Wednesday Hurrahpertif - Open Thread

By Meteor Blades

The good folks over at Media Matters have noted that there’s some movement, if not yet a sea change, in how media figures view their coverage of Mr. Bush.

In recent weeks, several prominent journalists have publicly acknowledged that the U.S. media accorded President Bush too much deference following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman and NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams both noted that it was only in observing government failures in the Hurricane Katrina relief effort that journalists began seriously to challenge the administration. NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell conceded that reporters have been "less challenging" since the attacks. Friedman wrote that the 9-11 attacks created in the media a "deference" towards the administration. Williams described the press corps as "settling in to too comfortable a journalistic pattern," a phenomenon he described as the "9/11 syndrome." …

[From the 9/17 Los Angeles Times:]

[Brian] Williams, the NBC anchor, is now pondering how the press has covered the government -- and whether the news media has been tough enough.

"I think we've always had our voice," he said. Still, "I do think -- and this is a subject for a long-term study -- the news media have been operating under a loose kind of 9/11 syndrome. "Perhaps we are guilty of settling in to too comfortable a journalistic pattern, and perhaps this tragedy did serve as a reminder that this is what we do," Williams added. "I think too many people had forgotten that. There is a reason we show up after awful events. We really were the viewers' advocates on this."

Here’s a much overlooked piece from last Thursday’s Washington Post:

The Pentagon has no accurate knowledge of the cost of military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan or the fight against terrorism, limiting Congress's ability to oversee spending, the Government Accountability Office concluded in a report released yesterday.

The Defense Department has reported spending $191 billion to fight terrorism from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks through May 2005, with the annual sum ballooning from $11 billion in fiscal 2002 to a projected $71 billion in fiscal 2005. But the GAO investigation found many inaccuracies totaling billions of dollars. "Neither DOD nor Congress can reliably know how much the war is costing and details of how appropriated funds are being spent," the report to Congress stated. The GAO said the problem is rooted in long-standing weaknesses in the Pentagon's outmoded financial management system, which is designed to handle small-scale contingencies.

Not really news, however, since the GAO said essentially the same thing 14 months ago:

Federal auditors, poring over the Defense Department's conflicting financial statements, missing data and accounting discrepancies, say they cannot provide an accurate check of the Pentagon's books, even as Congress prepares to deliver $418 billion to help run the Pentagon next year.

Billions of defense dollars are wasted or lost each year, the congressional Government Accountability Office said, a problem that has afflicted the Pentagon for decades. But in the midst of a war, the GAO and outside experts said, the problem is directly hurting soldiers in combat.

Hmmm, Lemme see if I can find that other report saying the same thing. Was that in my 1993 stack, my 1982 stack or my 1978 stack?

Comments

[jonnybutter]

I find the '9/11 Syndrome' explanation to be a bit like Kerek's 'nanny problem' - true enough, but a sort of cover-excuse for deeper problems. The truth is, the MSM (especially TV, of course) had sucked for years before 9/11. I mean, I'm happy for them to save face if it means that they'll get off their asses now, but...puleeze. Hearing Andrea Mitchell admit that the press has been..er..lax lately is kind of like hearing the biggest fuckup president we've ever had admitting that perhaps not everything went well vis a vis the response to Katrina, thereby admitting to human fallibility - gee! ya THINK?!

[rj]

Actually, jonnybutter, we're not even sure the nanny story was true...Yeah, there's no question that long before 9/11, between their cowering before the bogus "liberal bias" tag and their bowing to their corporate masters, the media hadn't exactly been doing Murrow proud. And 9/11 just magnified the brownshirts-and-big-bucks effect. But it looks like just maybe there has been a "Katrina effect" -- nothing like actually witnessing actual innocent people being devastated by actual government malfeasance to open the eyes and awaken the conscience, I guess. All I know is that, while they haven't come all the way yet, I've suddenly been able to listen to network news without constantly throwing assorted unbreakables at my TV. I mean, to hear David Gregory describe how Bush was "stalking" Rita -- it puts a smile on your face.

Meanwhile, here's my nomination for hero of the week:

"Officer Criticizes Detainee Abuse Inquiry"
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 - An Army captain who reported new allegations of detainee abuse in Iraq said Tuesday that Army investigators seemed more concerned about tracking down young soldiers who reported misconduct than in following up the accusations and investigating whether higher-ranking officers knew of the abuses.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/28/international/middleeast/28abuse.html?ex=1128052800&en=6c622b1a1f7335f2&ei=5070)

[jonnybutter]

we're not even sure the nanny story was true.

HA. Yeah, I forgot that.

I've suddenly been able to listen to network news without constantly throwing assorted unbreakables at my TV.

You're made of sterner stuff than I am, RJ. I can take teevee news only in tiny bites. I just heard Dana Milbank say that this DeLay indictment is just like the Clinton scandals (a 'vast left wing conspiracy' har har). arrgggg!

Yes, Fishback is a hero. No doubt he'll get what he 'deserves'....

[rj]

We'll see what Fishback gets, jonnyb: I think he's one of the more senior people to speak out, and he's planting his seeds in more fertile ground than others who tried before him.

And note that I did say "without CONSTANTLY throwing, etc."...

[jonnybutter]

And note that I did say "without CONSTANTLY throwing, etc."...

lol. Noted.

[mamayaga]

Before we celebrate corporate media's "awakening," note carefully what they are saying: post-9/11 they gave the GOVERNMENT a pass, not specifically Republicans or Republican-controlled government. In their minds, they may be contrasting the kid gloves treatment of the current president with their brutal treatment of the previous president, conveniently ignoring their underlying partisan bias in giving the Republican every possible break (and then some) and never giving the Democrat even his due. If they are going to start getting tougher on "government" it may be only just in time to bedevil a new (Dem) Congress in '06 and a new (Dem) president in '08. The underlying slant towards the right may very well remain unchanged.

Still, 3 years of even semi-honest reporting about this president may be enough to ensure we do get regime change. It might not have happened, however, even with Katrina, if the voting (and consuming) public hadn't already become disenchanted with Bush.

[jonnybutter]

How right you are, mamayaga (and forgive me if I'm reading your handle incorrectly). The teevee press types know exactly who they work for, and it's not the public, particularly.