It's All Zapruder's Fault

by emptywheel

Jay Rosen posts and comments on a letter from an anonymous member of the WH press corps. Said anonymous journalist tells you everything you need to know about the WH press corps: It's all Zapruder's fault. Zapruder, of course, was the guy--the only guy--who filmed all of Kennedy's assassination. And apparently, the press corps has to subject itself to continual abuse from the Administration because once upon a time, some average citizen (and not the press corps) got the scoop on the biggest story of the year.

What we are responsible for is making sure that, if he collapses, or is shot at, we are in a position to get that information to our viewers/listeners/readers.

Now to be fair to this anonymous reporter, he seems to recognize how godawful the coverage of the White House is, on account not just of the masochism it requires from reporters, but also because editors seem to think they had better get a return on the full-time assassin-watcher they're paying, so they let press corps reporters cover events that reporters on other beats ought to cover.

But the notion that the White House press corps can't simply blow off the latest in White House propaganda because Bush might get shot is delightfully ghoulish--and pathetic. It ties the success of White House spin directly to the threat of violence. It means the President's bully pulpit depends, first and foremost, on the constant possibility of his death.

Funny. The guy they really ought to worry about collapsing or dying is Mr. Four Heart Attacks Cheney. But he seems to be able to skim in and out of undisclosed locations without the press corps reporting on his every move.

If a President were shot in the woods (not that I'm advocating that) and no one was there, would the White House still be able to produce shameless propaganda?

Comments

[phred]

This really is the NASCAR Presidency isn't it?

[emptywheel]

phred

The concept of body-watch is not unique to this presidency. There were times when the press corps badly wanted to blow Clinton off, too (no, not like that!), but didn't--I presume because they were waiting for some Scaife-funded bully to come after him.

[phred]

EW, with Clinton, one would have thought the "body-watch" would have been more related to the press' predilection for porn than bodily harm (snark ;)

[phred]

In all seriousness though, this just goes to show how far the 4th Estate has fallen from the founders' vision. They expected the press to be the vehicle of vigorous public debate. The principle role of the press was to ensure that the "consent of the governed" as demonstrated at the ballot box was based on solid information. Granted the press at that time was positively scurrilous, but its wide-open free-wheeling nature allowed for all views to be shared. In the Age of Enlightenment, they believed the best ideas would rise above the rest of the hullaballoo. Well, so much for that. And now, that the internet has opened up our "presses" once again to the general public, a member of the 4th Estate has the unmitigated gall to blame the public for the sorry state of the "professional" media. Right. Another freakin' hack trying to assign blame to others and accept no responsibility for their own culpability. And people wonder why I can't be bothered with TV news...

[profmarcus]

plagiarizing atrios' "simple answers to simple questions..."

"If a President were shot in the woods (not that I'm advocating that) and no one was there, would the White House still be able to produce shameless propaganda?"

yes...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

[orionATL]

the white house press corps really should be disbanded.

and it should be the next president who does that.

use the rooms for something else. insist the reporters get off their butts and go out into washington and do some reporting (yeah, i know, it's much cleverer politics to keep them all trapped in a room, mesmerized by power.)

it is perfectly reasonable to have a press secretary who meets with reporters from time to time

and a president who does the same when circumstances warrant,

but daily interactions, with the press secretary playing games with the truth to protect the president,

and the press sitting around with one questioning hand tied behind their backs,

worried that if they ask a really appropriate tough question they will get thrown out of the white house press corp,

or their new corporation will get black listed,

it's an utter waste of our (readers and viewers) time.

though it certainly cannot be said to be a waste of reportorial talent

since there is so little of that in the white house press corp,

or for that matter,

in the corporate media as a whole.

help me list the number of really important news stories that came out of a white house press corp meeting in the last year -

or the last six years.

other of course, than the central story

that scott mcclellan and ari fleischer and tony snow lied to the american people very day they worked

in the name of,

and with the tacit approval of,

the president of the united states.

[bmaz]

"If a President were shot in the woods (not that I'm advocating that) and no one was there, would the White House still be able to produce shameless propaganda?"

