Saturday, April 28, 2007

FRANK RICH: All the President’s Press

SOMEHOW it’s hard to imagine David Halberstam yukking it up with Alberto Gonzales, Paul Wolfowitz and two discarded “American Idol” contestants at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. Before there was a Woodward and Bernstein, there was Halberstam, still not yet 30 in the early 1960s, calling those in power to account for lying about our “progress” in Vietnam. He did so even though J.F.K. told the publisher of The Times, “I wish like hell that you’d get Halberstam out of there.” He did so despite public ridicule from the dean of that era’s Georgetown punditocracy, the now forgotten columnist (and Vietnam War cheerleader) Joseph Alsop.

It was Alsop’s spirit, not Halberstam’s, that could be seen in C-Span’s live broadcast of the correspondents’ dinner last Saturday, two days before Halberstam’s death in a car crash in California. This fete is a crystallization of the press’s failures in the post-9/11 era: it illustrates how easily a propaganda-driven White House can enlist the Washington news media in its shows. Such is literally the case at the annual dinner, where journalists serve as a supporting cast, but it has been figuratively true year-round. The press has enabled stunts from the manufactured threat of imminent “mushroom clouds” to “Saving Private Lynch” to “Mission Accomplished,” whose fourth anniversary arrives on Tuesday. For all the recrimination, self-flagellation and reforms that followed these journalistic failures, it’s far from clear that the entire profession yet understands why it has lost the public’s faith.

That state of denial was center stage at the correspondents’ dinner last year, when the invited entertainer, Stephen Colbert, “fell flat,” as The Washington Post summed up the local consensus. To the astonishment of those in attendance, a funny thing happened outside the Beltway the morning after: the video of Mr. Colbert’s performance became a national sensation. (Last week it was still No. 2 among audiobook downloads on iTunes.) Washington wisdom had it that Mr. Colbert bombed because he was rude to the president. His real sin was to be rude to the capital press corps, whom he caricatured as stenographers. Though most of the Washington audience failed to find the joke funny, Americans elsewhere, having paid a heavy price for the press’s failure to challenge White House propaganda about Iraq, laughed until it hurt.

You’d think that l’affaire Colbert would have led to a little circumspection, but last Saturday’s dinner was another humiliation. And not just because this year’s entertainer, an apolitical nightclub has-been (Rich Little), was a ludicrously tone-deaf flop. More appalling — and symptomatic of the larger sycophancy — was the press’s insidious role in President Bush’s star turn at the event.

It’s the practice on these occasions that the president do his own comic shtick, but this year Mr. Bush made a grand show of abstaining, saying that the killings at Virginia Tech precluded his being a “funny guy.” Any civilian watching on TV could formulate the question left hanging by this pronouncement: Why did the killings in Iraq not preclude his being a “funny guy” at other press banquets we’ve watched on C-Span? At the equivalent Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association gala three years ago, the president contributed an elaborate (and tasteless) comic sketch about his failed search for Saddam’s W.M.D.

But the revelers in the ballroom last Saturday could not raise that discrepancy and challenge Mr. Bush’s hypocrisy; they could only clap. And so they served as captive dress extras in a propaganda stunt, lending their credibility to the president’s sanctimonious exploitation of the Virginia Tech tragedy for his own political self-aggrandizement on national television. Meanwhile the war was kept as tightly under wraps as the troops’ coffins.

By coincidence, this year’s dinner occurred just before a Congressional hearing filled in some new blanks in the still incomplete story of a more egregious White House propaganda extravaganza: the Pat Tillman hoax. As it turns out, the correspondents’ dinner played an embarrassing cameo role in it, too.

What the hearing underscored was the likelihood that the White House also knew very early on what the Army knew and covered up: the football star’s supposed death in battle in Afghanistan, vividly described in a Pentagon press release awarding him a Silver Star, was a complete fabrication, told to the world (and Tillman’s parents) even though top officers already suspected he had died by friendly fire. The White House apparently decided to join the Pentagon in maintaining that lie so that it could be milked for P.R. purposes on two television shows, the correspondents’ dinner on May 1, 2004, and a memorial service for Tillman two days later.

The timeline of events in the week or so leading up to that dinner is startling. Tillman was killed on April 22, 2004. By the next day top officers knew he had not been killed by enemy fire. On April 29, a top special operations commander sent a memo to John Abizaid, among other generals, suggesting that the White House be warned off making specific public claims about how Tillman died. Simultaneously, according to an e-mail that surfaced last week, a White House speechwriter contacted the Pentagon to gather information about Tillman for use at the correspondents’ dinner.

When President Bush spoke at the dinner at week’s end, he followed his jokes with a eulogy about Tillman’s sacrifice. But he kept the circumstances of Tillman’s death vague, no doubt because the White House did indeed get the message that the Pentagon’s press release about Tillman’s losing his life in battle was fiction. Yet it would be four more weeks before Pat Tillman’s own family was let in on the truth.

