Salon- 5 pgs from Eric Boehlert's LAPDOGS: How Bush Got the Press to Heel

[highplainsdem]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/05/04/lapdogs/


Lapdogs

Cowardly and clueless, the U.S. media abandoned its post as Bush led the country into a disastrous war. A look inside one of the great journalistic collapses of our time.

By Eric Boehlert


May 4, 2006 | Thirteen days before he announced United States-led coalition forces had begun the war to "disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger," President Bush on the evening of March 6, 2003, strolled into the East Room of the White House at 8:02 p.m. for a rare press conference -- just his eighth since taking office. With war looming, the evening was clouded in a strange dynamic. Perhaps trying to shake off allegations of being a cowboy charging towards war, Bush appeared oddly sedate throughout the prime-time appearance, talking slowly and in a pronounced hush. His low-key approach was mirrored by the ninety-four equally somnambulant reporters assembled that night in the East Room who meekly walked through the motions with Bush.

If anxious viewers at home were hoping for some last-minute insight from Bush to help ease their doubts about the imminent war, why it had to be fought now, and why so many of the United States' longtime allies around the world refused to support it, those viewers were likely disappointed as the president stuck to his well-worn talking points ("Saddam Hussein has had twelve years to disarm. He is deceiving people"). And for any viewers who held out hope that members of the assembled mainstream media (hereafter, "MSM") would firmly, yet respectfully, press Bush for answers to tough questions about the pending invasion, they could have turned their TVs off at 8:05 p.m.

-snip-

It's unlikely viewers expected "an argument" that night in the East Room. But what about simply asking pointed questions and firmly requesting a direct response? On March 6, even that was beyond the media's grasp. The entire press conference performance was a farce -- the staging, the seating, the questions, the order, and the answers. Nothing about it was real or truly informative. It was, nonetheless, unintentionally revealing. Not revealing about the war, Bush's rationale, or about the bloody, sustained conflict that was about to be unleashed inside Iraq. Reporters helped shed virtually no light on those key issues. Instead, the calculated kabuki press conference, stage-managed by the White House employing the nation's most elite reporters as high-profile extras, did reveal what viewers needed to know about the mind-set of the MSM on the eve of war.

And for viewers that night who didn't get a strong enough sense of just how obediently in-step the press corps was with the White House, there was the televised post-press conference analysis. On MSNBC, for instance, "Hardball's" Chris Matthews hosted a full hour of discussion. In order to get a wide array of opinion, he invited a pro-war Republican senator (Saxby Chambliss, from Georgia), a pro-war former Secretary of State (Lawrence Eagleburger), a pro-war retired Army general (Montgomery Meigs), pro-war retired Air Force general (Buster Glosson), a pro-war Republican pollster (Frank Luntz), as well as, for the sake of balance, somebody who, twenty-five years earlier, once worked in Jimmy Carter's White House (Pat Caddell).

-snip-

Good 5-page excerpt from the book.

[snappyturtle]

1. Excellent!

And now, the daily televised press briefings may be abandoned too. All fits, doesn't it? :sarcasm:

[ShortnFiery]

3. Ya know, if Salon keeps up this excellent commentary and analysis

up, I may just subscribe. :wow: The money would (although I don't believe in this money for news stuff) probably be well spent.

Good Job lately Salon! :patriot:

[NJCher]

2. Looks fascinating

Very timely, now that the press has been humiliated by Colbert.




Cher

[jbnow]

36. Though really

Colbert was going both ways. He asked why they were reporting on the depressing things like secret prisons and warrantless wiretapping.
He mocked insulted their recent work while mock complimenting their work the 5 years before.

So he did acknowledge their good reporting too.

[enough]

4. This is really an excellent LONG excerpt. Well worth clicking through the

very brief commercial to read the whole thing. I hope this book gets well-read by the people who need to read it.

The most frightening thing is that much of the same pattern is being repeated right now in relation to the impending probable attact on Iran.

Thanks for posting this, highplainsdem.

[zippy890]

5. Salon has been rocking the house lately

great article by Boehlert
:dem:

[elehhhhna]

6. I think those convenient anthrax mailings worked.

[90-percent]

7. salon

Should I/we actually get a subscription to salon to reinforce their recent writings?

Seems like a put your money where your moth is situation?

I'm incapable of thinking for myself, so I appreciate all input!

-85% Jimmy

;facetious:

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

8. if you have the dough, do it

Like your Beefheart sig line ;)

[90-percent]

18. Beefheart sig

Thanks for noticing.

Been into both Zappa and Don Van Vliet since 1971. I was fortunate to have seen the 76 Zappa/Beefheart Tour and I also saw the Beefheart band in 83.

