Brooks: * WH "decided our public relations is not going to be honest"

[paineinthearse]

NYT's Brooks revealed that "from Day One," the Bush White House "decided our public relations is not going to be honest" -- why hasn't he written about this?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509120003 (video also available there, unable to post link here).

September 11 edition of NBC's syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, New York Times columnist David Brooks revealed that he has learned from private conversations with Bush officials who "represent" what "Bush believes" that from its earliest days, the Bush administration adopted a policy of shielding itself from political damage by never publicly admitting any mistake -- even if it meant lying to the media and the American public. The fact that Bush doesn't admit mistakes has been reported by the media for years. For instance, in the September 11 edition of The New York Times, David Sanger reported, "Mr. Bush, his aides acknowledge, is loath to fire members of his administration or to take public actions that are tantamount to an admission of a major mistake." Brooks himself has previously noted the Bush administration's unwillingness to admit to mistakes. But what Brooks's September 11 account adds is that Bush is being intentionally dishonest -- in Brooks's words, "totally tactical and totally insincere" -- in resisting such public admissions and in blaming others when failures are too obvious to deny.

Moreover, on the Matthews Show, Brooks disclosed that "from Day One," the Bush White House "decided our public relations is not going to be honest," and that "privately they admit mistakes all the time." Brooks's revelation would appear to be of major significance, particularly in light of recent attempts by Bush administration officials to shift culpability in the Hurricane Katrina disaster away from the White House. But while he claimed on the Matthews show to have debated this strategy with administration officials "since Day One" -- indicating that he has known about it from the beginning -- a review of his columns and television appearances since Katrina struck reveals that Brooks has refrained from telling viewers and readers that the administration's campaign to rehabilitate its public image over the poor handling of the Katrina crisis by blaming others was apparently another manifestation of this dishonest strategy.

Knowing this strategy earlier might have provided readers and viewers with additional insight into an incident regarding a September 4 Washington Post article that prompted Media Matters for America president and CEO David Brock to write to the Post ombudsman. In that letter, dated September 6, Brock questioned the September 4 article's reliance on a quote from an anonymous "senior Bush official" falsely claiming that "s of Saturday , Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency." The Post ran a correction noting that Blanco had in fact declared a state of emergency on August 26. But in that correction the Post did not explain why it had relied on an anonymous administration source to report a fact that could have been easily checked, nor did it note reports that blaming Blanco was part of an administration strategy to deflect blame off of Bush and the federal government for the catastrophic situation in New Orleans.

In his September 11 column, acknowledging Media Matters' letter and "hundreds of critical e-mails, many of them undoubtedly provoked" by the letter, Post ombudsman Michael Getler wrote, "The outlines of the criticism were valid." But, responding to Media Matters' suggestion that the senior Bush official's lie might have constituted a justification for disclosing the source, Getler quoted assistant managing editor Liz Spayd saying, "It's impossible for us to read the person's mind to really know" if that person was "intentionally misleading us." Had the Post been armed with Brooks's September 11 revelation that lying was part of the administration's PR strategy, the paper would have had a pretty strong reason to think that the source was, in fact, lying.

more....

[Stephanie]

1. google Leo Strauss

Why does DU know all this stuff years before the press does?

[firefox]

4. Noble lies

The drug wars taught me that lying is a tool of government. Failure is not using the lie properly.

Everyone should know a little of Leo Strauss. Here is an article titled "Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq"- http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm

[paineinthearse]

8. Thanks for the background nt

Then lies continue. Conyers has balls to be calling * a liar in public.

[wiggs]

2. Wow. Money, power, and media are going to start backing away from B*sh

Bush is in a tight spot.

Who's going to take the fall? Behind whom is all the corporate money going to line up? How are the GOP congressmen going to separate themselves from all kinds of upcoming bad news? Corporate media is clearly backing away from Bush already...who are they going to shift their bias to? Are they going to stick with their horse and try to rehabilitate Bush (would take major event) or is he too far gone?

This is going to be interesting. Chickens coming home to roost...and there are a whole flock of them.

[Batgirl]

3. I haven't been this surprised

since discovering the Bush-fishing-in-New-Orleans pic was photoshopped

[StatGirl]

5. The surprising thing . . .

. . . is that Brooks is admitting it. Why?

