Another White House Briefing, Another Day of Mutual Mistrust

[cal04]

(snip)
By its nature, the relationship between the White House and the press has historically held an inherent tension. And many say it has been eroding since the Vietnam War and Watergate, when reporters had reason to distrust everything the White House said and made a scandalous "gate" out of every murky act. But today, those on both sides say, the relationship has deteriorated further, exacerbated by the live briefings.

(snip)
"It's constantly getting worse," said Ari Fleischer, who preceded Mr. McClellan as Mr. Bush's spokesman. Perhaps surprisingly for a Bush defender, he attributed the soured relationship in part to what he said was a secretiveness within the White House. "It's accented and compounded now because this administration is more secretive," he said.
He also said that the cameras altered the atmosphere, and that many reporters had constructive relationships with administration officials when off camera."Reporters can be perfectly civil and launch good, hard-hitting questions" in private, he said, then in the briefing room two minutes later, "they turn into barbarians."

(snip)
White House reporters say they know the public hates them because they regularly receive abusive e-mail messages and read blogs that tell them so. "This is the punching-bag beat of American journalism," said David E. Sanger, who has covered the Bush administration since its inception for The New York Times. "And the White House itself has been skillful at diverting tough questions by changing the subject to its battles with the media."

(snip)
David Gregory, the NBC correspondent who has been among the most ardent questioners in the briefing room, apologized for yelling at Mr. McClellan over the Cheney incident but said the situation had become particularly frustrating. "There is a desire by some, particularly on the right, to morph these situations into a different kind of debate — it's the vice president against an angry, left-wing, cynical, hate-filled press corps that wants to expose him as a liar," he said. "This is a false debate, stoked by a president and vice president who have made no bones about the fact that they don't have much respect for the press corps as an institution."


more
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/business/media/27press.html

[dchill]

1. Other than Mr. Fleischer and Mr. McClellan...

I've NEVER seen any barbarians in the briefing room, with the exception of that bald male hooker. Oh well, he wasn't a reporter, anyway.

[Lindacooks]

2. Not only do chimp and dead-eye not have respect for the press corps...

they don't have respect for the truth, democracy, the American public, and the world.

[Patsy Stone]

3. The attack on the free press continues

That image of reporters yelling at a press secretary and demanding answers to repeated questions works against them, said Donald A. Ritchie, author of "Reporting From Washington: The History of the Washington Press Corps." They reinforce the public's negative view of them, he said, which in turn plays into the hands of the administration because now reporters, not the original subject that had them agitated, become the news.

<snip>

"There is a desire by some, particularly on the right, to morph these situations into a different kind of debate — it's the vice president against an angry, left-wing, cynical, hate-filled press corps that wants to expose him as a liar," he (David Gregory) said. "This is a false debate, stoked by a president and vice president who have made no bones about the fact that they don't have much respect for the press corps as an institution."

<snip>

So, either the American public is fed up with the idea of a free press, or this is a bit of spin to make the reporters doubt their worth and purpose. I'm going with the the latter.

It's a two-pronged attack -- which seems to be working on both fronts. First tell the press you (the administration) and the American people see no value in their work, call them bullies for looking for the truth, stall and obfuscate. The end result is that the press begin to question their own actions, which works so much more effectively than the administration actually doing the work themselves. All they need to do is plant the "Nobody likes you" seed.

"Renana Brooks, a clinical psychologist practicing in Washington who said she had counseled several White House correspondents, said the last few years had given rise to "White House reporter syndrome," in which competitive high achievers feel restricted and controlled and become emotionally isolated from others who are not steeped in the same experience.

She said the syndrome was evident in the Cheney case, which she described as an inconsequential event that produced an outsize feeding frenzy. She said some reporters used the occasion to compensate for not having pressed harder before the Iraq war.

"It's like any post-traumatic stress," she said, "like when someone dies and you think you could have saved them."

[depakid]

4. More fiction from the Times

Don't they have any concern for their reputation anymore? What an embarrassing article this was.

"Reporters can be perfectly civil and launch good, hard-hitting questions" in private, he said, then in the briefing room two minutes later, "they turn into barbarians."

errr. Reality check?

and this next little apologia is really sweet:

"That image of reporters yelling at a press secretary and demanding answers to repeated questions works against them, said Donald A. Ritchie... They reinforce the public's negative view of them, he said, which in turn plays into the hands of the administration because now reporters, not the original subject that had them agitated, become the news."

Ritchie may well have written a book- but otherwise, he sounds like he just fell off of the turnip wagon- either that or he's trying to put lipstick on a bunch of pig and turn them into reporters.

I have news for the Times- there's a reason that so many people dislike "journalists" these day- and why they no longer trust your newspaper.

And it ain't because you're asking (or your editors allow) too many "tough" questions- or giving the press secretary a hard time.