Public Eye
April 30, 2007 11:41 AM

Knoller Reflects On His Critics

(CBS)
On Thursday, we posted CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller's response to Bill Moyers' claim that members of the press corps were, as Knoller puts it, "easily-manipulated stooges on bended-knee to the President and his top aides" in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Knoller's post, which took issue with that claim, generated a strong response from those who agree with Moyers.

On Friday we posted Knoller's follow up piece, in which he challenged his critics to come up with the questions they would have asked the president. (Both posts here.)

Knoller has read through the responses to that challenge, and below you can read his comments.


Be Careful What You Ask For...

When in good faith, I challenged you to offer questions that you would have asked President Bush at that news conference two weeks before the war in Iraq, a few of you did.

But the vast majority of the more than 200 responses were of the variety that told me what I could do with my challenge.

The depth of the anger and outrage directed at me and others in the White House press corps was profound, to say the least.

But I promised to read your responses and I did. Here’s a few excerpts from what you wrote:

“You have failed democracy itself.”

“I don’t know if you can ever be forgiven.”

“You failed your profession. You failed your country.”

“Knoller’s contempt for the people is palpable.”

“...spineless sycophant.”

“...lazy propagandistic reporting.”

“You continue to enable this sociopathic administration.”

“(You’ve) given the Administration a free ride since the war began.”

“(Knoller) still doesn’t get it. He’s hopeless.”

“A member of the liberal media.”

“CBS and others still act as mouthpieces for the Bush Administration.”

“You owe us an apology.”

“What a pathetic defense of his profession.”

“Knoller et al need to get a clue.”

“Knoller talks exactly like the good little lapdog.”

“The MSM (mainstream media) were Bush’s clown shoes. Knoller. Just...clown shoes.”

“Knoller is a hack who helped lead the nation into war and he’s just making up stuff here.”

Not what I’d call constructive criticism but you get the idea.

I guess some of my detractors didn’t read the Rules of Engagement for posting comments on Public Eye.

But a few, and only a few, had anything positive to offer.

“Hats off to Knoller for his willingness to participate in a dialogue.”

“Hey Knoller. Let me give you a bit of advice. Do not try to reason with this crowd. They have turned on you now. Your only way out is to grovel and say how wrong you and the entire media were. You can’t reason with them.”

“Those who are most angry at you, Mark, are the people who believe that the media’s job is to advance the agenda of the Liberal Democratic Party.”

Now remember, all this began when I took issue with Bill Moyers’ portrait of White House reporters as compliant cheerleaders for the Administration who asked “no hard questions” at that news conference on March 6, 2003 – which turned out to be two weeks before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Moyers responded on his own blog to what I wrote and to letters from my CBS News colleague Bill Plante and reporter April Ryan of the American Urban Radio Network.

Moyers stands by his criticism and again made the case that reporters knowingly took part in a news conference that was “scripted.”

Now, there can be no doubt that President Bush prepared responses to the questions he expected to get. That’s standard procedure for presidents to ready themselves for news conferences by staging mock sessions with top aides posing the questions.

But it’s just plain wrong for Moyers to insist that the session was scripted, based on the President’s disclosure that he had a written list of reporters on whom he planned to call.

As Moyers well knows, the President is free to call on any reporter he wants. And whether it’s written down on paper, or he just wings it, doesn’t make it a scripted news conference.

I can assure you that no one told me what to ask or knew in advance what I would ask. In fact, I wasn’t sure what I would ask until just before I was called on.

And one more thing. A number of you wrote that you considered most reporters, myself included, as nothing more than stenographers.

I certainly don’t see myself that way, though I do believe that accurately reporting what the president says is an indispensable part of a good reporter’s job.

And if the day comes when reporters substitute what they believe for what they know, we’ll all be poorer for it.
Tags:
mark knoller
Topics:
4th Estate Debate
Add a Comment See all 30 Comments
by skeezix06 May 2, 2007 9:06 AM EDT
Say, Mark, did you hear the one about Bush asking Congress for additional powers to spy on the American people? Probably not. It might restrict access if reported. The people don't need to know because it would just upset them. It would be rude and impolite and we just don't do that, do we...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070502/ap_on_go_co/domestic_spying;_ylt=AoXUnqClLxOLxk7a5G_YQa6s0NUE

Senators wary of Bush's wiretap proposal
Reply to this comment
by mattcat25 May 1, 2007 5:17 PM EDT
These kinds of actions we have all witnessed by George W. Bush are what make him the worst president in American history. Every single thing that The Bush Administration does is a disaster, bring the VETO on.