Nice that the Captain is making big $ with his paintings. He sure keeps a low profile, but he had nice things to say about his teenage buddy Zappa when he died back in 93.

I'm convinced Zappa would have been President had he not gotten sick. He was planning/looking into to running when he got his cancer.

thanks again

-85% Jimmy

[Clark2008]

22. Gosh, I didn't even realize the Captain was still alive

Got a link to some of his art?

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

30. Found one: beefheart.com n/t

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

31. Lucky!

What great memories, to have seen them live. I miss Frank.

Poked around and found Don's site - I will go back and explore. Didn't know about his art. I like to see musicians' art, like Robyn Hitchcock's - different style, but the same expansion on his vision.

:hi:

[Kolesar]

11. I am on my third year with Salon.com

:hi:

[NYCGirl]

14. Me too. And it's money well spent. NT

[Hissyspit]

12. I think it's worth it.

I make use of the subscription enough to justify it.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

9. A devastating synopsis of MSM's abdication of duty

Let the industry leaders read it and never question again how and why they lost our confidence.

Salon is an important part of a nutritious breakfast. ;) Don't skip it - you need it every day!

[AuntiBush]

10. Well..

When many of them work for corporations with heavy military investments, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why the tube-media did this to us. Don't any of them have a conscious though? That's the part I don't understand. Less they do some good self-brainwashing to legitimize what they've done, making it "ok." In their minds, anyway.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

13. The Backwash Media, skewered by Salon?

I may subscribe meself.

Thanks for the heads up.

[jarnocan]

15. very worthwhile

I like that they mentioned the anti-war protest; when hundreds of thousands of people got BRIEF and 'equal' time with around a hundred pro-war counter protestors. That is a very consistant trend.

Can you imagine if the news was fair and fully covered? The Bu**Sh** regime would have been long gone, if it had even come into power at all.

[Canuckistanian]

16. "a brain fart of an idea" - General Zinni on Iraq

When the Post was not downplaying criticism from Democrats, it was downplaying the warnings from respected foreign policy analysts, and even decorated generals. On October 10, 2002, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, the former head of Central Command for U.S. forces in the Middle East, delivered a keynote address at a Washington think tank where he outlined his grave concerns about the Bush administration's war with Iraq. Among the key points made by Zinni, who endorsed Bush during the 2000 campaign and whom Bush then handpicked to serve as the United States' envoy to the Middle East, was that war with Iraq should not be the United States's top priority. "I'm not convinced we need to do this now," said Zinni. "I believe that can be deterred and is containable at this moment." How did the Post play the antiwar speech by one of the administration's own senior officials? It set aside 336 words, which were tucked away on page 16. (One year later Zinni spoke before the U.S. Naval Institute and the Marine Corps Association, undressed the administration for its bungled handling of the war, and famously described its misguided preemptive war effort as "a brain fart of an idea." The Washington Post declined to cover those remarks.)

This whole article is fascinating.

[Serial Mom]

17. Finally...

I have thought this for years - I also blame the print media after having worked in that segment for a brief time.

Reporters, both print and TV have been nothing but "note takers" for years and don't bother to check anything out. An administration that has been proved to lie to them means nothing, they still take the words that are spoken as fact and report that. No investigation, no opposition ideas presented, just "breaking news" and "smiles" from the talking heads.

I heard at one point at least 4-5 years ago that a lot of our problems stem from lack of journalistic investigation and integrity. They said it could have started as early as with some of the now respected TV anchors such as Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, etc.
They and their companies started expecting results, better bottom lines, etc. and stopped being what their programs originally were: WORLD NEWS, not just what’s happening here in ‘Mericka, now. It was good to hear/learn about US policies around the world, it was good to hear/learn about what was happening in many other countries, it was good for other countries to know that we were interested in them, their economies, their cultures, their problems, their successes.

Beginning in the early 1970s, we became less informed not due to our own lack of curiosity, but due to both the print media and our, the readers, lack of wanting to keep informing fully.

We have to become a more demanding public, asking the media to better inform us!

[EVDebs]

19. Colbert nailed it then. Stenographers are what's left of "media"

Back to Operation Mockingbird denials and CNN PsyOps in the newsroom !

[TexasLawyer]

20. I just bought a copy

Support these authors! Understand the "enemy"!




http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743289315/sr=8-1/qid=1146760301/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5134545-0824931?%5Fencoding=UTF8

[Clark2008]

21. Censorship by self-manipulation and market share.

If people don't understand why so many are charging that this administration is fascist, they need to go look up the word.

