Conyers v. Milbank: I dissent.

by Kagro X

It is perhaps fitting that the controversy over media coverage of the "old news" of the Downing Street memos is itself old news, now that I'm finally ready to comment on it, after a long Father's Day weekend.

Exhibit A in the case: Dana Milbank's column -- yes, column -- of June 17th, entitled, "Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War."

The complaints were legion, but were essentially all the same: Milbank was condescending, and factually incorrect. And, of course, you can't accuse a mainstream media voice of bias without claiming he's taking "marching orders from Karl."

All to be expected. But it's time for the "reality-based community," to take a long, careful look around.

Much can and has been written on Milbank's tone, which caught many readers by surprise. The Washington Post's Ombudsman offered an explanation -- Milbank is doubling as a columnist now, and not just a straight news reporter. Hence, his straying into opinion, which has apparently moved him to actually tell people (gasp!) what he thinks about what's going on, and not simply what's going on.

Similarly, much can and has been written on the alleged subtext of Milbank's observation of an "awkward turn" in the session, when testimony turned to the subject of Israel. The objection states too much, in my opinion. There's very little use in debating whether or not one particular moment was or wasn't "awkward" to an opinion columnist. Even a straight reporter gets a pass on that. How "awkward" does a moment have to be before a reporter is permitted to record such an observation, anyway?

My chief objection to the attacks on Milbank, however, is simply this: He's right.

In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe.

They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official.

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him "Mr. Chairman." He liked that so much that he started calling himself "the chairman" and spouted other chairmanly phrases, such as "unanimous consent" and "without objection so ordered." The dress-up game looked realistic enough on C-SPAN, so two dozen more Democrats came downstairs to play along.

Conyers' forum was not a hearing. It wasn't in a Judiciary Committee hearing room, those weren't witness tables, those flags were carried in from elsewhere, and nothing about it was official. That's all true. And while it would doubtless have been helpful to note why this testimony couldn't have been taken in an official proceeding, and to note why it couldn't be held in the Judiciary Committee's room, the lesson to take away from Milbank's coverage is not that he's "taking marching orders" from Rove, but that the usefulness of Democrats' masquerading as a functioning minority in Congress may be at an end.

I can well understand why Conyers and his Democratic colleagues adopt the formality of parliamentary procedure when they hold such forums. Conyers is a 40-year veteran of the Congress, and formerly the Chairman of the Government Operations Committee. The procedure and setting are no doubt comfortable for him, and of course, such procedure is a proven platform for eliciting informative testimony and directing an organized investigation.

But Milbank has successfully scratched the surface of the downside of reliance on such formalities: it is a charade.

Are Democrats forced by their minority status to resort to alternative forums? Yes.

And have they been relegated to minority status, despite more ballots being cast in America for Democrats to be elected to Congress than Republicans, at least in part by arguably unfair and partisan-driven gerrymandering? Yes.

And have Republicans abused the power of the majority to choke off the power of the minority to present its case fairly to the American public, across any number of issues? Yes.

And has the Judiciary Chairman in particular, in a childlike fit of anger, made it impossible for committee Democrats to bring crucial information to light through normal channels? Yes.

So, this all being the case, what's so "progressive" about killing the messenger when he observes that it's a bit embarrassing to be reduced to pretending for the C-SPAN cameras that a hearing on such a controversial topic is underway?

At some point, we're going to have to admit that the Conyers charade gives the casual observer the impression that nothing's wrong in Congress, and that the Democrats are conducting investigations, just as they should be. The Democrats are a wronged minority. They have been dispossessed. Their consitutuents are being cheated out of their right to elected representation in Congress. So why is the Democratic response to all of this to dress up protest to look like regular order?

Dana Milbank has done us a tremendous favor here by holding up a mirror to these proceedings. There is no doubt that the information Conyers and his colleagues want to bring forward is important and in the national interest. There is no doubt that they will be forbidden from doing so under regular order. But are make-believe hearings the best way to carry both the message of dissent and the exposure of Republican despotism?

