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.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 191 CommentsMark Knoller and his ilk failed miserably in their duties as journalist...being ashamed and apologetic would be more appropriate than attacking Bill Moyers
Shame on Marl Knoller and his colleages for failing the public from the trajedy that followed, the thousands of young dead soldiers and dead innocent Iraqi's are a result of their failing's.
It is an open secret that the journalist today love the closeness to power and its access more than honoring their profession.
Shame!Shame!Shame!
"I wonder why you think so many people around the world take a different view of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses than you and your allies."
This question is not "pointed" or a "challenge". This is an easy opportunity to explain away the view of the overwhelming majority of the international community.
Journalistic integrity can't improve if you continue to rationalize your failure to question the administration's justifications for war.
Apparently, that challenge went unmet.
And isn't that really the point of Moyers' piece? Knoller fails to address the key point -- i.e. even if the questions were asked, they were rarely answered properly. Why didn't the WHPC and the rest of the large, well-funded and staffed media members go find their own answers in the face of the broadbrush representations and patent rhetoric offered up by our government officials? What do you do when George Bush deflects a good question with an evasive, incomplete, or irrelevant answer? BUYING THE WAR made a good case for concluding that the WHPC did very little, other than parrot follow-up from administration spin doctors.
Moyers reinforces the fundamental need for a professional, diligent, and public-minded Fourth Estate. This is not about George Bush or Republicans -- the same lack of government accountability can plague any administration or political party. The crux is whether America has (and will have) the independent and responsible media that we need to assure accountability from our leadership when it's needed most.
Bush%u2019s military occupation of Iraq has been in it%u2019s entirety a %u201CPORK PROJECT%u201D to divert Federal Treasury Funds to GOP Private War Contractors and, to secure long term oil contracts.
The time has come after four years plus, that The Bush Administration make good on all their pre-war sales talk.
"I think we were very deferential because%u2026it%u2019s live, it%u2019s very intense, it%u2019s frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you%u2019re standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country%u2019s 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."
So Bumiller agreed the press (including herself) were cowed. Was she lying?
Also, to the rest of the world, the questions appeared scripted or pre-approved for that conference. Bush even cited that during the kabuki conference when CNN's John King tried to ask a question. No one in the press commented on that, instead concentrating on the President's impressive "stature" during what I thought was a historically bad performance.
Don't focus just on that press conference; look at the entire history of the press leading up to the war. If you aren't embarrassed, you really need to seek professional help.
Knoller et al, if you want to be respected, you need to do your job and report, investigate, and hit hard.
"I think we were very deferential because%u2026it%u2019s live, it%u2019s very intense, it%u2019s frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you%u2019re standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country%u2019s 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."
Thanks Liz! Heckofajob!
Powell lied to the world at the UN. The President looked sedated at his pre-war press conference. No WMDs had been found. If you guys did the job you claim to have done, why are we in Iraq again?
Moyers laid it out. And Bumiller unwittingly wrote the epitaph. The media was too cowed to do its job. And now your reduced to pathetic rearguard excuses -- well we all saw your 'performance' and it was pathetic.
Asking a question (even if it is a tough question like Mark Knoller contends) is not enough if all the WH press corps is going to do is behave like a stenographer and take down the
WH response. They are reporters, for gawd's sake. It's fine to quote the President, but if he's lying or there is no proof to what they are spinning, it is the duty of the reporters to set the record straight.
What really infuriates me is the WH leaking information and then reporters protecting their sources (even after they know that they have been lied to). Anonymous sources were supposed to be for whistleblowers, not for the distraction to lie. It should be the duty of reporters to identify the sources that lied to them with a retraction of the story.
Mark, if you and your ilk willingly admit that you were part of the problem,there may be hope for the mainstream media. Otherwise, the difference between you and Fox News ain't much.
ITMFA
OR, they can see, but continue to lie about it.
Fewer and fewer of those of us out here in the hinterlands, however, are buying the *** they're trying to sell.
It was a disgusting performance.
In his piece he asks "Did we report what the President said about his case for war? Of course we did. That%u2019s 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%u2019s arguments? Certainly."
As a consumer of the news and observer of the press during this period, I think the correct answer to the first question was "Uncritically," to the second, "Poorly and with less attention to the substance than they deserved," and to the third, "Not really, with the notable exception of the Knight-Ridder (now McLatchy) Washington Bureau.
If the press was doing its job well, explain the 70%.
If we are to believe Mr Knoller's argument, then the role of the corps is primarily to ask tough questions, but not necessarily do vigorous reporting ... unless only as a distant second priority. One need only review the ledes of this time period to confirm the utter flimsiness of Mr Knoller's argument (read: opinion).
There are, of course, several instances of fine journalism throughout this time period. Charlie Savage of The Boston Globe is a recent example of this.