Yes. Because Boosh never goes anywhere that is not staged and surrounded by friendly admirers. He would therefore be in a stand of Birch trees, and the society could spin the events.

[sailmaker]

It seems like this president is more likely to choke on a pretzel (if that is what really happened to cause him to collaspe and get a big bruise) than to be shot at.

[HackWhoWroteRosen]

Thanks for your response.

But I was answering Professor Rosen's contention that we should, to prove our independence and good news judgment, have not sent anyone with President Bush to Iraq, not arguing that our entire existence and purpose can be summed up with the "body watch" concept. In fact, I tried to sum up my view by drawing a distinction between attending a press conference and what we report from that press conference.

Apparently, despite adding other criticisms and comments and trying to explain what we're doing here, I utterly failed to get my point across.

[emptywheel]

HackWhoWroteRosen:

Thanks for stopping by. I thought it was actually very thought provoking and I'm glad you wrote Rosen.

I'd say two things. Yes, you're right. There is a difference between criticizing you for showing up and criticizing the press corps for providing crappy reporting. I'd add a third thing, and say that people like David Gregory--who make a nice show in the gaggle but then totally cave in his reporting--is a problem too (that is, the public press corp appearances provide him an opportunity to look good, but he's not going to actually put his reporting where his mouth is).

For this post, I got stuck riffing about the body count principle, which was not meant to imply I didn't get your point.

But that doesn't mean I agree that the decision to show is without ethical problems, even if you do good reporting from the press corps. As with marriage and foreign affairs, very little good comes out of self-destructive relationships, and it's usually better to intervene before the real damage is done. At some point the press corps does have to refuse to be a prop in presidential charades (and I realized Clinton did some of this too). And refusing to show up is the easiest way to do so. I don't see much else coming out of the WH press corps that shows anyone is considering alternative ways to refuse to play the prop.

[HackWhoWroteRosen]

Delighted to. Thanks for the welcome.

This is entirely inappropriate, and I apologize preemptively, and I'm sure I'm violating all kinds of online etiquette, but I could just kiss you for this:

"I'd add a third thing, and say that people like David Gregory--who make a nice show in the gaggle but then totally cave in his reporting--is a problem too."

Not that I'm endorsing in any way picking on Gregory, but you're absolutely, 100% correct about the general problem of question-asking vs reporting. Thank you thank you thank you. Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Most news consumers consume the final product: The evening newscast, the newspaper story, radio spot, etc.

On showing up, you know, like agreeing not to name officials who are speaking behind the podium and giving the official White House line, it's a collective action problem. No individual reporter can safely buck that trend without support from their editor or bureau chief, and individual news organizations really struggle with their internal rules for how to handle this (remember when the NYTimes and WashPost promised to say, in the story, why they were agreeing to grant anonymity?).

[phred]

HackWhoWroteRosen, I also really appreciate you being here. Perhaps you can explain to me when the WH Press Corps gets an anonymous bit of information, why don't they then make a flurry of phone calls to other folks to reality check it? It seems like so many of the problems with Judy Miller and Michael Gordon and their ilk come back to their only reporting one side (hence the endless references to stenography). It gives the readers a sense that they are functioning as propagandists rather than objective reporters. Why don't editors and bureau chiefs come down on that like a ton of bricks?

[bmaz]

HackWWR - I will be a bit more impolitic. I not only " don't see much else coming out of the WH press corps that shows anyone is considering alternative ways to refuse to play the prop", I don't see much of redeeming value of any kind coming out of the White House Press Corps. You let right wing stooges set the agenda through their set up softball questions and not only don't call them on it, you allow yourselves to be coopted by mostly uncritically reporting the staged answers. You let someone like Jeff Gannon/guckert "pass" without really delving into the real story and you either knew, should have known or damn well should have found out. Being a White House reporter is certainly a cushy and glamorous job for a reporter; but if you can't actually live up to the standards and ethos of your profession, none of you ought to be there. For my money (and I do pay money that supports YOU through taxes that pay for your transportation and subscription fees to newspapers, feeds and things like TimesSelect); you have become no better than the pitiful congress members that are more concerned about protecting their reelection and little pot o gold than they are about honoring their oath of office to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. I call BS on your defensive hacktackery.