The very definition of it includes corporate take-over of a government by forcing self-censorship and refusal to run paid-for ads.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. For comparison, here's a BBC interview and 'town hall' session with Blair

from February 2003. Not only does Jeremy Paxman give Blair a proper going over, but the audience was picked to be those not in favour of war - a good move by the BBC, because they won't be thinking "how will I get my access to ministers in the future?" That was when the BBC stood up to Blair a bit more - before the Hutton Report stitched them up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/2732979.stm

Reading back through it, it's clear Blair broke his word on what he'd do - he said he'd only go to war if he got a second UN resolution, or if the inspectors said they couldn't do their job. They wanted to carry on working, there was no resolution, but he went in anyway.

It's a shame that asking the right questions of Balir didn't stop the invasion, though.

[Clark2008]

24. Still plowing through the article and came upon this:

The next morning, newspaper reporters who laughed out loud themselves at the Correspondents dinner dutifully typed up the jokes. It wasn't until some Democratic members of Congress, along with parents whose children had been killed in Iraq, expressed their disgust that it dawned on some members of the MSM that Bush's jokes might be considered offensive. Even after objections were raised the MSM rallied around Bush arguing the jokes were no big deal. In fact, it was telling how the MSM were reading off the exact same talking points as the Bush supporters in the right-wing press. Their mutual message was simple -- lighten up! On National Review Online, conservative talk show host Michael Graham, who attended the Correspondents dinner, mocked the critics: "Somehow, over the past 30 years, liberalism has mutated into something akin to an anti-comedy vaccine. The more you're Left, the less you laugh."

So - what's their story THIS week after they failed to laugh at Steven Colbert? Have the media, once the light is shined back in their direction, "mutated into something akin to an anti-comedy vaccine. The more you're (RIGHTWING), the less you laugh?"

:shrug:

Turn it back on them, folks. Turn it back on them.

[Skidmore]

25. There used to be a cartoon either on this board or on Bartcop's board,

I don't recall which--that showed the press as a bunch of dogs in a parlor setting with *. I wish I could remember where it was. It came out about the time the war began. I'd love to see it again, if anyone has any idea about where to locate it.

[highplainsdem]

26. Here's a topic where you can find it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1083275

It's SoCalDem's cartoon, and it's brilliant. I was thrilled when she posted it in my "Eulogy for a Lapdog" topic the other day.

[Skinner]

27. This article is devastating.

I'm only one page in, but I wanted to come back here and post. Everyone should click the link and read the whole thing.

[Skinner]

28. Sheehan: 26 - Schiavo: 189

During the second and third weeks of August the MSM did increase its coverage of Sheehan's protest, as her antiwar camp quickly swelled in size to include hundreds of fellow demonstrators. (USA Today correctly described it as a "headline-grabbing national movement.") But there were still some notable MSM holdouts. For three weeks, as the protest story continued to mushroom, ABC's "Nightline" refused to touch it. ("Nightline" finally addressed the Sheehan story on August 19, giving it just seven minutes of air time.) The omission was telling because, despite the uptick in print coverage, the Sheehan story still had not crossed over into phenomenon territory for most television producers, and certainly not at network news outlets. For instance, between August 8 and August 18, ABC News aired more than fifty hours of morning and evening national news programming, but mentioned "Cindy Sheehan" just twenty-six times.

Compare that to the 2005 springtime news craze when Terri Schiavo's parents, who like Sheehan, staged a very public, and political, vigil for their child. The Schiavo story, cherished by conservatives, dominated the networks night after night. During the peak ten-day period of that saga, from March 20 to March 30, here's how many times ABC News mentioned "Terri Schiavo": 189. During that same stretch "Nightline" devoted four entire programs to the story. The message was clear: Schiavo, a right-to-life martyr (for some) was very big news, but Sheehan, an antiwar martyr (for some), was not.

[confludemocrat]

29. Does he name names? Hope so else what good would such a book be?

and not just the obvious ones like Judith Miller, Matthews, Howard Kurtz. OK he has that arrogant asshole Michael Gordon, Dana Milbank, but doesn't say who wrote the Atlanta Constitution editorial claiming Cindy Sheehan "thinks little about her son". That person should be infamous. Terry Moran a punk and pipsqueak is named-goof, I hope there are more. How about a few CNN anchors and their hired war drum beaters?

