Post Politics Hour
washingtonpost.com's Daily Politics Discussion

John F. Harris
Washington Post National Political Editor
Thursday, March 30, 2006 11:00 AM

Don't want to miss out on the latest buzz in politics? Start each day at wonk central: The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and Congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.

Washington Post national political editor John F. Harris was online Thursday, March 30, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest in political news.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Washington, D.C.: Please comment on the president's recent "off the record" sessions with reporters. It seemed very odd for The Post to participate in a session under the rules, and then report on it after getting tipped off from other sources. Does this mean the administration is favoring some Post reporters over others for their own purposes, and what assurance can you give readers that Post reporters will not be swayed by this access and disseminate White House spin?

John F. Harris: Good morning. Spring is in the air, and it's a big day here at the Washington Post with the debut of WashingtonPost radio. For those in the Washington area, there will be a politics show every Thursday at 1 p.m. at 107.7 FM and 1500 AM. This week, chief political correspondent Dan Balz is hosting.

There are lots of questions already cued up on President Bush's off-the-record conversations from several news organizations, including the Washington Post. I'll answer several of them.

We always push for on-the-record access--interviews and news conferences--with public figures including presidents.

An off-the-record conversation is no substitute for these.

To my mind, this does not require us to turn down offers to speak with a public figure in an off-the-record basis. My view is, anything a reporter learns advances his or her understanding, and we'll figure out a way somehow to share that understanding with readers, even if we are not allowed to quote from the conversation.

I covered the Clinton White House, and Bill Clinton held some similar off-the-record conversations (though never with me.) So I did not have a problem with reporters accepting similar invitations with this president.

I did think it was important once the word of these sessions started getting around that we share the fact they were taking place with readers. That's why we assigned a story about them, written by a reporter who was not there.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: Which Washington Post reporters attended the "off the record" meeting with President Bush last week? Isn't that a conflict of interest? If you won't name them, why?

John F. Harris: There were two sessions with President Bush that included Washington Post reporters. All three members of our White House team were at one or the other. The reporters covering the White House are Peter Baker, Michael Fletcher, and Jim VandeHei.

I do not think it is a conflict of interest for a reporter to speak with a public figure on an off-the-record basis. As I said, these conversations are not a substitute--and we would never accept them as such--for on-the-record opportunities to pose questions.

_______________________

Buffalo, N.Y.: Are you going to get Post Radio up on the Internet or satellite radio?

John F. Harris: You bet we are. Let's see if we can get our host to post a link...Though remember this is day one, so we may still be getting the bugs out.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Listen to Washington Post radio.

_______________________

Mayfield, Ky.: Mr. Harris, I enjoy your comments on Washington Week in Review and I appreciate this opportunity to ask: What difference does it make who the President's Chief of Staff is? Especially, Bush, who seems to to want only people who will always agree with him. Also, do you the public at large much gives a hoot about Bush's reasons to invade Iraq? I don't see much sign that the public at large is engaged in any way with the war. Thanks for taking my questions.

John F. Harris: Thanks for your nice words.

Who serves as a president's chief of staff always generates intense interest in Washington--and it can be important to how smoothly a White House operates--but it is secondary to what a president's policies are, and I can see why people living elsewhere would not care that much.

I sure do not agree with you on Iraq. I believe this is the dominant question hanging over this presidency, and very likely will figure importantly in this fall's mid-term elections. As Bush himself said last week, virtually all his "political capital" is invested in this.

At the moment, polling indicates deep public dissatisfaction with the course of the war and doubt about whether U.S. policy is on a path to victory. It is these public perceptions that the White House is trying hard to turn around.

_______________________

Dayton, Ohio: Why did The Post feel the need to create a partisan conservative blog? It gives the appearance of pandering to the party in power. The criticism of Froomkin from within The Post gives the same appearance... that the editors at the Post are pandering to the demands of those in power. Is that responsible journalism?

John F. Harris: Lots of questions on this topic also.

From my vantage point in the Post newsroom--which is separate from washingtonpost.com--the Domenech hiring was unfortunate, even before the uproar over plagiarism allegations.

I think getting some conservative voices over there is a good thing, but I did not see why they hired someone so young and without obvious credentials, journalistic or otherwise.