There's an old saying about what sort of measures desperate times call for. Surely the issues Congressional Democrats want to see addressed can be brought forward with the dignity befitting the institution in which they serve. But if Congress, under Republican rule, is dysfunctional, let that be demonstrated clearly and in no uncertain terms. The fact is that these proceedings are political theater, and Conyers himself would no doubt be willing to admit as much. Acknowledging this, we are now free to adopt fresher, more obvious and more effective forms of political theater -- hopefully ones better suited to the dual tasks of bringing suppressed information to light and shining that light on those who were suppressing it in the first place.

Comments

[David]

Just out of curiosity, what would you have recommended instead of the "hearing"?

[emptywheel]

Couple of comments.

First, if I remember correctly, Lugar referred to Biden as "chairman" during SFRC's vote on Bolton. So Conyers isn't the only one who is confused about who is Chairman and who is not. And it seems like Conyers would have more REASON to usurp his Chair's power, all things considered, than Biden.

Second, I was thinking the same as you--the problem here is that Conyers attempted to retain the feeling of normality, rather than highlighting the abnormality of being denied real access. But that MIGHT be a factor of the timing--learning they'd not get a room early in teh week, considering the DNC headquarters, then learning they'd get a room later on. I think they ALWAYS should have planned to use the Capitol steps. Only because it's a good way to demonstrate they've been marginalized in the Congress.

Finally, my complaint with Milbank is that he didn't criticize the bigger problems with the hearing--I think there are two. Frist, if this was a hearing to investigate the veracity and implications of the DSM, you'd want to have witnesses there who were IN the WH, observing this process. Witnesses like Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil. Several of the witnesses didn't seem to have anything tangible to offer wrt the DSM. Which only highlighted the haphazard nature of this hearing.

But also, if you're going to have a hearing that doesn't have official recognition anyway, then you ought to think very carefully about what your OBJECTIVE for that hearing is. What point do you want to prove? No one seemed to have done that here. Were they trying to make the case for further investigation? Were they trying to berate the WH for going to war? Or were they SERIOUSLY trying to lay the groundwork for impeachment? This first goal might have been accomplishable and legitimate--but if that were their goal, they should have kept the hearing more focused. As it is, the lack of focus really detracted from the hearing's value. IMO.

That said, you can't deny that it seems to have accomplished ONE purpose--drumming up more media attention on the DSM. We'll see whether any good will come out of that.

[RevDeb]

I second David's question.
Exactly what is that you are registering your dissent against? Millbank's article? Conyers' response?

I watched it all and had Millbank been reporting rather than posturing, he might have noted that the republicans denied Conyers a venue for his forum and that they also scheduled 11 votes concurrent with the forum, a very odd thing for them to do.

Since the press hasn't been doing its job in covering everything from the run up to the war to the DSM, it is disturbing, yes, that Conyers et al had to resort to these theatrics, but it seems that the media only wants to cover circuses anyway (Jackson, Schiavo, etc.) If this is what it takes to get them off the dime, so be it, but rather than make fun of it all, how about explaining it to the public? The readers of the WA PO deserve at least that much.

[DemFromCT]

For more 'old news' and how the press sees itself, see The Downing Street Memo and the Court of Appeal in News Judgment in which it is seen that the media's ability to decide what's news (old or new) is now subject to appeal by the internets.

[DHinMI]

Bravo. I love John Conyers, but even those you love sometimes screw up or don't deliver what they promised. That was the case here.

And as for Milbank, for two or three years people on our side of the aisle have been cheering him on for not passively accepting the bullshit put forth by the administration. He's been a good reporter, which is why he hasn't been snookered or cowed by the Bushies. But it's because he's a good reporter, and not a partisan, that he turned his critical eye on Democrats as well. It doesn't mean he was or always will be correct, but I think a lot of people feel like he somehow betrayed them, when in fact he's simply being consistent and being an honest and critical journalist. And isn't that what most of us say we want from the press?

[DHinMI]

RevDeb: I think he's dissenting from the prevailing view in some quarters, especially among diarists and commenters at Daily Kos, that Milbank stabed the Dems in the back and that Conyers' hearing was a bravura performance that will deliver signficant and tangible results.

[Mike S]

Interesting take. I think for the most part you are right but it would have been nice if Milbank had given the reasons that charades like this take place.