To see why the administration wanted to keep the myth going, just look at other events happening in the week before that correspondents’ dinner. On April 28, 2004, CBS broadcast the first photographs from Abu Ghraib; on April 29 a poll on The Times’s front page found the president’s approval rating on the war was plummeting; on April 30 Ted Koppel challenged the administration’s efforts to keep the war dead hidden by reading the names of the fallen on “Nightline.” Tillman could be useful to help drown out all this bad news, and to an extent he was. The Washington press corps that applauded the president at the correspondents’ dinner is the same press corps that was slow to recognize the importance of Abu Ghraib that weekend and, as documented by a new study, “When the Press Fails” (University of Chicago Press), even slower to label the crimes as torture.

In his PBS report last week about the journalism breakdown before the war, Bill Moyers said that “the press has yet to come to terms with its role in enabling the Bush administration to go to war on false pretenses.” That’s not universally true; a number of news organizations have owned up to their disasters and tried to learn from them. Yet old habits die hard: for too long the full weight of the scandal in the Gonzales Justice Department eluded some of the Washington media pack, just as Abu Ghraib and the C.I.A. leak case did.

After last weekend’s correspondents’ dinner, The Times decided to end its participation in such events. But even were the dinner to vanish altogether, it remains but a yearly televised snapshot of the overall syndrome. The current White House, weakened as it is, can still establish story lines as fake as “Mission Accomplished” and get a free pass.

To pick just one overarching example: much of the press still takes it as a given that Iraq has a functioning government that might meet political benchmarks (oil law, de-Baathification reform, etc., etc.) that would facilitate an American withdrawal. In reality, the Maliki “government” can’t meet any benchmarks, even if they were enforced, because that government exists only as a fictional White House talking point. As Gen. Barry McCaffrey said last week, this government doesn’t fully control a single province. Its Parliament, now approaching a scheduled summer recess, has passed no major legislation in months. Iraq’s sole recent democratic achievement is to ban the release of civilian casualty figures, lest they challenge White House happy talk about “progress” in Iraq.

It’s our country’s bitter fortune that while David Halberstam is gone, too many Joe Alsops still hold sway. Take the current dean of the Washington press corps, David Broder, who is leading the charge in ridiculing Harry Reid for saying the obvious — that “this war is lost” (as it is militarily, unless we stay in perpetuity and draft many more troops). In February, Mr. Broder handed down another gem of Beltway conventional wisdom, suggesting that “at the very moment the House of Representatives is repudiating his policy in Iraq, President Bush is poised for a political comeback.”

Some may recall that Stephen Colbert offered the same prediction in his monologue at the correspondents’ dinner a year ago. “I don’t believe this is a low point in this presidency,” he said. “I believe it is just a lull before a comeback.” But the fake pundit, unlike the real one, recognized that this was a joke.


Anonymous said...

Excellent, Excellent, Excellent!!! This sums things up perfectly!

Anonymous said...

The media (most of it) is as guilty and corrupt as the Bush regime.

Had they questioned the 2000 fix of an American election as vigorously as they went after Bill Clinton, all the dominoes after may not have fallen.

Instead, the corruption in American elections would have been exposed, the people who where behind them would be prosecuted and an arrogant drunken frat boy wouldn't be in the white house thinking he was a president.

Remember when the then head of Diebold, Wally O'Dell, the republican-bent election machine company promised in a memo to 'deliver a Republican victory in Ohio'? Where was the media outrage? Where was the media crying foul? Did anyone in this country even know about it?

Since 2000, if you haven't been getting informed from the foreign press and sites like Buzzflash, you 've missed out on the truth. Stories that are just now surfacing have been on these sites and in the foreign press for years.

It's the failing of the mainstream American media to do their jobs that make them AS guilty as Bush, Cheney, Rove, Wolfie and all the disgusting rest of them. And they ALL should be held accountable.

The media is supposed to question, challenge, expose. The shame they have brought on themselves, their families and the world is monumental. The impact to us all is devastating.

Read Greg Palast's article in the LA times about the lack of investigative journalism.

Americans should be outraged, not just at our corrupt government, but at our mainstream media for proactively being accomplices to it.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous at 7:47 AM, truer words have never been spoken.

And greetings from Texas, the living laboratory of the radical right. They experiment here, and export out there. Just this week a Democratic State Senator Rodney Ellis, authored an outrageously one-sided journalist shield law (SB 966) which allows reporters to withhold all evidence (witness statements, photographs,guns,etc.) from law enforcement which they might obtain in the course and scope of reporting.

Even lawyers in Texas have to turn over evidence of a crime. Why should journalists get a pass no one else does? For example, if a client walks in and gives his lawyer the gun that he used to kill his wife, business partner, neighbor, etc., the lawyer has to give it to the police.