The next bill should be stronger with more restrictions and oversight of Bush's squandering of our Federal Treasury Funds. Maybe, the Congress should write in a voluntary resignation of Bush, Cheney and reparations to be paid to every family for the lost lives of their soldiers that served in Iraq.

We only need one more VETO%u2019d bill from Bush and this nightmare of Iraq will be over!

Bring it on%u2026
Reply to this comment
by sketchartist-2009 May 1, 2007 2:57 PM EDT
"What we write, and the way we do our jobs, affects the way the American people assess their government, assess the situation in the world, the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, relations with other countries. If we're not doing it properly, or questions can be raised about the way we do it, it ought to be reported as well. I don't think we're above criticism %u2013 just the contrary. Although many of us in this business have a thin skin, we ought to be able to look at ourselves and accept criticism from others. I think there's not enough media criticism out there." - Mark Knoller (LINK below)

Oh, the irony.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/03/15/publiceye/entry2573701.shtml
Reply to this comment
by sketchartist-2009 May 1, 2007 2:38 PM EDT
Bush himself said the news conference was "scripted". Oh, you can say he was joking, but WHY would he say that? Further, we all saw that no serious challenge was made to his "talking points". In other words, whether figuratively or literally, the reporters stuck to the SCRIPT.

Also, how interesting that Knoller only thinks the posts that agreed with him, slam "liberals" and insult the sincerity and motives of the all the other posters are "positive".

Mr. Knoller, people SAW the news conference. They are able to judge it for themselves, and you aren't the only person speaking about it "in good faith". Finally, you are still avoiding discussing the OTHER 99 per cent of Moyers' program.
Reply to this comment
by sketchartist-2009 May 1, 2007 2:29 PM EDT
Bush himself said the news conference was "scripted". Oh, you can say he was joking, but WHY would he say that? Further, we all saw that no serious challenge was made to his "talking points". In other words, whether figuratively or literally, the reporters stuck to the SCRIPT.

Also, how interesting that Knoller only thinks the posts that agreed with him, slam "liberals" and insult the sincerity and motives of the all the other posters are "positive".

Mr. Knoller, people SAW the news conference. They are able to judge it for themselves, and you aren't the only person speaking about it "in good faith". Finally, you are still avoiding discussing the OTHER 99 per cent of Moyers' program.
Reply to this comment
by aris_-2009 May 1, 2007 10:47 AM EDT
I don't frequent this blog because I don't watch CBS News. So I missed Mark Knoller's challenge to the blogosphere "...to come up with the questions they would have asked the president" during the infamous March 6, 2003 WH press conference.

My reaction when I followed a link to the post was, OH. MY. GOD!

I've seen nothing since this misbegotten era started that illustrates more revealingly the total disconnect between our mainstream press and the public they are supposed to serve. You see, I watched that press conference. Intently. I remember is so very clearly, as clearly as very few events in my life. The reason is simple: I watched it while yelling at the WH correspondents, right after each question was asked. I was yelling the same thing, over and over: "Ask him about the connection between 9/11 and Iraq; ask him if Saddam was behind 9/11; ask him if there's evidence of a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Ask him!"

cont............
Reply to this comment
by aris_-2009 May 1, 2007 10:39 AM EDT
Is it just me, or is this just about the worst blog in terms of commenting? First there are all the hoops you have to jump through to register, then there's the limit on how many characters to use, then there's no HTML, then you have to wait between posts, then you can't preview, then the last-to-first format is the reverse of what is generally accepted as the standard...

Yet another example on how these large corporations that control our news media just don't get the blogosphere. I don't think I'll be back here any time soon.
Reply to this comment
by aris_-2009 May 1, 2007 10:25 AM EDT
I don't frequent this blog because I don't watch CBS News. So I missed Mark Knoller's challenge to the blogosphere "...to come up with the questions they would have asked the president" during the infamous March 6, 2003 WH press conference.

My reaction when I followed a link to the post was, OH. MY. GOD!

