Why Are Reporters Playing It Safe With Bush? by Ralph Nader

[Itsthetruth]

April 30, 2005
CommonDreams.org

Why Are Reporters Playing it Safe Where Bush is Concerned?
by Ralph Nader

The nationally televised April 28th press conference produced by all accounts little or no news. The questions were 100 percent predictable by Karl Rove, Bush's taxpayer-salaried campaign architect in the White House. The reporters knew this and tried to compensate by quoting some facts designed to discomfort Bush, such as popular opposition to his social security plan, the increase in terrorism overseas, and the continued strength of the insurgency in Iraq. But the questions which followed were right down the middle of the plate to this man who made a fortune after taxpayers built his Texas Rangers baseball park in Arlington, Texas.

Why do reporters box themselves in this way? Why do they fall right into the rigid formula that encases them? First of all, what reporters are we talking about? The ones who are on Mr. Bush's lectern list that he calls on in order. These reporters represent the major media companies, go to the White House daily and do not want to ruffle feathers and be frozen out of stories or not be called on in the future.

As veteran ABC newsman, Jim Wooten, said on /Nightline/that evening: "There is, of course, among these ladies and gentlemen, an instinct for job protection. A clear understanding that if a question is too hostile, it could be the last time they got to ask one."

Over twenty years ago, Helen Thomas, Sam Donaldson and other leading White House correspondents came to a forum we sponsored to discuss how Presidents choreograph and restrict reporters at news conference. Their complaints, in retrospect, appear modest by today's draconian Bush grip. He has severely limited follow-up questions. He will not allow free floating questions to be asked. And he never calls on back bench reporters, like the late Sarah McClendon, who might ask the impertinent question that is on the minds of millions of Americans as Sarah did for decades.


http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0430-20.htm

[bullimiami]

1. oh come on ralphie.

some are bought, some are scared of the little emporer.

[Itsthetruth]

3. Do You Normally Comment On Articles You Haven't Read?

You posted a response within one minute of the article being posted!

That means you did not read the article by Nader. And yet you attacked it!

Let me offer you a suggestion.

Before you present your opinion on an article perhaps you should read it first!!!!

Thanks for your understanding.

[FourStarDemocrat]

15. I don't think that the other poster was attacking the article

He/she appeared to be making a simple point, which is also implied in Nader's article, that these MSM reporters are either bought off and/or scared of the chimp to ask more challenging and pointed questions of him. Until more of the consumers of MSM make it known that their reporters' conduct as 'journalists' are not acceptable, then these news corporations will never change and will continue to allow Bushco to get away with lying and misleading the public.

[Jade Fox]

2. 30 year ago everyone wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein....

What the hell happened to that spirit?

The new W & B are probably out there, but they need an editor like Ben
Bradlee to back them up.

[Frances]

4. If you watched All The President's Men

you may remember that Woodward says he is a Republican. Bernstein is the one who uncovered the story. I think that Woodward went along with Bernstein because it was such a big story and it made him famous.

Since that time Woodward has written a book that most people think praises George W. Bush.

Woodward's Post was very critical of Clinton and was very supportive of Bush's first term.

[Itsthetruth]

7. They Are Rich

They make big bucks now. They are multi--millionnaires. They make fortunes by working for the corporate media and won't do or say anything that will get them in trouble with their "bosses". And most TV news anchors are simply news readers.

[Jade Fox]

16. I think Woodward deserves his kudos for Watergate.....

but since then he has turned into a man with his finger perpetually in the
wind, checking out which way it is blowing so he can tailor his opinions
accordingly--if you can pin him down to an actual opinion. He has become
very slippery.

[pretzel4gore]

17. woodward's almost certainly secret army (cia)

he works for people who kill americans w/out any hesitation...hell, woodward hated liberal america and has been fighting it since ...long before watergate

[Catt03]

5. I think at the WP

the home base of Woodward and Bernstein, there was a big change when Katherine Graham died and her son took over. He's much more conservative than she and less willing to start waves.

The rest of the media is owned by corporations. For example, Jonathan Klein CNN, admitted that the bottom line and ratings are more important than quality.

As far as print, I really believe that the NYT makes an effort and LAT also.

[Jade Fox]

10. What NYT and LAT need is....

the kind of commitment the Washington Post had during Watergate to
follow the story where ever it led up to the end of it, and to give it front
page coverage. NYT needs to pick one of the many Bush scandals, one
that is supported by undeniable facts, and keep hammering away at it
until it sticks.

Now days it seems that as soon as the Bush Administration poo-poos a
story, it is dropped or dumped in the back pages.

