Is Bush Targeting the Media?

It's been apparent since the day he took office -- or maybe from the day he called a New York Times reporter a major-league A--that George Bush has little love for the press.

Bush says he prefers "unfiltered" news from his staff. He holds few news conferences (though he's picked up the pace a bit after winning a second term). He doesn't like "preening" television correspondents. Cheney's plane bars New York Times reporters. Top officials all seem to be reading off the same set of talking points. Ari, and now Scott, toe the company line. Prepackaged videos are sent out as real news with fake reporters.

So: Are the Bushies at "war" with the Fourth Estate? Is there an insidious plot to weaken the media establishment, to carpet-bomb its credibility like the Saddam regime?

I wouldn't go that far. People forget that every administration tries to neutralize the press. There was much hand-wringing about Clinton circumventing the White House press corps when he started going on Larry King and other talk shows. And much talk of stonewalling over the way his White House handled its various scandals.

I would argue that nothing the White House has done has damaged the media's credibility more than what the profession has done to itself. Bush wasn't responsible for the fraud by Jayson Blair or Jack Kelley, or for Dan Rather's botched National Guard story (though I know some have theorized that the administration lured CBS into some kind of trap). Bush didn't force the media to go overboard on Kobe and Michael. He didn't force a CNN executive to make some ill-considered comments about the U.S. military targeting journalists. He didn't force various journalists to keep engaging in plagiarism. He didn't force Armstrong Williams to take $240,000 from the Education Department (though paying conservative pundits is one of the administration's innovations). He isn't responsible for declining newspaper circulation and network news ratings or the sinking poll numbers when it comes to trusting the media.

Eric Boehlert of Salon has a somewhat different view:

"For the last four years the persistent story line about the White House's relationship with the press has focused on the administration's discipline, denial of access, and ability to stay on message. The Bush administration, according to this account, is expert at managing information, using secrecy, carrots and sticks, and carefully crafted talking points to control the news.

"But in the wake of revelations about the aggressive and unprecedented tactics employed by the White House to manipulate the news, that relatively benign interpretation is being reexamined. Recent headlines about paid-off pundits, video press releases disguised as news telecasts, and the remarkable press access granted to a right-wing pseudo-journalist working under a phony name, have led some to conclude that the White House is not simply aggressively managing the news, but is out to sabotage the press corps from within, to undermine the integrity and reputation of journalism itself.

"The White House and its media allies, echoing a deep-rooted conservative antagonism toward the so-called liberal media, say they are simply countering its bias. But critics charge that the White House, along with partners like Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting, organizations whose allegiance to the Republican Party outweighs their commitment to journalism, is actually trying to permanently weaken the press. Its motivation, they say, is twofold. Weakening the press weakens an institution that's structurally an adversary of the White House. And if the press loses its credibility, that eliminates agreed-upon facts -- the commonly accepted information that is central to public debate.

"'Republicans have a clear, agreed-upon plan how to diminish the mainstream press,' says Ron Suskind, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who was granted unique access inside the White House in 2002 to report on the administration's communication strategy. 'For them, essentially the way to handle the press is the same as how to handle the federal government; you starve the beast. When it's in a weakened and undernourished condition, then you're able to effect a variety of subtle partisan and political attacks. Armstrong Williams and others are examples of that.'"

Maybe. But I still think the press has done a mighty fine job weakening itself.

More signs on trouble for Bush on Social Security, in the form of a New York Times poll:

"Americans say President Bush does not share the priorities of most of the country on either domestic or foreign issues, are increasingly resistant to his proposal to revamp Social Security and say they do not have confidence in Mr. Bush's ability to make the right decisions about the retirement program, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

"The poll underscores just how little headway Mr. Bush has made in his struggle to build popular support for overhauling Social Security as it struggles to gain a footing in Congress. At the same time, there has been an increase in respondents who say that efforts to restore order in Iraq are going well, even as an overwhelming number of Americans say Mr. Bush has no clear plan for getting out of Iraq.

"On Social Security, 51 percent said permitting individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in private accounts, the centerpiece of Mr. Bush's plan, was a bad idea, even as a majority said they agreed with Mr. Bush that it would become insolvent by the middle of the century if nothing were done.

"The number who thought private accounts were a bad idea jumped to 69 percent if respondents were told that the private accounts would result in reduced benefits, and 45 percent said Mr. Bush's plan private account plan would actually weaken the economic underpinnings of the nation's retirement system."

But Bush isn't giving up, reports USA Today:

The Bush administration launched an offensive Wednesday to rebut warnings that public qualms and opposition in Congress have doomed President Bush's plan to overhaul Social Security.

Treasury Secretary John Snow said he, Bush and other administration officials will spend the next two months barnstorming the country to try to build support for Bush's plan to allow younger workers to divert some payroll taxes into stocks and bonds.

Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly sees Bill Frist's Social-Security-may-have-to-wait-till-2006 comments as a white flag:

"You don't say stuff like this in public unless you're pretty close to giving up. Combine that with pessimism from other Republican senators and Tom DeLay's unwillingness to even address Social Security unless the Senate goes first, and I think it's safe to say that privatization is doomed. And if it's doomed this year, it's sure as hell doomed next year, with midterm elections approaching.

"At this point, the only question left is how hard Bush will try to cut some kind of compromise deal with Democrats. And about all I can about that is: Don't. Don't do it unless you get something really good in return. And even then, you probably still shouldn't do it. Caveat emptor."