I've seen nothing since this misbegotten era started that illustrates more revealingly the total disconnect between our mainstream press and the public they are supposed to serve. You see, I watched that press conference. Intently. I remember is so very clearly, as clearly as very few events in my life. The reason is simple: I watched it while yelling at the WH correspondents, right after each question was asked. I was yelling the same thing, over and over: "Ask him about the connection between 9/11 and Iraq; ask him if Saddam was behind 9/11; ask him if there's evidence of a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Ask him!"

cont............
Reply to this comment
by May 1, 2007 12:26 AM EDT
The truth shall set you free. You want to know the reason for self censorship in media?! and reasons for the Iraq War?! Quite a scholarly documentary below. Go here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2894821400057137878

Reply to this comment
by skeezix06 May 1, 2007 12:10 AM EDT
jburdman7, we already lost this one. Defective news media notwithstanding, anyone with a computer and access to outside news sources and some inside U.S. news sources has known for a long time that Iraqi women have been forced to start wearing burkas for their own safety. George Bush is the direct cause of the fact that we will be contending with yet another Islamic fundamentalist government. I'll say it again. We've already lost. The only question now is how many more American lives we are willing to lose before we get out.


The Kurdish uprising. Ghastly memories of that. If memory serves me correctly didn't the pre-timid media claim that Bush had encouraged them to revolt with the belief that we would come in and support them?

PBS Newshour is on at 6 p.m. weekdays here, Moyers is on Friday nights; at 9:30, I believe. I plan to watch almost, but not quite, religiously.
Reply to this comment
by jburdman7 April 30, 2007 11:28 PM EDT
Remember when one of the dems criticisms of the Bush (Sr.) admin was that we went in, then later abandoned the Kurds in Gulf I. Funny how I havent heard about that in awhile.

The real thought provoking question is, can the US win a war that can not be fought from beginning to end within one election cycle, to dodge the wrath of the opposition party's talking heads like 'retired general' Moyers.

To skeezix06, please do not confuse 'Bill Moyers' with 'the news hour'. You may compare Bill Moyers to Dan Rather and Helen Thomas. Just check your sources ;-)
Reply to this comment
by jburdman7 April 30, 2007 11:15 PM EDT
The topic of 'how we got Iraq wrong' is a land mine. No one wants to admit that they screwed up. So the fingers point every which way.

But talking about who screwed up is a diversion from the current dilemma -

Are we ready for the possibility the middle east will turn into post Vietnam Cambodia if we leave?
What about international law, which has a 'you break it, you bought it' view of the US in Iraq?

Congress is considering declaring that they, retroactively, never did vote to authorize the war. This is our 'leadership'?

They essentially are driving around the better neighborhoods of denial. Eventually someone needs to live in the 'now' and do what is best. Not concerning itself with which failures are easiest to blame on ones political rivals.

Iraq is a situation that is spiraling. There is not time yet for the main topic of discussion to be the 'hard' question of how we got where we are. We have a 'hard' question pressing us right now. Are we willing to lose Iraq and watch it fall to the warlords? Or are we going to take volunteers from retired military, and civilians willing to help if they can stay stateside etc? To hold their country together until they can form their governmental systems in the midst of their sectarian rivalries.

Politicians act as though the result doesnt matter as long as we can assess blame somewhere else. Shameful!
Reply to this comment
by winegeek2 April 30, 2007 10:42 PM EDT
You might not see yourself as a stenographer, but that doesn't mean you aren't.

Today is a prime example of the WH press asleep at the switch. Snow made this laughable assertion:

" So Im afraid what%u2019s happened there is that George Tenet may have been referring to something that has been misreported or at least twisted by people with political motives, but there has been no attempt to try to link Saddam to September 11."

Have you or your collegues read the Iraq war resolution? The administration tried to link Iraq (and by proxy Saddam) to 9/11 in their own IWR:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Why doesn't anybody except for Helen call them on their lies? When Snow said this,every reporter in that room should have thrown example after example to show this was a lie.

You are asking people to treat you with kid gloves just as you treat this white house. Sorry. Ain't going to happen. Yes, there is rage in this country toward everyone who has lied or enabled the lies which have led to where we are today. And the 4th estate failed when we needed you the most.


Reply to this comment
by skeezix06 April 30, 2007 10:17 PM EDT
Perhaps you will approve of this summation more then.

You did a wonderful job of reporting...on White House trivia.

You want feedback...as long as they say only nice things about your reporting.

You and your colleagues promised to listen to all comments...and then discard those who actually gave you constructive criticism and solid alternative questions in response.

