Throwing a Hissy Fit
Common Sense and Wonder
This review of former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer's book is a great example of the tilt of the Times. It must be a good book because they are throwing a hissy fit:
<<<
Instead, the book simply tries to reinforce the presidential "persona" once outlined by the political adviser Karl Rove in a campaign brief: a "Strong Leader" with a penchant for "Bold Action" and "Big Ideas." On 9/11, Mr. Fleischer reports, Mr. Bush, "under inconceivable pressure," maintained "his composure and sent an image of calm to the nation." He also tells us that Mr. Bush is "one of the most uplifting, personnel-oriented, tough, demanding, humorous bosses you'll ever find." Mr. Fleischer also stays on message when it comes to griping about the media, echoing other administration members' frequently repeated accusations that the press is guilty of negativity, liberal bias and an obsession with conflict. In presenting his complaints about the media, Mr. Fleischer is highly selective in his citation of examples, often ignoring facts that might undermine his thesis or underscore the flip side of his assertions.
He cites a 1999 poll by the Pew Research Center showing that more than two-thirds of the national press corps thought the distinction between reporting and commentary had seriously eroded, and suggests that there is "an ideological bias in the media" that reflects the opinions of the Democrats "far more than the Republicans." It's an argument that sidesteps the fact that cable news channels usually feature conservative and liberal guests in perfectly matched pairs à la "Crossfire." It's also an argument that shrugs off the very loud voices of conservatives on Fox News and talk radio - voices that no less a conservative than William Kristol has noted have provided "much more balance" in a media environment once criticized by those on the right as being too liberal.
When it comes to accusing the press of inaccuracy and carelessness, Mr. Fleischer dwells on the CBS fiasco in which the network broadcast an unsubstantiated document about Mr. Bush and his National Guard service, mentions cases in which a reporter at The New York Times and a foreign correspondent at USA Today used fabrications in their stories (neither writer was on a White House beat) and runs through a litany of inaccurate stories that appeared in other publications. This is fair as far as it goes, but Mr. Fleischer does not grapple with another one of the more remarked-upon failures of the press in recent years: the failure, in the months leading up to the Iraq war, to question more aggressively the administration's arguments about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Certainly the feeling of some people that the post 9/11 press, in the words of the White House veteran David Gergen, "was way too deferential in the rally-round effect and rallying around his status as commander in chief" does not find its way into these pages. Although this book's dedication says "a free press helps keep our nation free," Mr. Fleischer often sounds aggrieved by reporters doing their job - asking questions, probing issues, holding government officials accountable to the people.
Mr. Fleischer sighs that "the press can challenge whatever they want to, any time they want to." He complains, when questions are raised about Enron and Halliburton and possible ties to the administration, that "reporters were on the hunt for a scandal, even though there was no case for any of them to make." He chides the news media for repeatedly bringing up the subject of Iraq in the fall of 2001, arguing that at the time "an invasion of Iraq was exactly that, hypothetical" despite the fact that, as Bob Woodward revealed in his 2004 book "Plan of Attack," Mr. Bush had asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in November 2001 to start a war plan for Iraq. And when a reporter questioned Mr. Fleischer on the eve of the Iraq war about the fate of a post-Saddam Iraq and the costs involved, he snapped, "It's impossible to say with precision now what the future will hold, just as it was impossible to say" on D-Day June 6, 1944. Of differences between Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell, Mr. Fleischer whines that the White House press corps loves "stories about splits between administration officials." He writes: "No one in any walk of life wants family fights to go public. It's like pouring oil on a fire, and the White House press corps never minded watching a good fire burn." In fact, the main usefulness of this book may be that it sheds more light on this White House's mindset vis-à-vis the press. This is an administration, after all, that has preferred carefully choreographed photo ops and stage-managed town hall meetings to regular press conferences (the current President Bush has held fewer than 20 solo news conferences since taking office, compared with 83 held by his father during his four-year term), an administration that has tried to circumvent what it calls the "filter" of the national press by courting regional media and having soldiers send form letters to local newspapers asserting that American troops had been welcomed "with open arms" by Iraqis.
During the current Mr. Bush's tenure in the White House, federal agencies have been caught distributing videos using paid spokesmen acting as newscasters to promote administration agendas; at least three conservative commentators have been paid to promote or consult on administration policies; and a conservative correspondent using an alias (presumably to camouflage reported links with pornographic Web sites) gained access to the White House and was allowed to ask softball questions at press briefings.
In what seems meant as praise of his boss, Mr. Fleischer writes that President Bush "was disciplined, knew what he wanted to say and was seldom 'off message' "; he "would often repeat the same statement to the press, no matter how many different ways they asked their questions." The same might be said of Mr. Fleischer. In the case of the former, it has made for an administration accused by its critics of being secretive, insular and defensive. In the case of the latter, it has made for a book that feels insular, defensive and wholly predictable
>>>
Posted by Max Jacobs
commonsensewonder.com |