[Brother Buzz]

6. The question should be: Why is he admitting it NOW?

[bloom]

15. I think Brooks works for the White House...

(in some capacity or roundabout way) and got this message out as part of the PR/focus group campaign.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. Nope. Not the way he has been hammering them for two weeks now.

Nominated this thread.

[bloom]

19. I heard him NPR spouting off the talking points

that the Katrina non-response was due the local/state people.

I think he throws out some "hammering" just to confuse people.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. Nope. He hammered Bush hard. Local and state are not blameless.

Brooks hammered Bush very hard on NPR. He mentioned local and state as a clause in one sentence. Anyone who thinks that local and state governments were perfect and entirely blameless isn't paying attention. All the rest of his rant was against Bush and the Republicans. He cited historical precedent that this failure is of the same magnitude that has in the past lead to regime change and governing paradigm shift.

[Brother Buzz]

23. I am of the opinion that Brooks and Bush* both work for PNAC...

and I suspect Brooks has been tasked to reel in Bush after he strayed too far from the reservation. My question is still 'why now'? Has this administration deviated too far from the script and the megalomaniac Bush* thinks he can really go it alone? I think the wheels are falling off the PNAC cart and they are going to extreme measures to get it back on course. If they have to sacrifice Bush* to achieve their objective, so be it.

[Stephanie]

24. Brooks definitely works for PNAC

He's out of the Weekly Standard. His allegiance is to William Kristol.

[Brother Buzz]

25. You think PNAC is setting the stage....

to roll out a completely new and improved product for 2008? It would be a lot easier to replace this administration than repair it. Perhaps the public will get behind someone in the DLC who is already carring PNAC's water. I don't think PNAC cares one way or the other.

[bloom]

26. I think they figured out it would be easier to lie

if they "took responsibility" once in awhile.

[StatGirl]

28. "Has this administration deviated too far from the script?"

Yes, and so has "reality". A major city, a jewel of our country, is destroyed, and someone has to be the scapegoat.

Bush's ratings were already sinking (http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/ for the full picture), and the people who propped him up are terrified that they'll be out of power if the people finally wake up and get pissed off about how much they've been getting ripped off over the past 25 years. ("Keep them doped with religion and sex and tv . . ")

Incidentally, I don't think the PNAC crowd is really the group pulling the strings. They also obey their corporate masters.

[Brother Buzz]

29. You suppose the Corporate Masters contracted with PNAC to manage things?

The fact remains, we will never know the true identify of Mr. Big, the man behind the curtain pulling the strings.

[StatGirl]

30. I don't think it's one person

I think it's a whole class of people, the kind who have access to huge amounts of money, and send their kids to all the same schools so they can meet and intermarry. The kind to whom the Kennedys are still just nouveau riche, and who considered Franklin Roosevelt a traitor to his class.

And I don't think it's a conspiracy, per se -- it's just a result of their culture. They are raised to think that they are entitled to rule over the peons, that the suffering of poor and middle-class people isn't of any more consequence than the suffering of the cattle that they eat, and that capital is more important than labor (rather than being an equal resource of production).

They would sacrifice Bush and the PNAC crowd in a minute if it looks like his actions will affect their status.

[ewagner]

10. Good question

I'm seeing a lot of "snowball in hell" situations recently: Jack Cafferty criticizing Bush; CNN's Schneider "awfulizing" Dubya's poll numbers; the WH press corps standing up to the administration and asking real questions and calling "bullshit" when they don't get answers.

My guess?

(thanks for asking)

The media and the "powers that be" have come to the realization that Dubya is a lame duck and can neither help nor hurt them much at all for the next three years. They have to start running away from him and attaching themselves to the next great hero (who the hell it is I have no idea) and ride his (or dare I say her) coattails into power. But first things first: detach from and villanize Dubya.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Buyer's remorse?

These are the folks that put the losers in power and propped them up for the last 5 years. They are the ones who didn't do their job and have deliberately ignored any and every wrong doing by this misadministration.

Sorry, folks the apologists in the press are just as guilty for the crimes committed by the current WH.