This bill gives journalists an absolute privilege that no other citizen gets.

No other people who hold confidences get this unlimited privilege.

Not psychiatric social workers. Not lawyers. Not doctors. Not accountants. Not spouses. Not the clergy. Hell, not even the Pope is protected from having to appear in court like journalists are under this bill.

Not diplomats (well, maybe diplomats - they get to walk away from crime just like journalists do under this bill. And its all because they don't want to have to come to court like everybody esle does.)

This is Texas corporate journalism at it's best - coming to a state near you.

The Lone Star State is first in executions, first in pollution and last in the percentage of population over 25 with a high school diploma.

And now we have a press totally shielded from criminal investigators.

That's how Republicans cover up.

Anonymous said...

This article is right on...the media... all of them are as guilty as Bush, Cheney, Rove, Wolfwitz, Rumsfeld, et al...the media were cheerleaders on Iraq and treat Bush et al as some kind of heroes...some heroes! Bush backed off from the funny at the correspondents' dinner because of the tragedy at VA TECH, but not one word from the media about all the deaths to Iraqis and American GIs..The media is allied with the propaganda machine...and they wonder why readership has sharply declined in recent years...I say a pax on their houses..a bunch of sacophants who eagerly digest and spread the propaganda and lies of the Bush people..!! Whatever happened to investigative reporting?? Dead as a door nail!!!

Anonymous said...

To Wise in Texas,

How sad that we have to have these discussions here. Did you ever think that our world would come to this?

I didn't. I grew up believing that 'good' would always prevail over 'evil', that this nation was the greatest in the world and that corruptors would be held accountable. Boy, was I naive.

It's apparent that anything connected to or initiated by this government and/or the Republican party is ultimately a crime, scandal and disgrace.

A journalist shield law might have once held validity, in a land where ethical journalistic standards prevailed. Now it's just another way for corruption to reign and corruptors to cover their sorry, no account butts.

Anonymous said...

You know where I've seen outrage and anger in the media? It was either Tucker Carlson or Joe Scarborough (apologies... I'm not sure which ...or both both)... expressed red-faced indignance at the thought... the mere suggestion that this government was involved in 9/11.

No other arguement to counter the thought... just indignance that it was heinous to even bring up such a thing.

Now remember, that there are valid, credible questions that are not even addressed relating to that day.

The show I saw had a 3 minute interview with David Ray Griffin, author of 'The New Pearl Harbor'. Dr. Griffin is a professor of philosophy of religion and theology and a credible source.

I read his book and he raised serious questions that at the very LEAST should be addressed.

And he is far from the only person of credibility raising questions, however the commentator never addressed what he had to say, never spoke to the relevant content of his book.

The commentator (Carlson and/or Scarborough) only expressed pure outrage at the 'heinous' suggestion that this government was involved in 9/11.

This, my friends, is how our media uses spin and diversion to deflect attention from actual truths or the possibility of them.

They speak of tin foil hats and conspiracy theories, when a true journalist who's not working for the people they're reporting on would ask questions, challenge sound-byte answers and unearth the real stories.

Questions about Marvin Bush, Georgie's brother, who was head of the trade center security, questions about Jonathan Bush, Georgie's uncle being head of Riggs Bank that funded two of the terrorists, questions about the unexplained power down the weekend before 9/11 (and don't let anyone tell you it didn't happen. It's a FACT).

Questions about 250 Saudi royals being flown out of the country on 9/12. Questions about the structure of two buildings that could not implode by the impact of the airplanes, but could have by explosions set on floors... witnesses saw explosions on lower floors and in the basements of the buildings.

Unfortunately, there are more questions than there are ethical, honest journalists in this country.

Anonymous said...

what anonymous said

Anonymous said...

China Wholesale has been described as the world’s factory. This phenomenom is typified by the rise ofbusiness. Incredible range of products available with China Wholesalers “Low Price and High Quality” not only reaches directly to their target clients worldwide but also ensures that wholesale from china from China means margins you cannot find elsewhere and buy products wholesaleChina Wholesale will skyroket your profits.

Anonymous said...

Women’s nike tn Shox Rivalry est le modèle féminin le plus tendance de baskets pour le sport. tn chaussuresConcernant la semelle :Cheap Brand Jeans ShopMen JeansCheap Jeans - True Religion Jeans nike shoes & Puma Shoes Online- tn nike, le caoutchouc extérieur, l’EVA intermédiaire et le textile intérieur s’associent pour attribuer à la.ed hardy shirts pretty fitCharlestoncheap columbia jackets. turned a pair of double plays to do the trick.Lacoste Polo Shirts, , Burberry Polo Shirts.wholesale Lacoste polo shirts and cheap polo shirtswith great price.Thank you so much!!cheap polo shirts men'ssweate,gillette mach3 razor bladesfor men.As for