I think the most useful opinion blogs analyze and comment on the news from some well-grounded perspective. That is what Dan Froomkin does, and Dan is a long-time journalist.

There's enough people on the web already just popping off from a strictly ideological perspective. I don't think washingtonpost.com adds much value by providing a platform for another.

I have expressed concern previously about Froomkin's column on a different score. People often assume from the column's title, "White House Briefing," that he is one of the Post's White House correspondents. He is not. He is an opinion commentator hired by post.com, and one of the more popular features on the web site.

We would not let a White House news reporter write an opinion column, which was why this widespread confusion concerns me.

In any event, Dan Froomkin and Domenech are miles apart in their credentials, and the authority they bring as commentators.

I write all this not to gratuitously pile on post.com, which has already moved on from the Domenech matter, but because I think readers should know that there are distinctions both the paper and Web site observe between news and opinion, and between the main newspaper and certain features that post.com carries independently.

Having said that, the paper and the web operation work together often and well. (These chats are one example) Jim Brady, the editor there, is the best in the business, to my mind, and the growing popularity of the Web site suggests a lot of readers agree.

He and his staff believe in experimentation, and that means occasionally there will be an experiment that does not work out.

I think they should keep looking to bring more commentators over there, including some conservative voices to add to several who (while not being predictable or dogmatic) generally tilt in a liberal direction.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Despite the President's extremely low public approval ratings; widespread disenchantment with the Iraq invasion; and outspoken opposition by several prominent Democratic legislators on the record, The Post still refuses to poll on whether or not the President should be impeached. If 40% or more of the public wants Bush impeached wouldn't that be important political news to report regardless of whether the President's party, which controls all aspects of the national government, would act on the public's wishes or not?

John F. Harris: Our polling director, Rich Morin, does occasional chats on line and you can pose this to him when he's next here.

From my vantage point--and I think this is where he and our executive editor Len Downie are also--there was never some policy against polling on impeachment. It was that the Post simply chose not to poll on something at the margins of Washington debate.

In the months since this first came up, Sen. Feingold has succeeded in moving his idea of censure away from the margins. It has become a prominent topic of discussion. Impeachment still seems to me to be very much at the margins.

So, without predicting, it would not surprise me to see this question polled on by the Post in the future.

To be honest, I would be curious on seeing the partisan breakdown on both censure and impeachment questions.

_______________________

Valley Forge, Pa.: I have now read several articles on the Democrats' "Real Security" rollout yesterday. Without exception, the coverage amounted to a "here's what they said, but they didn't propose any specific plan on Iraq".

How can the Democrats, who don't control anything (esp. the military) realistically propose any kind of detailed plan? Life goes on and each day brings changes to the situation on the ground in Iraq. As soon as Democrats could lay out any kind of plan, it would be obsolete because they do not control U.S. actions in Iraq. I don't understand what kind of "plan" the Democrats could realistically propose. Your thoughts?

John F. Harris: This is a fair point. Probably the public does not expect a precise plan from the opposition. But Iraq is the dominant question in politics right now. Most Democrats initially supported Bush on the intervention.

It seems reasonable that Democrats would offer broad statements of where they stand on national security, and what their critique of Bush is.

On Iraq, the fact is, the party is not in agreement on the core question: Should troops come home in the near-term, or if not what is the right policy for success.

_______________________

Meriden, Conn.: John, thanks for the chats. I know I shouldn't be astonished that the Republicans are criticizing the media for reporting the constant bad news out of Iraq, but I honestly believe the reportage doesn't even scratch the surface of the horrible reality. There is a reign of terror in Iraq right now. Constant kidnappings, torture, beheadings, bombings. How could anyone expect the media to not report it all? My question is, do you think the media will be cowed by the criticism they've received on war coverage?

John F. Harris: Thanks for your comment.

The great impediment to Iraq reporting right now, as I understand it from our correspondents who have been there, is the lack of mobility. It's just not safe to get around.

The criticism from certain quarters really does not affect what the reporters do or where and how editors play stories.

Thanks for checking in. Sorry my answers were a little slow (I had several work-related interruptions during the chat) but as always I appreciate the questions and wish I had gotten to more.

Check back in tomorrow.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.