[joejoejoe]

Politicians and the press are co-dependents. Politicians like leaking their message without standing behind it and the press enjoys having ready-made stories to print and feeling like they are 'inside'. The fact that they AREN'T inside never really seems to dawn on them. If the press IS inside, they're treated like a mushroom - kept in the dark and fed bullshit. I'd like to see elected officials pledge to make all of their comments on the record and pledge their staffs to do the same. Maybe the leverage to get a better press can come from politicians who are competing with other politicians trying to be more open with their constituents.

I don't think asking the veal that is the White House press corps to change is going to be effective.

[phred]

One other thing that really got under my skin was a puff piece on NPR's Weekend Edition the Saturday after the little road trip. I forget which NPR reporter was invited to go (that's best really), but he did this piece that came across on the radio as if he was just tickled pink to have been asked by Dana Perino to show up. He sounded for all the world like the homely wallflower at the junior high sock hop who got asked to dance by the football team captain. Seriously, how can I then treat this man's future reporting as objective and thorough in any way?

[HackWhoWroteRosen]

Phred: Thank you.

I can't speak to She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, except to note that she wasn't a WH reporter. Gordon I don't know at all, except that I'm broadly aware of online criticisms of his work.

So, speaking generally, and I know that's a bit annoying, I would tell you that most of us do make that flurry of phone calls. The trouble is that there is usually a race to be the first to get that information out, and speed is the enemy of thoroughness and the accuracy it is supposed to engender.

So people will rush out with the info, then go back and try to confirm it or knock it down elsewhere.

But, of course:

1. The damage is often done.
2. The trouble with putting off that kind of effort is that you often get yanked onto another story and the confirmation process suddenly takes a back seat.

Please, please believe me when I say that I am explaining, not defending.

"He sounded for all the world like the homely wallflower at the junior high sock hop who got asked to dance by the football team captain. Seriously, how can I then treat this man's future reporting as objective and thorough in any way?"

Well, I would ask you to give that a shot, at least. He's really good. And I would ask that you assess the work qua the work. In this particular instance, remember that he's trying to bring alive that experience for listeners who are, somewhat understandably, curious about what that's like.

[phred]

HackWhoWroteRosen -- I do believe you are explaining rather than defending, and I really mean it when I say I appreciate it. Your willingness to engage in this discussion is a huge improvement over the condenscending email exchanges that occurred over the Katie Couric in Iraq flap (but I digress).

You still didn't really answer the question about the editors and the bureau chiefs, because I really think that is a big part of the problem. If they don't demand better balance, then the readers won't get it for exactly the reasons you mention. Everyone's day is filled with a flurry of activity and stuff falls through the cracks, but that is why the editors are there. They are supposed to keep everything on track. This is what I don't get. If it has been so obvious to the readers that there have been real problems, then surely the editors had to be aware of them, too. This is why people have been turning to the blogs in droves, there is much much better coverage to be found here. I say this as a former avid reader of the NY Times. I finally gave up in disgust last spring, cancelled my TimesSelect, and haven't looked back.

I still listen to NPR regularly, and I still consider them to be the best major media organization around, but even with that, the shortcomings are just plain painful to listen to. They have done great work, Daniel Zwerdling's work on the abusive treatment of prisoners detained by DHS comes to mind. The tip of the hat that Josh Marshall got from an NPR reporter whose name escapes me at the moment was wonderful in his reporting of the Libby trial. But too often, even on NPR, they report WH talking points without adequate follow up and it gets downright discouraging.

I really really hope you continue to ponder the frustrations you read about on the blogs. You are in a position to work toward a much better state of affairs in journalism. And frankly, the country is counting on you guys to get this right. So again, thanks again, and please do what you can...