Coverage of the GOP's abuse of power has been sorely lacking. The only time it seems to be covered is when a Dem threatens someone physically, like Murtha or Stark(great name). The fact that the GOP has jettisoned all of the old ways the minority had to do their job is completely lost to the general public. Even the bald faced ones like holding votes open for hours barely or denying conference rooms barely gets a mention. When my man Pete S tark threatened to kick his chairmans ass, that was the story and the fact that it was because the dems on the committee weren't given any time to review the bill and the Reps attempted to vote without a single dem in the room was barely noticed.

So how do we get the press to cover that angle?

[Mike S]

DH

What a typical GOP lite defence for an obvious Rove planted Milbank. For quite some time have felt Milbank was just biding his time writing hard hitting articles about the admin so he could lull the left into thinking he was a fair journalist. He's known all along that he would get an opening like this and with his credibility beable to take down the dems.

I say we take him behind the woodshed and beat the crap out of him.

[norbizness]

I saw the "hearing" and it probably was a pastiche of various Iraq-related grievances, only a few of which had to do directly with the British memos.

But Milbank was simply toeing the Post's editorial line that "we didn't need to cover the DSM, it's not important, and even if it was, everybody knew anyway" with that sneering pile of bullshit. He was basically saying "this stuff is so marginal, look at the clown show that's covering it!" rather than examining the substance of the allegations, which have only multiplied since then. I think it's called Kinsleyitis.

[Kagro X]

RevDeb, I believe DH has accurately described what it is I'm dissenting from.

David, I haven't got any perfect answers, of course, but I'd second some of the suggestions made here and elsewhere -- i.e., an event held on the Capitol steps, or at least on the "House Triangle," that plot of land outside the East front which puts the steps and dome in the backdrop. Such an event and a more controlled forum need not be mutually exclusive, of course. Certain segments of the testimony were perhaps better suited to an indoor setting. But I would also suggest that as long as these proceedings are informal, and as long as the rooms secured for them aren't hearing rooms anyway, then let there be more informal interaction between the Members and the press and public. Let there be a question and answer period, though these can surely get hairy. Let there be informal "press availability." Start with a press conference, and follow up with informal gaggles and breakout sessions as you see in "spin alley" after a presidential debate. Let Members speak off the cuff and be sources of in-depth analysis for reporters covering the forum. Most importantly, let it not have the appearance of normalcy, of business-as-usual.

Milbank surely did everyone a disservice by not noting why the forum was taking place where it was. But I think he was entitled at least to wonder why participants would insist on pretending it was happening elsewhere.

Finally, I would have to agree with emptywheel, who calls attention to the need for greater focus in these forums. We may very well deplore the impression Milbank gave America of what happened, but how far can we go in blaming him for not understanding precisely what the message was, and getting bogged down in another issue instead? And while his issue is dismissed as mean-spirited nit picking, I disagree. I think it was, shall we say, perhaps less than optimally worded? But it was also a legitimate point.

The issue, for me, is not Milbank or what he wrote. It's that nobody thought to consider the effect of designing your hearings about what's wrong with the government to look like hearings the government holds when nothing's wrong.

[RonK, Seattle]

I concur in Kagro X's opinion, and note that we cannot expect to be taken seriously as the "Reality-Based Community" if we are not willing to take Reality seriously.

Is it realistic to take a columnist to task for writing the column he wrote rather than the column you would have written?

Is it realistic to flood the columnist and his editors with abusively-toned e-mail in the belief this will lead them to change their tune? Or will this merely confirm the columnist's impression that our faction has stumbled down the rabbit hole into a self-referential fantasy world?

And is it realistic, on this account, to launch a boycott of Washington Post advertisers, in the expectation that this will bring the miscreant columnist and the paper to its knees?

Studying the list of targeted advertisers, and in partial sympathy with the aggrieved blogsters, I resolve to have no dental work done in Northern Virginia, at least until Milbank posts a column snarking at Bush. That's as far as I go.

Politically, a majority of the blogosphere was born yesterday, and it shows ... but why rub it in?

[Meteor Blades]

I agree entirely with your overall view of the basement hearing, Kagro. It was, almost, an exercise in guerrilla theatre, which would have been more properly held on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial complete with the papier mache puppets we've all come to love or hate. Almost such an exercise, but not quite. Nor quite a real hearing either, and not merely because it didn't have Sensenbrenner's imprimatur or an august venue with oak tables, fancy water pitchers and the visage of Thom. Jefferson peering down from a paneled wall. It was, in short, neither fish nor fowl.