[rodeodance]

32. here are several paragraphs of the press attach on Cindy Sheehan:

As Sheehan's star rose through August, so did the right-wing attacks. As nervous Bush supporters watched the president's approval rating slide, they unleashed their wrath on Sheehan, labeling the mourning mom a "crazy," "anti-Semite," "left-wing moonbat," "crackpot" whose behavior bordered on "treasonous" and who was nothing more than a "hysterical noncombatant." They also charged that Sheehan was a creation of the radical left, that she was being exploited, and she did not represent mainstream Americans. That kind of organized attack was to be expected from the conservative operatives. What was not expected was how easily some in the MSM absorbed those talking points for themselves. On MSNBC, Norah O'Donnell referred to the "left-wing supporters" behind Sheehan. Later she asked a guest if Sheehan had become "a tool of the left," while pressing another on whether it was wise for Sheehan to be associated with "antiwar extremists" camped out in Crawford. (At no point during the 2005 Schiavo story did an MSNBC anchor ever suggest the pro-life parents had become "tools of the right.")

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank wondered out loud if Sheehan would be remembered as a modern-day Lyndon LaRouche, the fringe political figure who's been accused of being a cult leader and fascist, and who served a prison sentence for mail fraud and tax code violations. Later that month, Milbank gave prominent display in the Post to a right-wing activist who accused Sheehan of being a communist. Meanwhile, Milbank's Post colleague Mike Allen, appearing on CBS's Face the Nation on August 21, belittled the Crawford protesters by highlighting what he considered to be the camp's fringe elements: "Right now it's PETA, hippies, Naderites." Allen conveniently left out the fact that also in attendance at the Sheehan camp were military parents whose children had also been killed while serving in Iraq.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution printed an opinion column in which a critic of Sheehan asserted "Cindy Sheehan evidently thinks little of her deceased son." Asked if that was appropriate, even in an opinion column, to suggest a mother "thinks little" of her dead son, the Journal- Constitution's op-ed page editor David Beasley insisted the attack on Sheehan was fair game. Yet it's hard to imagine that if a prominent Georgia politician's son was killed in the line of duty the Journal-Constitution op-ed page would allow a columnist to assert that the politician thought little of his or her dead son.

At the same time several corporate-owned television stations refused to broadcast antiwar ads that Sheehan appeared in. In one ad Sheehan pleaded with Bush for a meeting and accused him of lying to the American people about Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction and its connection to al-Qaida. An ABC affiliate in Utah owned by Clear Channel Communications informed backers their ad was an "inappropriate commercial advertisement for Salt Lake City." A CBS affiliate in Boise, Idaho, also refused to air the ad, insisting its claim that Bush lied about Iraq's WMDs was not provable. The station's action was highly unusual. As the Associated Press noted in a 2004 article about political advertising, "Stations rarely reject commercials" over a concern about accuracy.

[happydreams]

33. Bush warned in 2000

that any press people not playing ball with his admin would be "sitting in folding chairs outside the PressRoom". This was in the introductio to Hatfield's "Fortunate Son".


....And this brings us to George W. Bush. Poppy's eldest son was never CIA material. On the other hand, he makes up in vindictiveness what he has lacked in formal training, and has the crucial instincts for a dirty fight -- as Hatfield, alone among biographers, has taken pains to show. It was W. who, working closely with Lee Atwater, urged his Dad to counter-blast Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, when the anchor tried to get that unindicted co-conspirator to come clean on Iran-contra. It was also W. who got the elder Bush to do the Willie Horton thing -- and W. who engineered the smear that sidelined Jimmy Swaggart, whose loud support for presidential aspirant Pat Robertson was interfering with the Bush family's program. (See pp. 80-1.) W. was not, and is not, the hapless imbecile derided by the late-night wits and cable clowns. He is, of course, completely ignorant, often incoherent and, on abstract matters, perfectly illogical. But he is also very, very shrewd -- a highly gifted "political campaign terrorist," as his comrade Mary Matalin has noted with affection.....




http://www.albionmonitor.com/0106a/bushforward.html

[Usrename]

34. My first awareness was during the recount in FL.

I was not a member here at that time. I remember seeing video clips of someone from the Bush team running across the street to where reporters were staked out, and handing them a video cassette.

The cassette was a tape of Bush's "press conference", only the media was all outside, across the street, when it was being taped.

I thought, how odd. Then they showed the tape as if it were real. And I thought, stranger still.

The tape had flashes going off, and the clicks and whirrs of cameras, just as though the press were really there.

Anyone else remember that, or am I imagining things again, trying to rewrite history?

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

35. Don't miss this piece!

If I could recommend it more than once, I would.

:kick:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

37. bookmarked!

thanks!

[Serial Mom]

38. Had to KICK this ... everybody should read it!

:kick:
:kick:
:kick:


So many of us knew this was happening - we just were too small at the time to show people the truth!

[Imagevision]

39. How much of the MSM is owned by the right wing? there's the answer!