Transcript.
White House Talk
Wednesday, April 20, 2005; 1:00 PM
|
When I was Live Online last, a reader from Chatham, N.J., asked why the White House's transcripts of press briefings don't include the names and affiliations of the people asking the questions. I thought that was a good question, and vowed to get an answer.
In today's column, Chatham, you get your answer. In short, it's because it would slow things down. And to the White House, spokesman David Almacy told me, "It's the answers that matter, not the questions."
Anyway, lots to talk about today, including of course Karl Rove's critique of the press.
So bring it on.
remind me of a frat boy's attempts to
dominate a social situation by using
humor that slightly demeans another
person.
remember white people treating blacks
with the same "genial" disdain. It passes
social muster, but there's an edge to it.
laugh after Bush's put downs.
spine.
When reporters are on the job, our goal is getting the story. If that entails some humiliating but harmless "source maintenance," so be it. And what good would come of reporters snapping at Bush when he bullies them?
That said, it may not be so harmless.
And I think Bush's behavior with the corps is, well, worth reporting, and not out of character.
So that's what I do -- I report it. That's how I do my job.
I'll have more on the whole towel-snapping motif in the next few days.
But is this really a good litmus test for his being in the loop? No CEO knows everything that's going on in his company. Was this a big enough deal that it casts doubts on his approach to the presidency?
When he said, talking to newspaper editors last week that he'd first read about it in the newspaper, I was more shocked that he read newspapers than that he hadn't heard about it before.
But I should note that the Gibson piece was commentary -- while the Fox News article I referenced above I thought actually moved the ball forward fairly admirably.
I do find that White House officials, when they are talking to the likes of Fox News or the Washington Times or right-wing radio hosts, sometimes actually let their guard down a bit than when talking to the likes of us. And that is sometimes quite valuable.
P.S. I love it when you guys send me links!
One of the many enormous sacrifices that I make to bring you this fine column is that I go to bed before the Daily Show comes on. (And they don't Web-post their video fast enough or consistently enough for me to link to it, typically.)
Now mind you, one of the few terrific perks of this job is that I get the text of Stewart's monologue e-mailed to me hours before you mere mortals get to hear it. But that doesn't include the rest of the show.
I'll make a point of tracking that down, though. Thanks.
It's worth noting that, for doing precisely what you note, Milbank was considered a bit of a thorn in the White House's side when he was The Post's White House correspondent.
And look, there no doubt that the president -- any president -- dominates the political discourse in this country. When he says something, it's news, and it gets reported.
Sometimes, and I would say more often since the election, reporters also go to the trouble of checking his claims, and pointing out discrepancies. Which is indeed what we should be doing pretty much all the time.
I really enjoy your column - it has become a regular staple in my lunchtime internet diet. I particularly like the bubble watch. What do you see ever coming from it? Buzzflash.com is calling for the prosecution of the White House for "...violating First Amendment rights and wrongful use of taxpayer funds." I don't really understand how you would prosecute the White House - but otherwise what are the chances of someone being held accountable?
I was struck by how the White House responded to the whole thing: By baldly making what had been ostensibly public events now officially invitation-only. But of course it's still your tax dollars picking up the tab.
Now that some members of Congress are demanding answers, at least when it comes to who was behind the removal of the three people from the Denver rally, we may actually get some more fact -- which to me, is essential.
In Monday's column I referenced a Fox News story (!) in which White House spokesman Trent Duffy sort of implied that maybe the White House advance team -- not some errant volunteer -- could have been responsible. I'm kind of amazed no one's tried to bring up the subject with Scott McClellan again -- for what that's worth.
For one, Bush is talking about energy policy even as I type. We'll see what he has to say.
For another, over on my other Web site, NiemanWatchdog.org, we just posted a piece by Tyson Slocum, the research director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, who says the media and the Bush administration are overlooking the role of oil companies and speculators in the run-up of gas prices.
Oil industry profits are indeed at an all-time high.
Bush and McClellan have both mentioned in recent days that the government should be keeping an eye out for price-gouging. Said Bush to CNBC's Insana: "We can make sure that people aren't getting cheated, you know. In other words, that there's fair pricing, market pricing."
I'd like to see some follow up on that.
Apparently, it's not as bad as it sounds!
(And let me get this straight, you'll pay money for Hotline, but not spend a few seconds registering for a fine newspaper Web site like the Austin American-Statesman?)
See this piece by Judy Sarasohn in The Post.
Listen, I may take issue with some of his conclusions, but I'm actually quite pleased that people are talking about what I consider a very important topic.
I remember after the election, there was much mumbling about lessons learned -- but it passed quickly.
I think that the topic upon which Rove was invited to speak -- "Polarized Press: Media and Politics in the Age of Bush" -- is a hugely important and still largely unexplored one. (Certainly compared to, say, is blogging journalism?)
The "mainstream press" has got some challenges to face, and some work to do. That won't happen in silence.
I linked to veteran journalist Sydney Schanberg's opinion piece in the Village Voice this morning, about how the White House press corps should get a spine. I didn't include this part -- maybe I should have -- in which he writes that the press hasn't made its case with the public.
"We haven't gotten across why people need us or why what we do is important to the functioning of a free nation. We haven't effectively gotten our readers to understand that if they get lied to by their government or other power centers, and we—or some other watchdogs—don't quickly show them the lie, bad things can happen. People can lose their health insurance or have their homes seized by the bank. And wars can happen and people can die. So we have to find better ways to show them why this is true and therefore why aggressive journalism is a necessity."
As I wrote in my Feb. 11 column on "The Amazing Disappearing Trust Fund": "Let's assume that the president really believes that the Social Security trust fund doesn't exist. And let's just forget about the past two decades, during which workers overpaid more than a trillion dollars in payroll taxes. We'll write that off to an unfortunate misunderstanding.
"But now take this one more step. Shouldn't Bush therefore call for an immediate cut in payroll taxes, effective immediately?
"If Social Security is really pay-as-you-go, and any excess payroll tax revenue just goes into the general fund, why are American workers paying more than it costs to run the program? Why should they overpay Social Security payroll taxes for one more minute -- if in fact it doesn't do the Social Security system any good at all?"
I'm still waiting for an answer -- or, more properly, as you just put it, for the question.
