The Complicit Media and the Censored Message

If there is ever a time when the politicians need the press more than the press needs the politicians, it's during campaign season. How else are the sleazebags going to get their lies out to the public if not through newspapers and TV? Media coverage is free, unlike the expensive ads.


So I was kind of (but not really) surprised to learn that our current crop of professional journalists is so cowed by the presidential candidates and their operatives that they have pretty much agreed to let the campaigns vet all quotes before they get published! You read that right. The media, upon whom we rely to present the unvarnished truth, lies and colorful language of those seeking public office, are ready, willing and able stenographers. And, in a piece by Jeremy Peters published in yesterday's New York Times, they ruefully admit that they are nothing but craven shills. And just like the unnamed government sources they are so fond of appeasing and enabling, they themselves would only make their admissions anonymously.

Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all midlevel aides in Chicago and at the White House — almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.

The Romney campaign insists that journalists interviewing any of Mitt Romney’s five sons agree to use only quotations that are approved by the press office. And Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article.

This is pretty shocking. Do these so-called reporters really believe that they will be denied access if they refuse to go along with this ridiculous censorship? When I was a reporter a long time ago and covering Hugh Carey's New York gubernatorial campaign, one of his sons came up to the press gaggle with "instructions" about what paragraph of Daddy's speech to put in our leads. We just laughed in his face. We had the power of the pen, and there wasn't a damn thing the pols could do about it. Once they win their elections, of course, media manipulation becomes de rigeur. But while they're desperately trying to win? The press should own these clowns.


But according to Peters, it's only getting worse. The campaign control freaks are freaking out over every last swear word and gaffe. If Obama farts while telling dirty jokes on Air Force One, or Romney lets loose with an F-bombing tirade, we the people will never find out about it. The journos' lips are sealed. Peters' article continues:

Those who did speak on the record said the restrictions seem only to be growing. “It’s not something I’m particularly proud of because there’s a part of me that says, ‘Don’t do it, don’t agree to their terms,’ ” said Major Garrett, a correspondent for The National Journal. “There are times when this feels like I’m dealing with some of my editors. It’s like, ‘You just changed this because you could!’ ”

It was difficult to find a news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly. Organizations like Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Reuters and The New York Times have all consented to interviews under such terms.

“We don’t like the practice,” said Dean Baquet, managing editor for news at The New York Times. “We encourage our reporters to push back. Unfortunately this practice is becoming increasingly common, and maybe we have to push back harder.”

The Obama campaign declined to make Mr. Plouffe or Mr. Messina available to explain their media practices. “We are not putting anyone on the record for this story,” said Katie Hogan, an Obama spokeswoman, without a hint of irony. She pointed to the many unrestricted interviews with campaign officials every day on television and when the press corps travels with the president.

Jim Naurekas of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) scathingly calls the campaign press corps a bunch of "brain-picking zombies." He takes the Times article a giant step forward, noting that

He (Peters) doesn't spell out the implication, which is that journalists are thereby serving as PR agents, packaging the messages of political professionals at their direction rather than independently reporting the news.

(snip)

Responsible journalists shouldn't have to be told that it's wrong to allow your sources to edit their quotes, but apparently the sort of journalists who work for national news outlets do need to be told that. In fact, they need to be told that by their editors, so that when their sources propose such a deal, they can say–sorry, we're not allowed to do that.

At which point, the political strategists can respond in one of two ways: Maybe they'll realize that they need the press more than the press needs them, and they'll allow journalists to do their jobs without interference.

The only thing worse than covering Rotary Club lunches is covering campaign season. The operatives will try to spin you in a thousand different directions. The trick is to Just Say No. The candidates are desperate, people! This reminds me of another time when I was working the graveyard shift at the local rag and the guy trailing in the polls in the State Assembly race showed up at the locked office, banging frantically on the door and waving yet another press release. Begging, begging, begging for an interview. Now the roles are reversed and reporters are the ones begging and maybe even banging for access. Fourth estate, my ass.

But that was then and this is now. I guess since corporations and billionaires are allowed to contribute anonymously and without limits to the campaigns, the candidates themselves are smugly secure in their own new-found anonymous corrupt miasmas. The Disclose Act, which would have forced political donors to reveal their identities, has just died a filibustered death in Congress.