The thing that you, somehow, keep overlooking is the fact that an honest and competent media which reports and relays information to the public is an absolute necessity to our form of government. It is or used to be a counterbalance which prevented the kind of propaganda we heard in the Soviet Union. If you don't fulfill your responsibilities faithfully and accurately, our democracy is dead. Us little folk tend to take offense that our Constitution may no longer be relevant or applicable. (See Patriot Act and spying on U.S. citizens)

Walter Cronkite you ain't. You aren't Dan Rather either. And you aren't even in the same ballpark with Helen Thomas. With all respect that you are due, Moyers is a much better newsman and has a much better reputation than you do. ...Which is one of the reasons why I now watch NBC or PBS for the evening news.
Reply to this comment
by one_american April 30, 2007 10:14 PM EDT
While the left continues, unabated, to run in circles, screaming with their hair on fire...it would appear that alerting the left of this fact only makes them scream louder and run faster, fanning the flames further.

It is however, breathtaking entertainment.
Reply to this comment
by cheekygal-2009 April 30, 2007 9:13 PM EDT
I remember way back then on a Political discussion board discussing the "Curveball" issue. He was known to be an alcoholic and a liar. Why, if this informant was known of by anyone in MSM, did one of you not ask about this individual?

"Curveball (informant)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Curveball was the designation for a claimed "Iraqi chemical engineer" who the United States claimed had served as an informant. Curveball would be the attributed source of pivotal information concerning weapons of mass destruction leading up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Intelligence agencies often use codenames generated at random, so the relation to "erratic behavior" may be purely coincidental. Nevertheless, many intelligence agents familiar with the case found the description to be apt.

Claims and background
snip
The LA Times reported that Curveball was actually the brother of one of Ahmed Chalabi's top aides. This raised additional questions about his reliability, as Chalabi was asked if he knew anything about mobile weapons labs a short time before Curveball emerged.

In November 2002, UN weapons inspectors investigated Curveball's claims, and found that details and information given by Curveball could not be verified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)"
Reply to this comment
by preamerikkka April 30, 2007 8:25 PM EDT
and the day that a reporter substitutes what they know for what the administration knows we'll be the DEADER for it.
Reply to this comment
by mattcat25 April 30, 2007 8:20 PM EDT
The Bush scam in Iraq is about to begin to end. The GOP has put $billions into the pockets of their private war profiteer contractors. George W. Bush has never completed anything in his entire life! Why should he start now? Bush%u2019s war on Iraq is a bankrupt deal and Congress is the creditors. The GOP is now asking that we wait and see for another six months (again) to assess if the surge plan is working. The Surge isn%u2019t going to work, The Surge is the latest Bush plan that isn%u2019t working already and never will. The GOP is just wasting more time to collect more $billions and sacrifice more or our soldiers lives.
Reply to this comment
by joycewest April 30, 2007 7:31 PM EDT
Mr. Knoller, I agree that name calling is counter-productive for everyone. It distracts us all from much more interesting discussions. Setting aside the arguments over whether the press could have extracted any "gotcha" information from the president before the war began, I am curious about how White House press conferences are conducted in general.
I realize you may be past the point of addressing any further comments, but reading your latest post raised these questions in my mind.
So the president has a list of reporters he plans to call on at press conferences, but everyone knows he is free to deviate from that list. Do you know if you are on the list and in what order? How often does the president deviate from the list? Is being on the list so advantageous that reporters lobby to get on the list?
Is there a time limit on reporters or any limit to the number of questions a reporter can ask, if not in fact than in custom? What is the longest back-and-forth exchange between a reporter and the president that you can recall? Is there peer pressure for reporters to finish up so others can have a turn?
I understand that the president, like any CEO who will be put on the spot, rehearses possible responses in advance. Has this president ever given an answer you didn't expect?
Reply to this comment
by memekiller April 30, 2007 6:45 PM EDT
Here are your examples of having something "positive to offer":

%u201CHey Knoller. Let me give you a bit of advice. Do not try to reason with this crowd. They have turned on you now. Your only way out is to grovel and say how wrong you and the entire media were. You can%u2019t reason with them.%u201D

%u201CThose who are most angry at you, Mark, are the people who believe that the media%u2019s job is to advance the agenda of the Liberal Democratic Party.%u201D

We can't be reasoned with, are only out to "advance" the Democratic agenda, which, you find a "positive" counterpoint to accusing you of forwarding the Whitehouse agenda, and being a mouthpiece for conservatives. Okay. That's positive the way Limbaugh and Imus aren't incivil, meaning, it sounds right to your ears because they're part of the aristocracy.
Reply to this comment
See all 30 Comments

About Public Eye

Description for Public Eye