[Rich]

One thing about the "bodywatch" that really struck me reading about 9-11 was the obsessive attention given to the President's safety. I mean, sure, we want the guy to be safe, but his job at that point was, as Bush might say commandering.
The guy needed to get to a command post from which he could pass out instructions, but most importantly, he needed to get to a place from where he could receive real-time information as to what was going on.
Sure, we want he President to be safe, but that doesn't mean we ought to bury him in a hole when things go haywire. There are times when he needs to be out front.

[HackWhoWroteRosen]

Phred: Crikey, I must have sounded needy! But thank you.

"You still didn't really answer the question about the editors and the bureau chiefs, because I really think that is a big part of the problem."

Oops. My bad. Sorry, it's sometimes not wholly clear to me what the core question you (commenters) want answered is.

The basic answer is that editors and bureau chiefs want The Breaking Story and The Next Story as badly as the reporters do. And that when they do come down like a ton of bricks, which happens, it's in private (think of Jill Zuckerman). Is that a clear(er) answer? Please follow-up if it's not. (Also, have some pity, I'm juggling my actual job with following this thread and composing an answer to Professor Rosen's answer to my answer to his post).

Wait wait wait: Surely you don't think that these frustrations don't exist in my world? (I know, I know, "don't call you Shirley"). Take some hope from the fact that you could get an earful about these problems from anyone in my position - and then some. I don't know a single reporter who, in private at least, will say she thinks all is cool with the way we do our jobs. Our gripes are slightly different from yours, or phrased slightly differently, but there's actually quite a lot of common ground.

[bmaz]

"sometimes not wholly clear to me what the core question you (commenters) want answered is."

I will take a stab at that if you really don't know. Journalism and a free and informed public, via the press/journalists, is truly the "Fourth Estate" (tempting to say "Fourth Branch"); how in the world to you justify your salary and job title when you produce nothing but stenography?

[phred]

Hack -- No you didn't sound needy, I was just trying to be supportive :) I enormously value the discussions I have on-line, but I sometimes fear it is just so much preaching to the choir, which is why I'm glad you decided to stick your toe in the pool of sharks. Don't get me wrong, I'm most definitely one of the sharks, but I don't often get a chance to pester an object of my wrath directly, so I'm trying to be polite :)

I also don't doubt for a second that there is enormous frustration on the part of reporters who may feel trapped in a broken system that they can't seem to fix. So I'm curious, in a perfect world, if you could wave your magic wand, how would you change things? (And yeah, Airplane was a great movie :)

Feel free to take your time in answering this -- that's the beauty of TNH, the threads evolve over a day or two (rather than an hour or two like on FDL). We're all doing other things, we just pop in as we can to participate...

[bmaz]

If you ask me, denial ain't just a river that runs through the Oval Office.

[hauksdottir]

HackWhoWroteRosen,

Why do members of the Press Corp enable Bush in their self-terrorizing? When he goes to a factory with giant earth movers, he revs one up and aims for the press, and laughs like a hyena as they scatter like quail. When visiting a maker of armed robots (grabby claws, lasers, blinking lights), he asks a reporter to get down in the dirt as he revs it up and aims the claw... and the reporter willingly plays victim.

What would happen if the press didn't run? If they didn't lie down under his tractor treads? If just one single member stood there and refused to show fear? Is there an adult in the Press Corp?

How can we respect an institution of children playing games with the boy-king? Instead of excoriating him for recklessness, you encourage him. His lack of maturity has already resulted in the deaths and injuries of various police officers (motorcades and bicycling).

Hangers-on and accomplices can't be objective.

When will someone call a halt to the game?

[randiego]

OT: hey bmaz, I'll go check out that band 'the Hold Steady' at Canes (yes, it's a club in Pacific Beach). Thanks for the tip - my gf and I love checking out live music and are always soliciting tips for bands people like.

You're in Phoenix? Sounds like, since the dates are so close to the SD dates.

We never miss a chance to catch Big Head Todd (the Clapton of Colorado I call him) and also Bob Schneider (my gf is from Austin). If you have never seen these two, by all means look them up and catch them live. You won't regret it.