However, these instances went largely without notice, as news outlets instead favored the parroting of completely spurious stories such as the numerous ABC News "stories" of the alleged link between Saddam Hussein and the anthrax scare(s). It should not go unnoticed that no outlet, and certainly not ABC News, has clearly and unequivocally retracted and apologized for creating or repeating such baseless, fact-free "news" that undoubtedly had a terrifying (ergo pro-war) effect on the American public.
What Mr Knoller, perhaps unwittingly, reveals is just how little our major media outlets can take what they allegedly dish.
Duncan Black at atrios.blogspot.com has a list of all the questions asked at that press conference. Every one is a softball; not one challenges the President's assertions with fact.
Otherwise, what Knoller seems to think is journalism is actually stenography.
Cast your mind back a couple of years ago, Mr. Knoller, to the time when a BBC reporter created a brouhaha with her aggressive questioning of the president. This minor ripple on the calm waters of the DC press pond happened more than once - always when a foreign reporter pressed harder than you were accustomed to doing. It's shameful, really, how cowed American media is to the power of the White House. You were the guys who had a revolution only 200 years ago. What happened?
The press' performance was abominable, print as well as electronic.
You flatter the White House Press Corps when you call them irascible and unlikeable. Makes them sound like iconoclastic freebooters, instead of the blow dried, cocktail sipping, overpaid stooges that 95% of you were.
Just as Bush43 turned a 5 trillion surplus into a 4 trillion deficit, the press took the golden aura of the intrepid days of Watergate, and flushed it down the hopper, preferring to guard your social position and lifestyle, instead of guarding America against a lying, venal pack of soulless corruptors.
Don't waste our time until you are prepared to claim your wretched performance of the last 10 years, and make a convincing apology.
Cast your mind back to the moment when a BBC reporter aggressively questioned the president and created a momentary brouhaha. It wasn't the only time a minor ripple ruffled the calm pond of the DC press corp, but it was always when a foreign reporter pressed for a real answer. There was a revolution only 200 hundred years ago. Wasn't there? What's with the bowing and scraping at the press conferences. Wake up!
Embarassingly, there was a large loop-hole in the question, "why is it that THEY are reluctant," that the president did not even bother to use, not that he really needed it. Instead, the closest he came to addressing the question was to say that the U.S. consults and shares intelligence with our allies. This answer would have been useful for teaching a grade-school civics class, but not so useful for grown-ups outside of the modern press. There was no follow-up of this question.
Q Mr. President, as the nation is at odds over war, with many organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing for continued diplomacy through the U.N., how is your faith guiding you? And what should you tell America -- well, what should America do, collectively, as you instructed before 9/11? Should it be "pray?" Because you're saying, let's continue the war on terror.
"Q Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, if you haven't already made the choice to go to war, can you tell us what you are waiting to hear or see before you do make that decision? And if I may, during the recent demonstrations, many of the protestors suggested that the U.S. was a threat to peace, which prompted you to wonder out loud why they didn't see Saddam Hussein as a threat to peace. I wonder why you think so many people around the world take a different view of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses than you and your allies."
How can this not be boiled down to "tell us what you want and tell us why other people are wrong?"
"PRESIDENT We'll be there in a minute. King, John King. This is a scripted -- (laughter.)"
Which is followed up with another "please tell us how right you are" question:
"Q Thank you, Mr. President. How would -- sir, how would you answer your critics who say that they think this is somehow personal? As Senator Kennedy put it tonight, he said your fixation with Saddam Hussein is making the world a more dangerous place. And as you prepare the American people for the possibility of military conflict, could you share with us any of the scenarios your advisors have shared with you about worse-case scenarios, in terms of the potential cost of American lives, the potential cost to the American economy, and the potential risks of retaliatory terrorist strikes here at home?"
%u201CAt least a dozen times during this press conference he will invoke 9/11 and Al Qaeda to justify a preemptive attack on a country that has not attacked America. . . . But the White House press corps will ask no hard questions tonight about those claims.%u201D (Transcript available at: www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1.html)
No press member questioned this linkage. Moreover, as others had pointed out, Knoller%u2019s supposed questions are nothing of the kind. Softballs, all of them, many essentially asking why people disagree with you. And those were the hard ones.
Have you people no shame?
Moyers' program was excellent and hit the nail on the head. I was furious with the news outlets in the buildup to the war-- we could protest every day and still not overcome the momentum achieved by the Bush administration thanks to all the willing helpers who spread the misinformation. Shame on you all for not doing your jobs, and shame on you now for not admitting it.
Moyers' program was excellent and hit the nail on the head. I was furious with the news outlets in the buildup to the war-- we could protest every day and still not overcome the momentum achieved by the Bush administration thanks to all the willing helpers who spread the misinformation. Shame on you all for not doing your jobs, and shame on you now for not admitting it.
"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?."