[Catrina]

9. If the media had been truthful from the beginning

about this administration, this would not be a surprise to anyone.

Michael Ledeen, eg, advisor to Bush and a neo-con, boasts about the need for governments to lie to the people ~ this is an ideology. They love Machiavelli, Leo Strauss and according to Michael Ledeen, Fascism is good, but was not implemented properly in Europe.

They've never really hidden their tactics. Another gem from Ledeen was that 'soldiers need religion, because how else can you ask them to die for a cause they might not otherwise believe in?'

If ordinary people like those on DU and other sites, know this, and Ron Paul spoke about their ideology in the Senate, how come it's news to 'news' people?

We should have seen indepth discussions about this dangerous ideology on television, on the radio ~ but no one ever mentioned it. Now, maybe they will. Too late for all the dead people, though!! Our press and media in general, has a lot to answer for.

[paineinthearse]

11. Amen, but

Do you have an answer for why Brooks feels free to say this on a TV show, but not put his words into print in the NYT? Perhaps the NYT "peoples' editor" should be asked to intervene?

[Catrina]

13. No, PITA, I don't

But from what I'm learning about the NYT and Judith Miller, eg, I wonder a lot about what they knew, but did not print, and why the so-called 'paper of record' failed to record the truth throughout this whole mess.

I think Brooks knows and did know what we all know ~ and maybe he just took the opportunity when he got it, to say what he said. It could be that the NYT would have, or did, edit anything that uncovered this ideology ~ they cannot have been ignorant of it. Ron Paul, and Sen. Byrd, eg, both gave speeches on the Senate floor in which they warned against it. Ron Paul in particular, bringing with him Michael Ledeen's book. So the Senate knew. I believe the NYT knew.

I hope one day we will have the answers as to why it was covered up. That this administration was no ordinary presidency, but was a true regime with a dangerous and fanatical ideology which endangered the security of this country and that those in power (at least the Senate) knew it and did nothing to stop it. Well, most of them. I would love to know the answer to that, and also, why the NYT covered it up, as they did the lies about WMDs. They have not adequately explained that either.

[Stephanie]

14. Brooks is a neo-con himself - this is not news to him.

Brooks is out of the Weekly Standard, answering to William Kristol, PNAC'er in Chief. He's been nothing but a spokesmodel for the neo-con agenda, which is why I'm mystified that he is the conservative voice for the NY Times, PBS and NPR. Why is he the only game in town? It's just stunning.

[Supersedeas]

17. exactly, the Corporate Media is absolutely complicit in this Admins PR

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. It all comes out in the end, and lying makes it worse

It wasn't the third rate burglary that brought Nixon down, it was his lying about it.

Floodgate is Bush's Watergate.

[wiggs]

18. kick for importance. nt

[paineinthearse]

20. Write to the NYT Public Editor

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index.html

Word From the Public Editor: Everything readers send to our mailbox will be read by me or my associate, Joseph Plambeck. If a reply is appropriate, you will hear from us shortly. If you do not wish your message to be relayed to other editors and reporters or published, please let us know. When referring to a specific article please include its date, section and headline.

Unfortunately, because of the volume of mail from readers, we cannot do research for the public or provide general contact information. You can find the e-mail addresses for many reporters, editors and departments by sending a request to [e-mail] or [e-mail]. Readers are welcome to send reports of errors that warrant correction directly to the newsroom at [e-mail], but such e-mails may also be sent to the public editor's e-mail address below.

You can find the answers to many questions about The Times from the FAQ's below. If you are having technical problems with NYTimes.com, please send your inquiries to [e-mail]. If you are having a problem with a subscription to The Times please call customer care:
1-800-NYTIMES/1-800-698-4637.

CONTACT
• E-mail: [e-mail]
• Phone: [phone]
• Address: Public Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036-3959

[warrens]

21. The bushies are like the clerk in the dead parrot sketch

And the guy in The Argument Clinic, who calmly disagrees with anything you say, no matter what, and does so with total aplomb and conviction.

They are stone conscienceless liars. Lying makes them feel good. They are sociopaths.

[mod mom]

27. We knew this, but WHY isn't this BIG NEWS coming from the right?