Bush's news conference on March 6, 2003. We didn't know it at the time, but it turned out to be 13 days before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Moyers charges in his opening sentences that the press "largely surrendered its independence and skepticism" and joined with the Bush Administration in marching to war.
Pointing to that news conference, Moyers claims that the White House press corps asked "no hard questions" about the president's arguments for war.
He shows only a single, brief example of a question – deep in the news conference – in which a reporter asked Mr. Bush to reflect on how he was guided by his faith at that difficult time. Admittedly, it was a softball.
But Moyers did not cite any of the other much more pointed questions put to the President that evening in the East Room.
Richard Keil of Bloomberg News questioned the Administration's intelligence claims about Saddam Hussein and the doubts of U.S. allies.
Jim Angle of Fox News also challenged the President's assertions about Saddam.
John King of CNN asked the President to respond to critics who portray his animosity toward Saddam as personal. Further, he asked whether US action would make the world a more dangerous place. King also wanted Mr. Bush to address the risks of going to war and the impact on the American people.
Terry Moran of ABC also pressed the President about the doubts and reservations of U.S. allies to his approach.
My colleague Bill Plante challenged Mr. Bush to present hard evidence to back up his claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
And so on.
Now, I can understand if Moyers didn't like the President's answers. Fair enough. But to portray reporters as mindless conduits of White House policies is unfounded.
Did we report what the President said about his case for war? Of course we did. That's our job. Did we also report that his views were challenged or disputed by others? Absolutely. Were questions raised about the veracity of the president's arguments? Certainly.
Did reporters stop the U.S. from going to war in Iraq? No. Could reporters have done a better job? Always.
But to charge that the White House press was "compliant" and cheered the President's arguments for war plainly misrepresents the facts.
© 2007 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved. (CBS)
Read those comments and you'll see there's alot of anger, no, make that rage directed at some of us – maybe all of us – in the news business.
In fairness, some of you had legitimate points of view to express. Fair enough. Others just wanted to tell me I was a jerk or worse. One of you even called me something that got Don Imus fired.
Sorry you feel that way.
Look, all I was saying was that reporters were not willing dupes of - or accomplices to - the President's decision to go to war in Iraq.
Most of us try to report honestly and fairly on Administration decisions, intentions and statements. If there were doubts and reservations about those matters, it got reported too.
Clearly, many of you disagree. So at the risk of poking an angry lion – let me try this.
YOU be the reporter!
It's March 6, 2003. Pres Bush is moving closer to ordering an attack on Iraq.
You're in the East Room for his primetime news conference – and he calls on you.
What do you ask?
What finely-crafted question do you pose that both serves the public interest and will get a meaningul response?
I assure you my colleagues and I will read what you write.
April 26, 2007
(CBS)
CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller watched the broadcast last night, and he wasn't so enthusiastic. Here are his comments.
To hear Bill Moyers tell it last evening on his PBS program "Buying The War," the White House press corps was a willing participant in its own deception about the President's case for war in Iraq.
He portrays us as easily-manipulated stooges on bended-knee to the President and his top aides.
Now, I'm the first to concede there are plenty of good reasons to criticize the White House Press. We're an irascible and unlikable bunch. I'm one of us and I don't like us very much. But the point made by Bill Moyers at the start of his program last night is just off base.
The broadcast began by focusing on the performance of reporters at President Bush's news conference on March 6, 2003. We didn't know it at the time, but it turned out to be 13 days before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Moyers charges in his opening sentences that the press "largely surrendered its independence and skepticism" and joined with the Bush Administration in marching to war.
Pointing to that news conference, Moyers claims that the White House press corps asked "no hard questions" about the president's arguments for war.
He shows only a single, brief example of a question – deep in the news conference – in which a reporter asked Mr. Bush to reflect on how he was guided by his faith at that difficult time. Admittedly, it was a softball.
But Moyers did not cite any of the other much more pointed questions put to the President that evening in the East Room.
Richard Keil of Bloomberg News questioned the Administration's intelligence claims about Saddam Hussein and the doubts of U.S. allies.
Jim Angle of Fox News also challenged the President's assertions about Saddam.
John King of CNN asked the President to respond to critics who portray his animosity toward Saddam as personal. Further, he asked whether US action would make the world a more dangerous place. King also wanted Mr. Bush to address the risks of going to war and the impact on the American people.
Terry Moran of ABC also pressed the President about the doubts and reservations of U.S. allies to his approach.
My colleague Bill Plante challenged Mr. Bush to present hard evidence to back up his claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
And so on.
Now, I can understand if Moyers didn't like the President's answers. Fair enough. But to portray reporters as mindless conduits of White House policies is unfounded.
Did we report what the President said about his case for war? Of course we did. That's our job. Did we also report that his views were challenged or disputed by others? Absolutely. Were questions raised about the veracity of the president's arguments? Certainly.
Did reporters stop the U.S. from going to war in Iraq? No. Could reporters have done a better job? Always.
But to charge that the White House press was "compliant" and cheered the President's arguments for war plainly misrepresents the facts.
There are a few questions to choose from:
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2007/db070430.gif
I have some general comments on the press and the president. It's not just the sleepy deference shown him by the press that is disappointing, but also the celebrity treatment he receives.