It seems to use "tough" language, but note it is constructed to allow the president to answer "what went wrong" with OTHER governments. So it is actually easy, especially since this conference was scripted, as the president said.
Moyers' program was excellent and hit the nail on the head. I was furious with the news outlets in the buildup to the war-- we could protest every day and still not overcome the momentum achieved by the Bush administration thanks to all the willing helpers who spread the misinformation. Shame on you all for not doing your jobs, and shame on you now for not admitting it.
Reporter: Mr. President, or Mr. Vice President (here insert question about going to war, or progress on war. )
Bush or Cheney (with a straight face) Answers with a bold-faced lie: (Iraq = 9/11! Everyone knew Saddam had WMD! We are making great progress in Iraq! There is no civil war! Mission Accomplished! )
Reporter - who knows that what Bush or Cheney has just said is a flat-out lie - DOES NOT ASK A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION DISPUTING WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS JUST SAID - and uncritically reports to the US public that "The President said - Iraq=9/11, we're winning in Iraq, or whatever."
The problem is the reporter NEVER TELLS HIS audience that the president is lying. He does not point out all the factual innacuracies. In fact, he simply acts as a stenographer, uncritically repeating whatever bull the White House is peddling that day.
Moyers nailed you all - you were stenographers, not journalists.
"Q Mr. President, to a lot of people, it seems that war is probably inevitable, because many people doubt -- most people, I would guess -- that Saddam Hussein will ever do what we are demanding that he do, which is disarm. And if war is inevitable, there are a lot of people in this country -- as much as half, by polling standards -- who agree that he should be disarmed, who listen to you say that you have the evidence, but who feel they haven't seen it, and who still wonder why blood has to be shed if he hasn't attacked us."
I am not sure why this has "Q" in front of it in the transcript since it is actually a statement that assumes that Bush's claims were true and then invites the president, again, to tell us how he is right again. It definitely was not "tough" in this format, especially since no real inquiry was "scripted."
"MARK KNOLLER."
"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."
Mr. Knoller, have you EVER followed up on this? I know you did not in this press conference. Might I suggest asking about all the experts who say our security has been harmed by the Iraq war? Perhaps mention the fact that our allies have been thoroughly ignored since this conference? For that matter, how about you, Mark Knoller, tell us how embarrassing it is for people to talk about this "scripted," the president's word, press conference?
Cheers, Charles Judson Harwood Jr. (April 26 2007)
It was as Moyers and company described it, not as Knoller describes it. The questions were not informed. The reporters had clearly not worked their sources in intel (if they had any) to be able to ask the kind of rigorous questions needed to scrutinize the administration's conduct. It's not just the Bush answers that were wanting, it's those soft, imprecise questions about what "your critics" say that just gave Bush another chance to repeat his previous statements instead of respond to specific information.
Really? Because I sure didn't see lots of coverage of antiwar protests. I didn't see interviews with critics of the Administration. I didn't see independent analysis of the claims being made by government sources. Instead, I saw the usual suspects, the Administration officials and neo-conservative pundits, interviewed again and again as if they knew one thing about anything. Even now, after these folks were proved completely, catastrophically wrong, they still show up on CBS.
Prove me wrong, Mark. Cite to CBS transcripts in which Administration views were challenged. And show they were more than a minuscule fraction of what CBS had to say in the run-up to the war. Otherwise, you're just pulling this claim out of your backside.
Moyers also makes a point that you've completely missed here. It's not just your job to "report that his views were challenged or disputed by others." It's your job to determine whether his views are challenged or disputed by the FACTS.
Mainstream media outlets like CBS have proved themselves not only too lazy and cowardly to independently discern the facts, but too lazy to even put anyone besides the usual suspects on their Rolodexes.
Listen up CBS News your customers are trying to tell you something!
I believe Mark is being insincere because it is obvious that the Washington press corps failed to do anything more than parrot the GOP talking points leading up to the war. I believe they are doing the same thing today.
A sampling of the talking head shows reveals a belief that McCain is a straight shooter; Guiliani is a hero and Hillary is an amibitious, too-forceful "b***tch. Stop defending yourself and start doing your job. Find the truth and report it.
You have learned the Bush administration's tactic to misdirect and narrow in on a minor quibble without dealing with Moyer's central theme.
The MSM failed to refute the Bush administration's reasons for leading us into war. You and the rest of the media were complicit. We are in Iraq under false pretenses. Please cite your reports that challenged the administration.
If anyone watches the Moyers piece and comes away thinking, "Pish posh, we did TOO ask the right questions and Moyers sure is unfair," that person is a living embodiment of the problem.
I believe this period in our history will be looked at the way we look at McCarthy-ism: an inexplicable episode of a kind of national mania which caused enormous harm. And the "deer-in-the-headlights" media will be a big part of the story.
P.S. Sorry for all the blogg-erific harsh language. I know MSM types don't like it when we speak our minds in plain English.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 191 Comments