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.
(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.
The secrets of tennis legend 
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 10
- next
See all 191 CommentsThere 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?
That is harsh but, I'm afraid, true. I don't know which is sadder: the fact that he asks "could you people, with full time jobs outside of journalism and limited access to the research resources that I as a journalist take for granted, could you have done a better job than me?"...or the fact that the answer is a resounding "yes".
The challenge that you posted asks for a question that " ... both serves the public interest and will get a meaningul response".
I know - and I suspect that you agree, if only secretly - that there will be no meaningful response to any meaningful question that is posed to this administration. That anticipated non-response, however, does not mean that the question shouldn't be asked.
I respectfully request that you use your reporter's instincts to pose meaningful questions even if you don't think that you will receive a meaningful answer. The questions still should be asked, if only to get them on the record. The waffle answer (or outright lie) that you know in your heart will come in response may indeed be the most-viewed on the web and on the pundits' shows when, in the future, facts reveal that the President knew full well that he posessed the truth, but chose instead to deliver something less.
That retrospective will ultimately reveal you as an astute questioner and an excellent reporter.
Here's one: "analyst William Nordhaus has estimated that this war will cost between $120 billion and 1.3 trillion dollars, is that too much money to spend on preemptive war?"
Another: "the army war college has suggested that it will take 500,000 troops or more in order to keep the peace after the Iraqi government falls: are you prepared to send 500,000 troops?"
Another: "given that Osama bin Laden and most of his associates are still alive in Pakistan, is it wise to divert resources from fighting the people who actually perpetrated 911 in order to fight someone who does not appear to have been involved in any recent attacks on the United States?"
Did this sound too angry? Look: just admit that the journalists of today are cowardly fools and be done with it.
You won't win this one. We're smarter and better-informed than you are. Just ask Jay Carney of Time magazine.
Here's one: "analyst William Nordhaus has estimated that this war will cost between $120 billion and 1.3 trillion dollars, is that too much money to spend on preemptive war?"
Another: "the army war college has suggested that it will take 500,000 troops or more in order to keep the peace after the Iraqi government falls: are you prepared to send 500,000 troops?"
Another: "given that Osama bin Laden and most of his associates are still alive in Pakistan, is it wise to divert resources from fighting the people who actually perpetrated 911 in order to fight someone who does not appear to have been involved in any recent attacks on the United States?"
Did this sound too angry? Look: just admit that the journalists of today are cowardly fools and be done with it.
You won't win this one. We're smarter and better-informed than you are. Just ask Jay Carney of Time magazine.
Also... to this day, I am still amazed and still outraged at how many times I hear MSM reporters repeat GOP spin. Not only is it a lazy, propagandistic reporting style, but the spin is often just factually wrong.
...and this passes for journalism?
Or
Mr. President, is Iraq more of a national security threat than North Korea? Why aren't we considering military action against North Korea?
full transcript is at: www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html
=====
Q Mr. President, are you worried that the United States might be viewed as defiant of the United Nations if you went ahead with military action without specific and explicit authorization from the U.N.?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I'm not worried about that. As a matter of fact, it's hard to say the United States is defiant about the United Nations, when I was the person that took the issue to the United Nations, September the 12th, 2002. We've been working with the United Nations. We've been working through the United Nations.
Secondly, I'm confident the American people understand that when it comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act, and we really don't need United Nations approval to do so. I want to work -- I want the United Nations to be effective. It's important for it to be a robust, capable body. It's important for it's words to mean what they say, and as we head into the 21st century, Mark, when it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission.
- War is too serious to undertake without proof of an imminent threat. What documented proof do you have that Iraq has WMDs?
- Isn't it true that Wolfowitz, (etc.) of your administration were signatories to PNAC and that they have beeen agitating for an attack against Iraq since 1997, way before 9/11?
-Isn't the decision to "go it alone" in war against the entire tradition of US foreign policy?
====
BTW, here's some coverage from that date. Note the CBS poll at thend which shows that most (68%) Americans already knew Bush was lying about not having decided to go to war:
WASHINGTON -- U.S. President George W. Bush gave notice last night that the Iraq crisis was in the final stages before war would be decided and accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of making a "wilful charade" of disarmament.
In a rare, prime-time televised news conference, Bush said Saddam is a menacing threat to the security of the U.S. and that his patience for diplomacy is fast running out.
But Bush says the world needs Blix to answer one key question today: Has the Iraqi regime unconditionally disarmed?
Meanwhile, a CBS News poll -- taken before the news conference -- shows 68 per cent of Americans believe Bush has already decided to go to war with Iraq. The poll found 26 per cent said he's still considering options.
Now you DARE hide behind defensive bluster? Give it up. You knew the truth and were too afraid to report it, you allowed this President to lie.
Worse yet, the media continues to facilitate this President and his lies. The stupid "reporting" on Pelosi's trip to Syria is a prime example. You folks ignored the facts and reported the WH spin as reality.
And now the hatchet job on Reid. And finally, the recent articles of impeachment Kucinich has introduced against Cheney. You and your fellow "reporters' act so superior and shocked by this act, rather than report the FACTS, that we were lied in to war. That isn't considered a high crime?
Where are the polls on support for impeachment? All the news outlets claim there is little support, but the few polls out there (Zogby from 2005) show there is. Take a poll, report the facts.
So please, stop with this tiresome posturing. You continue to enable this sociopathic administration.
We the people have had enough of your lies.
After reading the transcript, I was struck by how monotonous the president's responses were. No matter the question, the answers revolved around the same statements.
Even when reporters followed up on each other's questions, nothing was accomplished.
For example, one such question was, "May I ask, what went wrong that so many governments and people around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power?"
The president starts talking about how people thought he couldn't get a prior resolution out of the U.N. Security Council, but by golly he did, and everyone will back the U.S. once a war starts. Our allies disagree with us, he says, but we're all friends. He says Saddam should NOT have one more chance to disarm. Several sentences follow in which he says Saddam is a threat. Then he talks about freedom.
He never answers the question. He never explains why he can't make his case to our allies.
The president has a talent for talking in circles. Deference to him only encourages this behavior. Talk back to him, and back each other up. You outnumber him. Take a deep breath, imagine him in his underwear and just flat-out tell him he's not answering the question. It will unnerve him at first, but it's worth it.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 10
- next
See all 191 Comments