Examples: I have read blogs describing the honor of interviewing the president aboard Air Force One or sitting in on exclusive briefings with him. I have watched video of reporters recruited by comics to dance with Karl Rove. I read one interview transcript that included chatter about whether one of the Bush twins will be married in the White House rose garden. I have seen silly videos of Barney the dog produced by the White House and aired on every news channel.
It's not that I have no sense of the majesty of the presidency or the humor of cute little dogs. But when you add it all up, it makes a bad impression. He's interviewed like a reclusive star who is generously sharing his jet and mansion and secrets with a select few; his dog gets his own star turn; his chief of staff enjoys reporters as backup dancers in a comic romp. The press, filled with smart individuals of good intent, becomes this inorganic entity that is somewhat infatuated with its own role in presenting George W. Bush to the public. That's harsh, but sometimes that's the way it plays.
You, I, and everyone in the world knows that the USA would NEVER have invaded and occupied an oil-less Iraq, certainly not under the administration of the Bush gang of thugs, and yet none of you ever pointed this out to anyone. Why do you keep on hiding it?
Could it be because you don't like admitting that your country has coveted, lied, killed, and stolen oil control? Could it be because you fear that if the world is positive that we are bankrupt enough to have to steal oil that it might react in a way that would Enronize or Argentinize us and you'd lose all your millions to the depression caused by the loss of value of the dollar?
I didn't care much for the Moyers hour and a half show myself, not because it didn't document the lies told by every single member of the Bush gang of thugs, but because Moyers, like you, also refuses to go near the truth, preferring to talk about the lies, but not the ugly reason that the Bush gang HAD to lie repeatedly about their Iraq adventure. We have recognized the lies for what they are for years; when do you propose to recognize the truth?
The media's job is not to publicize lies the powerful tell; that is the job of a propagandist. The media is supposed to discount and dismiss the lies in favor of the truth. When do you intend to start doing that?
I respect Mark Knoller's challenge here. But I also think one additional, overriding criterion for the questions beyond "serves the public interest" and "meaningful response" needs to be added: "will not harm the correspondent's access or attract unwanted flak from the White House or bosses".
Here is something that could have be asked, but probably would have run afoul of that third, unspoken criterion:
In the March 3 issue of Newsweek, John Barry reports that "Hussein Kamel, the highest-ranking Iraqi official ever to defect from Saddam Hussein%u2019s inner circle, told CIA and British intelligence officers and U.N. inspectors in the summer of 1995 that after the gulf war, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them."
You and Secretary Powell both have cited Kamel as a credible source. Does this not undermine totally your present case that Iraq must now be "disarmed"?
You say your colleagues are going to read these replies. I have a hard time believing that. But in case you do, please think about these ideas:
Try asking specific factual questions, instead of soliciting views. Write factual stories rather than just reporting on what the White House said.
Stick up for each other a bit. You guys let Dan Rather go down the drain when it was obvious the White House knew the 60 Minutes story was bogus from the start, and let CBS swallow the hook.
Stop fearing the right wing. When they attack you, attack back. They're bullies and they'll run just like any other bullies if you stand up to them. Point out right wing lies.
All of us can put things out on the web. Why can't you? Why don't you have the White House Correspondents' Association start a web site where you can anonymously post stories your editors or the right wing or the people who grant access won't let you write?
(1) "They serve at the president's pleasure." He has the right to fire them, no questions asked.
(2) "All administrations politicize things."
(3) "Clinton did the same thing."
(4) "The Democrats need to legislate, not investigate."
(5) "The American people don't care about this kind of inside baseball stuff."
(6) "The story is mainly being pushed by partisan blogs."
I guarantee -- 100% guarantee -- that if he ever discusses the US Attorney purge (which is doubtful, of course, what with all the expensive haircuts going around and what with John McCain getting that old maverick magic back), that what he says will be some combination of those 6 talking points.
I suggest that an intimidation campaign by the corporate media could put a quick full stop to that particular lie. Suppose each time an administration pundit/flack repeats it, Mr. Knoller does another piece on the implications of the so-called "politicization" of the DOJ. That means, in plain language - something like this: The deal is that the Bush White House political office, same office as foreign and domestic policy office, has been:
1. using the DOJ (via its minority front-man) to bring bogus "voter fraud" charges against minorities and democratic party officials in swing states. their goal is to eliminate democracy in the US by by placing loyal republican political apparatchiks as US Attorneys - and ordering them to prosecute Democratic voters and officials for crimes not committed. The idea is to establish soviet-style one-party rule in the USA.
2. you could point out that the above plan constitutes a treasonous conspiracy against the constitution and the people of the USA.
How 'bout it, Mr. Knoller of the "thirty-pieces" Vichy press?
Pink slips, extreme haircuts, and some very long, public promendades for you all.
When that's done, you can WASH BILL MOYERS' FEET.
One wonders why a degree in journalism is strictly necessary for this sort of thing. Can I be a pampered member of the Washington Press Corp and go to all the fancy parties too? I promise not to ask too many tough questions or to actually, y'know, begin with the assumption that politicians routinely lie and that maybe my job as a reporter should be to determine if what I'm being asked to pass on to the American people is, y'know, true.
Yeow!
what is the limit of the taxpayers dollar outlay for this invasion and will your number crunchers allow oversight for every dollar spent?
what is the limit of the taxpayers dollar outlay for this invasion and will your number crunchers allow oversight for every dollar spent?
what are the policies for awarding contracts?
have you adequately assessed what the effect of this invasion will have on our national guard?
what are your plans for maintaining basic services for the Native people of Iraq?