White House reporters afraid to criticize the White House

Jefferson23

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-29-10 09:43 AM
Original message

White House reporters afraid to criticize the White House

* I like the way Greenwald calls out the reporters, very well done. The pic of the mouse with a press hat is great too, lol.

Wednesday, Apr 28, 2010 14:29 ET

By Glenn Greenwald

(updated below)

Politico's Josh Gerstein and Patrick Gavin have a long article describing the growing anger of the White House press corps towards the Obama White House. Many of the grievances are petty, though some are serious and substantive (involving lack of transparency and media manipulation), but the passage that I found most revealing is this one:

Much of the criticism is off the record, both out of fear of retaliation and from worry about appearing whiny. But those views were voiced by a cross section of the television, newspaper and magazine journalists who cover the White House.

Just think about that for a minute. National political reporters are furious over various White House practices involving transparency and information control, but are unwilling to say so for attribution due to fear of "retaliation," instead insisting on hiding behind a wall of anonymity (which Politico, needless to say, happily provides). Isn't that a rather serious problem: that the White House press corps is afraid to criticize the President and the White House for fear of losing access and suffering other forms of retribution? What does that say about their "journalism"? It's the flip side of those White House reporters who need the good graces of Obama aides for their behind-the-scenes books and thus desperately do their bidding: what kind of reporter covering the White House would possibly admit that they're afraid to say anything with their names attached that might anger the President and his aides? How could you possibly be a minimally credible White House reporter if you have that fear? Doesn't that unwillingness rather obviously render their reporting worthless?

The article notes that aside from punishing reporters who say things it dislikes, the White House rewards those reporters (with special "scoops" and other privileges) who subserviently promote its agenda, and specifically identifies White House "favorites" David Sanger of The New York Times (the Judy Miller of The Iran Threat) and Richard Wolffe (the single most sycophantic White House stenographer after Jonathan Alter). It's nice that the White House's most loyal journalist-servants are petted on their head for their Good Behavior (it'd be sad to see that level of devotion go completely unrewarded). I'm sure Alter and Ryan Lizza's Obama books will be accordingly suffuse with White House favors. I can't recall reading any sentence quite as illustrative as this one from Politico stating (without any irony) that White House reporters insisted upon anonymity because they're afraid of angering the White House with their public statements.

remainder here: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/28/journalism/index.html