I'm not as able as you to give Milbank a pass, however. Unlike the fickle faction of the left, who saw him as heroic just a few weeks ago, I'm not willing to write him off as one of them, and find those viewing him as some Rovian agent ludicrously paranoid. But if Milbank had written what you wrote, I think there would have been far less of an outcry against him.

Because he was factually inaccurate, supercilious and unfair. He held up a mirror, true, but it was a distorted funhouse mirror. As Conyers himself pointed out in his letter in response to Milbank's "critique," the idea that the Congressman got a swollen head in this matter and urged others to call him "chairman" is dead wrong, and dead stupid, as any veteran Beltway writer - reporter or columnist - knows full well. Once a chairman (or governor, or president), always a chairman. That paragraph did more to undermine Milbank's legitimate criticisms than anything else he wrote, though some else of what he wrote seemed more like pundit posturing than analysis to me. What irks me most is that Milbank has proved himself so much better than this.

He should have written what you wrote.

[Kagro X]

Yes, I discount the issue of the use of the honorific, "Mr. Chairman" in this go-round, because there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for it. And even if Conyers hadn't ever been Chairman of anything, for better or for worse, the format selected for this event was that of a hearing, and people who run hearings are chairpeople.

[mpower1952]

I know when I first read Milbank's so-called column, I checked back to see if it said anything about being a column. What did I miss?

[RonK, Seattle]

MB -- There you go: papier mache heads The Giant Conyers Head, eyebrows locked, on collision course with the Giant Sensenbrenner Head (or maybe a Republican Stone Wall).

That, or an organized conference, with panels and lectures and handouts, in a CSPAN-friendly non-congressional conference facility. The Righties are geniuses at grabbing air time via ad hoc conferences.

As to "Mr. Chairman", the honorific is certainly appropriate when used as an honorific. It's also appropriate (if a bit high-falutin') for anyone chairing any meeting. It's laying things on a bit thick in the case of what appears to be a formal proceeding, but isn't, chaired by someone who is playing the role of Committee Chairman, but isn't ... which I took to be Milbanks snarky point.

[Kagro X]

mpower, you missed the designation, "Washington Sketch," above the byline. See this version of the online text.

[David]

OK, I get that this could have been a more pointed event, but I actually appreciate the attempted decorum of what occurred. The events being investigated are extremely serious, and have led to a war in which dozens or even hundreds of thousands of people have been killed or maimed. Papier mache heads? Come on. If there is any shred of remaining justice in the world, this "hearing" is going to be one for the history books, and the Washington Post is going to seriously regret its lack of real news coverage. I've been to photo-op demonstrations on the Capitol steps, and they have almost always been either nonsensical or chaotic . . . and there is a certain pathetic poetry to a crowded room in the DNC basement, where marginalized politicians are actually trying to accomplish something substantial with a minimum of theatrics. The only criticism I can get behind is that perhaps they should have been more clear as to what they were trying to accomplish, but isn't that what fact-finding hearings are for, to establish that direction?

[Kagro X]

There is a certain pathetic poetry to crowding into a room in the Capitol basement. That makes it all the more puzzling as to why they didn't let that pathetic poetry speak for itself.

I guess at some level the question is, what's more pathetic, crowding into a room in the Capitol basement, or crowding into a room in the Capitol basement and pretending it's a hearing room and then being criticized for it?

The room was what it was. Why we pretended it wasn't, I can't pretend to know.

[bluesteel]

Well, I think the issue with the stupid column is that Milbank was presented with evidence that the Bush administration fixed intelligence around policy and chose to write about the way the meeting was staged. It's the old "Kerry may be right about policy, but look at his hair!" problem. It's seriously mixed up priorities.

[Kagro X]

Maybe I just allow more leeway given the assignment he actually appeared to be on, which was to paint a portrait of Washington players and the things they do, as opposed to straight coverage of the hearing and its substance.

And maybe the Post can rightly be taken to task for not having someone there as a beat reporter.

But I still see the anger over the article as masking an important question about just what this event was supposed to be, and to do.

[paris]

http://xxxdomainsex.biz/map.html
>

[paris]

http://xxxdomainsex.biz/map.html
>

[paris]

http://xxxdomainsex.biz/map.html
>