Lots of blog traffic on Robert Byrd's overheated invocation of Hitler in condemning the GOP's "nuclear option" (that is, outlawing Democratic filibusters against Bush judicial nominees):

Ulysses at Rapid Fire says:

"What is most annoying to me about Robert Byrd is that anyone (including bloggers) takes him seriously. He reminds me of a post-senior citizen driver, who, with his/her head bent over the steering wheel, stares intently, single mindedly, at the road in front. This person -- I suppose--has a right to drive, and eventually gets to where he/she is going, even though the trip has caused horrendous traffic jams, and not a few fender benders by people who are anxious to get to work.

"It is time for Mr. Byrd to get off the road."

Wizbang is equally appalled: "Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) is trying to paint a picture of Republicans as Nazi's leading Democratic Senators off to the gas chambers. He's certainly brought the image of the contemplative, deliberate, and gentlemanly discourse of the United States Senate to a new low."

The latest from the Jackson trial reminds us why PR people have such a sterling reputation. Here's the New York Post account:

"Team Jacko boasted during a desperate attempt to save his trashed image that it would make his accuser's mother 'look like a crack whore,' the star's former p.r. consultant told jurors yesterday.

"Ann Marie Kite testified at Michael Jackson's child-molestation trial that she was hired to help him save face following the Feb. 6, 2003, airing of "Living with Michael Jackson."

"In the explosive documentary, the moon-walking manchild holds hands and nuzzles with his soon-to-be accuser and talks openly about sharing his bed with boys.

"Kite said that when she was hired, she was asked to assess, on a scale of 1 to 10, just how disastrous the Martin Bashir-produced documentary had been for the weird wunderkind. She replied: 'A 25.'"

It's no slam-dunk for Kobe, but he can afford it:

"The woman who accused Kobe Bryant of sexual assault dropped her civil suit against the Lakers' basketball star," says the Los Angeles Times. "A statement released by Bryant's attorneys this afternoon said that the matter had been resolved 'to the satisfaction of both parties.'. . . .

"The filing did not say if an out-of-court settlement had been reached but sources said Tuesday that Bryant has agreed to negotiate a monetary settlement with the woman who accused him of sexual assault. The deal brings to an end a lurid, highly publicized episode that began with a felony criminal charge nearly 20 months ago."Dean Barnett at the Weekly Standard both praises and raps Kos as a ringleader of the left-wing community:

"The Daily Kos has become enough of a player that it's not just selectmen and aspiring state senators who curry the community's favor. United States Senator Barbara Boxer has sent the community not one but two fawning mash notes in the past month to better ingratiate herself with the Kossacks (as they call themselves). As Markos Moulitsas [the site's author] has crowed many times on his website, the Daily Kos has real power, power that is evidenced by the fact that a national figure such as Boxer will stop by repeatedly to pay her respects.

"But unlike an actual ward committee which has its meetings (mercifully) in private, the Daily Kos convenes around the clock on the Internet, where the whole world can monitor its goings on.

"Last week Kos 'diarist' (the Kos Community has numerous diaries which function as blogs within the blog) 'Regeneration Man' offered a lengthy post which purported to prove that Jeff Gannon/James Guckert was the missing link in the Rathergate scandal...

"Not all of the commentary on Daily Kos is ridiculous conspiracy mongering. Many of the commenters are sophisticated political observers who offer keen insights. The discussion that followed a recent Moulitsas post disparaging the Democrats' professional 'strategists' is instructive in this regard. Moulitsas's item was thought provoking and worthwhile--he posited that the Democratic party's strengths are in its grassroots (as personified by his website) and that the establishment strategists' efforts to move away from those grass roots have been disastrous. The conversation that followed the 'strategists' post was similarly mature."

Barnett follows up with what he deems negative examples.

Larry Summers is the Story That Refuses to Die. Carrie Lukas of National Review is the latest to weigh in:

"You know it's a slow news month when statements by the president of Harvard University make headlines for weeks on end. Over six weeks ago, Larry Summers speculated that innate difference between genders may play a role in the under-representation of women among top scientists. The initial flurry of stories has since been followed by a CNN report, a series of Washington Post front-page articles, and countless hours of television punditry -- all covering the clash in Cambridge and how professors and students plan to reprimand their wayward leader."

Hey, she's overlooking all those front-page NYT articles.

"Many believe this episode reflects an out-of-control campus culture that makes politically incorrect inquiry a near crime. Commentators -- myself included -- reveled in the caricatured reaction of professors like MIT's Nancy Hopkins, who nearly fainted upon hearing Summers' words. Intellectuals have debated the merits of Summers's hypothesis: Does the evidence suggested that more men are naturally gifted in math and science?

"A less-examined aspect of the Summers's soap opera is how the anti-Summers campaign fits in to the larger feminist game plan. Feminists are looking for opportunities to prove their relevance and power. Toppling Larry Summers would fit the bill nicely."

The feminist "game plan"? Are they really that organized?

Finally, an Oscars debate that has nothing to do with Chris Rock, from GOP blogger

Patrick Ruffini:"This is pretty damning if true, and yes, it's from Zogby, so take it with a few pounds of salt:

"'Oscar-viewing habits do have a lot to do with where a respondent lives, and where they line up politically. While four-in-ten (39%) Democrats say they will watch the Oscars, this drops to one-in-eight (13%) among Republicans. Unsurprisingly, political independents split the difference, with 22% planning to view the awards show.'

"I think we can safely assume that no one watches the Oscars for the political messages they may contain. That means two thirds of Republicans potential Oscar viewers have actively decided to tune out a left-liberal fantasyland that's culturally out of touch with the America it's supposed to portray. A solid majority of Republicans see the people on that stage not as artists and entertainers, but as political figures. That so many people view Hollywood through this political prism is pretty remarkable in a country where people are more interested in the latest with Nick and Jessica than in the condition of Social Security."

But people turn out to see the movies anyway, no?

And the day's most important story--a Washington baseball team played a major-league game for the first time in more than 33 years--and won.