[FloridaPat]

14. What the repubs did during the Clinton years was have a news group

that came out with tons of news that made Clinton look bad. They kept printing and printing until the big news people took the story further. Even though it was a lie and no facts could be found. Maybe the blogs will take up the slack.

[FloridaPat]

12. No one is paying for that in this country anymore. They few that tried

ended up unemployed and some "comitted suicide".

[wiggs]

6. So what's the excuse of hundreds of other reporters not there?

After the press conference, and for the first time since the vice-presidential debate, I turned on Hardball for a few minutes. The farce and deception continued there with an interview with a White House correspondent and no challenge to the many falsehoods and misleading statements made by Bush. Matthews looked completely defeated and uncomfortable, but nevertheless made no effort to portray the conference as anything but newsworthy and interesting.

I also turned on Lou Dobbs, who also did not challenge the many economic problems inherent in Bush's SS statements. Again, his demeanor was one of resignation...like we all know about the dufus in the oval office but we have to go through this charade anyway.

Except on AAR, I have yet to hear any specific MSM talk about the deceptive content of the conference. I understand the pressure the WH correspondents are under to ask easy questions, but this doesn't excuse the other 99% of writers and "journalists" in the country.

[Imagevision]

8. Media cencorship at it's finest - ala Rove!!

[libertypirate]

9. He is right about that * Co is a threat but I think Ralph is

grasping at straws. I suspect it has more to do with this tid bit of text from the nytimes.

Times reported:
The dry powder used in the anthrax attacks is virtually indistinguishable in critical technical respects from that produced by the United States military before it shut down its biowarfare program, according to federal scientists and military contractor documents. The similarity to the levels achieved by the United States military lends support to the idea that someone with ties to the old program may be behind the attacks that have killed five people. Its high concentration is surprising, weapon experts said, and far beyond what military analysts once judged as the likely abilities of terrorists. The anthrax sent to the Senate contained as many as one trillion spores per gram. If a lethal dose is estimated conservatively at 10,000 microscopic spores, then a gram in theory could cause about 100 million deaths. The letter sent to Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader, is said to have held two grams of anthrax.

It's just too coincidental, and who received the anthrax; two senators opposed to the patriot act and reports who made nuance reference to the truth on 911.

[smoogatz]

11. The right-wing "liberal bias" straw man

That's what really killed objective reporting in this country. "Fairness" and "balance" are now more important than reporting the truth. Objectivity is out the window. But I think the anti-liberal backlash has begun to turn. One thing about news-as-profit-center--it'll report whichever way the polls seem to blow. What the Corporate Media fears most is appearing to be out of step with the American public--that's bad for ratings.

[global1]

13. There's Power in Numbers......

and I believe the press if they wanted it could take the upper hand. If they got together and asked the tough questions and got shut out - they still have the power of their newspaper, tv or radio outlet to continue to harass this administration. What would * do - hold a news conference and not call on anybody because they ask tough questions. So let * just call on Fox - it would become very apparent to the American People what would be happening.

The press if it wanted to could put the onus on this administration to have to deal with the tough questions. They could turn up the heat on the administration by pointing out that they are being shut out if they were. Can you imagine if all the network reporters weren't allowed to ask a question or weren't acknowledge. Do you think they have a forum with which to use against this group.

What's happened to our press? I have my suspicions. I watched the 911 presentation that was on C-Span yesterday. If you believe what this gentleman was saying and it is all very plausible and hard to refute - then something bigger is going on in this country than most Americans want to believe.

[KharmaTrain]

18. Corporate Media Isn't Hearing Us...They Need To See Us

Ratings, access, fear of losing one's job, fame, power, influence, camera time, bylines, resumes, the next job and possible book and movie deals. This is what drives today's corporate media. Reporting? That gets in the way of creating the sensation that makes the story, not truth or facts.

Many here have sent letters but seems like Corporate Media not only is ignoring us, but telling us to go pound sand. I'd love to see a couple thousand of our close friends pay a CNNServative a visit in Atlanta or a Faux Noise Central in New York. If they don't see us, but they see and hear from the right wing assholes, we don't exist. Not only that without a voice at the table, the stereotypes and lies about who we are and what we really stand for are continued to be distorted.

It's time for some truth squadding...

[Roland99]

19. At the Freedom and Faith rally here last week, a Chicago Tribune reporter

said they are just afraid. They're worried of being kicked out of the press corps. He admitted, essentially, they were complicit in the paucity of critical questions being asked of this administration.

I say to them one and all to ask those tough questions and break the Propagandist's rules. What's the Propagandist going to do when he's kicked out all of the reporters?