So -- candidates and their PACs don't need no stinking reporters when they have millions of anonymous dollars to spend on TV attack ads. According to Bloomberg News, just about nine out of every ten political ads now being run are negative. Instead of getting unspun information and substantive policy discussions, we're getting caught in the middle of an unfettered food fight, a non-stop bash-o-rama gone wild. Even the fact-checking organizations are getting attacked for daring to disclose their inconvenient facts.

And just think, only sixteen more weeks of this to go. All we can do is shut off the TV, and try to stay sane.

Media Cannibals and Zombie Messages

So, the Commerce Secretary got into a series of unfortunate car accidents over the weekend, seemingly stemming from medical issues. Nobody was seriously hurt, thank goodness.

But judging from the media coverage, the event -- hardly a scandal of epic proportions -- is hurting the president's "messaging". It is distracting from the "narrative".  It is making his Friday press conference gaffe about the wonderful private sector loom even larger in the public consciousness. 

John Bryson, the victim, has been lost in the shuffle of politics. He was apparently well enough to go back to work Monday morning, but by Monday night he was suddenly on an "indefinite" medical leave of absence.

The Republicans, of course, had pounced on the story immediately, only to quickly retract suppositions that Bryson was drunk (breathalyzer was negative.)  Then the press corps pounced, wondering if he had been properly vetted before being appointed, if a previous fainting incident had been the subject of a nefarious cover-up, if a seizure disorder might have impeded the secretary's task of conducting the nation's commerce. From yesterday's White House press briefing:

Q Thank you. Does Jack Lew consider the Secretary Bryson’s incident a serious one -- two car accidents? And any questions about his health?

MR. CARNEY: I think I just answered this. (he had --this was the second question about Bryson.) I don’t have a specific response to give you from Jack Lew. I think our response is what I said in general, which is concern about the incident, learning more about the incident, obviously the health-related aspect of this. But I don’t have any specifics for you and I would refer you to the Commerce Department.

Q Is health taken into consideration when the President vets somebody for a Cabinet position?

MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any specifics for you on those procedures. The President obviously nominated Secretary Bryson because he believed he was capable of serving as Commerce Secretary, and he has served effectively as Commerce Secretary since he was confirmed by the United States Senate.

Q Apparently he had some kind of episode when attending a board meeting a couple of years ago.

MR. CARNEY: I have no information on that and don’t know even if it’s true.

Q Is that the kind of thing a Secretary should keep in touch with the White House on? Do you know --

MR. CARNEY: Again, you just told me something that is speculation, and now you’re asking me if it’s something he should have made people aware of. I don’t know anything about that incident, and I do not know whether or not it’s accurate.

Q Should Secretary Bryson’s office have gotten in touch with the White House earlier than last evening?

MR. CARNEY: Well, we’re in discussions with the Commerce Department about this. Again, it was a unique -- let me just step back and say, whenever a senior official is involved in an incident of this nature or any kind of incident like it, it’s obviously important that the White House find out about it. This circumstance was pretty unique in that Secretary Bryson was alone, was not with a security detail, was on private time, which is common for certain members of the Cabinet, and it resulted in him being -- both having a seizure and ending up in the hospital. So, for that reason, you have to recognize this as somewhat unique. But in general, certainly it’s important that the White House be informed as soon as possible.

And there was this third hard-hitting exchange on Hit'nRunGate, in what passes for modern adversarial journalism:

Q Jay, on Secretary Bryson, what was the timing of the seizure in relation to the accident?

MR. CARNEY: I would refer you, as I said in the past, to the Department of Commerce for more details.

Q I've been asking them for hours.

MR. CARNEY: I just don't have those details for you. So I think I would refer you to the Commerce Department.

Q Can you explain why there seems to be a parsing of -- it just seems the Commerce Department is saying he was involved in accidents and he had a seizure, but there's really nothing connecting the dots and it's really an important point.

MR. CARNEY: Well, again, as I pointed out, there was -- the Commerce Secretary was alone; he had a seizure; he was involved in an accident. I would refer you to the Commerce Department for more details. Those circumstances I think speak to some of the difficulty in getting details. But beyond that, I just don't know and I would refer you to the Department of Commerce.

Q Does it seem like it's causal, though, the seizure and the accidents?

MR. CARNEY: Again, I'm certainly not a doctor. I certainly didn't --

Q But you've seen --

MR. CARNEY: I was not a presiding doctor on this case, so I would refer you to the Department of Commerce.

Q He was involved in several accidents. You said, "an accident" just now.

MR. CARNEY: Okay, I read the reports, April. He was involved in several accidents.

Q I mean, for the record --

MR. CARNEY: Thank you for the correction. I think I acknowledged what you all have read, is that there were several accidents as part of this incident.

Q And can you speak to how the White House came to be alerted?

MR. CARNEY: The White House was informed yesterday evening.

Q By?

MR. CARNEY: By the Commerce Department. I don't have an individual for you. And the President was informed this morning.

Q Jay, one more on that. Can you say whether the Secretary is now on medical leave or if you expect --

MR. CARNEY: Can I refer you to the Commerce Department? They would have the best information on that.

Q It's the kind of thing the President would probably know about, so that's why I'm asking.

MR. CARNEY: I would refer you to the Department of Commerce.

It has come to this. The journalistic class has nothing better to do than to wallow in its own manufactured drama, taking an obscure cabinet secretary's obscure traffic mishap and making it into a monumental issue. It ranks right up there with the unemployment crisis, the Euro crisis, the impending Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare and LeakGate. From The Hill:

A hit-and-run accident involving Commerce Secretary John Bryson threw the White House off message Monday just as President Obama sought to regain his footing after a series of political missteps.

How about the accidents throwing Bryson himself for a loop? How about disclosing how the press rabble itself threw the White House off-message? How about that old Marshall McLuhan adage -- the medium is the message?

And Politico, of course, was also just being its own political self with the headline: "John Bryson's Leave of Absence Adds to Obama's Bad News."

It was an uncomfortable way to start the week, making it impossible for the White House to reset its economic message after Obama had to walk back his “the private sector is doing fine” comment from Friday. That self-inflicted wound came in a news conference meant to divert from a series of bad news cycles: the massive Democratic loss in the Wisconsin recall, Bill Clinton’s off-message adventures, national security leaks, the dismal May jobs report and his own fundraising numbers for the month showing him millions of dollars behind Mitt Romney.

Gloria Allred, celebrity attorney to the stars of media victimhood, nailed it the other day when she announced what is really important: "Cannibalism is a serious issue and is very dangerous to the health and the well-being of the cannibal and the victim.”

She was speaking, of course about that drug-crazed face-eater in Florida. But she might as well have been talking about the state of national politics in general and the Washington press corps in particular. They are not only poisoning the public discourse with their meaningless drivel, they are eating democracy alive by not serving the public interest. They are endangering our health with their stenographic reporting and vacuous questions. They are a menace to our well-being. They truly are, in the words of Allred, "the scourge of our time."

I am no fan of the Obama Administration, but press secretary Jay Carney had it absolutely right when he admonished the ravening White House press corps to "do your jobs and report context."

Too bad he also didn't suggest that they pivot to the illegality of those targeted drone assassinations by presidential decree, rather than mindlessly concentrating about who leaked what. Here's his exchange with Norah O'Donnell of CBS about LeakGate:

Q Senator McCain over the weekend accused the Obama administration of intentionally leaking information to enhance Obama’s image as a tough guy for reelection. Do you have a response to that?

MR. CARNEY: Well, my response is the same as it was last week, which is that is wrong and absurd. The President addressed this himself from this podium on Friday. He takes very seriously the need to protect classified and sensitive information, and that has been his posture since he took office.

Q How can you say unequivocally that it’s wrong and absurd? Have you done an internal investigation?

MR. CARNEY: I can tell you that this administration -- this White House, under the guidance of the President, takes very seriously the need to protect classified and sensitive information, the need to do so for our national security interests to protect our counterterrorism operations and other operations that are undertaken by our forces and our government.



Stop the Scourge of Absurd Questioning by Journalists!



Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/06/08/3647003/commentary-gloria-allreds-valiant.html#storylink=cpy