Exploding the "liberal media" myth
Scott McClellan, whose scatching indictment of the failed Bush presidency is already the top bestselling book on Amazon, has also performed a valuable public service by exploding the right-wing myth about the
Exploding the "liberal media" myth
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Scott McClellan, whose searing indictment of the failed Bush presidency is already the top bestselling book on Amazon, has also performed a valuable public service by exploding the right-wing myth about the "liberal media."
I am referring, of course, to the longstanding canard about how journalists, especially those in Washington, are by nature determined to destroy conservative presidents, supposedly because these members of the media hate the military and American values in general. This myth has been thoroughly refuted by a number of commentators - including Mark Hertsgaard (who documented the press' subservience to Ronald Reagan several decades ago in his book On Bended Knee), Eric Alterman (whose book What Liberal Media? appeared four years ago), and Eric Boehlert (whose book Lapdogs was published two years ago) - but the myth perpetuators have ignored these well-documented works, largely by dismissing the authors as liberals...who are determined to destroy conservative presidents and hate American values in general. And thus the loop closes.
Yet now we have McClellan - the erstwhile Bush loyalist who spent years seeking to advance the Bush agenda, spinning the media for the boss, his flag pin always right where it oughta be - and even he thinks the canard is a crock. Consider these key passages from his book, What Happened:
"If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. The collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise...In this case, the 'liberal media' didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served...
"Through it all (referring to the prewar period), the media would serve as complicit enablers. Their primary focus would be on covering the campaign to sell the war, rather than aggressively questioning the rationale for war or pursuing the truth behind it...The public should have been made much more aware, before the fact, of the uncertainties, doubts, and caveats that underlay the intelligence about the regime of Saddam Hussein. The administration did little to convey those nuances to the people, the press should have picked up the slack but largely failed to do so, because their focus was elsewhere - on covering the march to war, instead of the necessity of war."
Granted, if the press had been more aggressive at the time, in the manner that McClellan now suggests would have been advisable, he would have merely repeated the same administration talking points that he already had committed to memory (McClellan, July 17, 2003: the war was launched "based on solid and compelling evidence"). Nevertheless, this ex-Bushie is correct in his overall assessment of media behavior.
With very few notable exceptions - the now-defunct Knight Ridder Washington bureau was consistently skeptical of the Bush team's prewar claims - most of us journalists acted like credulous stenographers most of the time. For instance, The Washington Post consistently buried its skeptical stories (written by national security veteran Walter Pincus) deep in the A-section, while the cheerleading stories ran on page one. Thomas Ricks, the Post's Pentagon correspondent (who is now taking a buyout) lamented four years ago that "there was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all the contrary stuff?" And, as a Post editor also confessed in 2004, "We are inevitably the mouthpiece of whatever administration is in power," a fundamental truth about the Washington media's establishmentarian instincts that hardly squares with the right-wing myth about patriotism-challenged journalists running wild.
And it's already well-documented that The New York Times was repeatedly snowed by its flawed Iraqi sources, who ginned up yarns about Hussein's supposed WMDs, many of which wound up on page one and drove the national news. But many examples are far less known. MSNBC fired Phil Donahue, one of its talk show hosts, because the network didn't like the fact that he was refusing to toe the Bush prewar line; as one leaked memo pointed out, Donahue was "a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war...He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." Donahue later told Bill Moyers, during a 2007 PBS documentary, that he had been routinely instructed by networks execs to book two conservatives for every liberal.
McClellan's book has also triggered fresh confessionals. The other night, CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin reminisced about her own experiences at MSNBC, during the prewar phase: "The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings...(Executives) would turn down (my) stories that were more criticial, and try to put in pieces that were more positive." Katie Couric said much the same thing during a guest chat on NBC the other morning, about how pressure from higher-ups "affected the level of aggressiveness." And this newly published book, by Greg Mitchell, is probably the best compendium of press derelictions.
(Full disclosure: My own track record was mixed. I did suggest, five months before war was launched, that Bush might have other motives for invading Iraq aside from destroying WMDs, notably the chance to secure oil. And I did warn, a month before the war, that America could be "stuck next winter with a costly, bloody occupation." And I did note, three days before the war began, that Bush had already "abandoned all his previous claims of a direct link between Hussein and the Sept. 11 terrorists," that he was refusing to provide "an occupation price tag," and that he was violating his campaign promise not to engage in "nation-building." And I did write, two days before the war began, about the forged documents that Bush had used to falsely claim that Hussein had sought weapons uranium in Africa. But my first full examination of four Bush lies did not appear until June 22, 2003, two months after the invasion was launched.)
Part of the problem - which the conservative perpetuators of myth always ignore - is that most journalists are bound by the traditional rules of "objectivity." Most are trained to seek the views of others, rather than think and communicate for themselves. Most are discouraged from initiating debates on their own about government policy. And, by nature, most journalists are not comfortable as commentators, either because they are averse to speaking or writing on their own authority, or because they sincerely believe (and this is certainly true, much of the time) that governmental authority figures know a lot more than they do about the nuances of foreign policy and national security.
Indeed these are the nuances about the so-called "liberal media" that are far more persuasive than the conservative myths, and McClellan - as an alumnus of a conservative administration - has done us all a favor by freshening the discussion.
My good pal Bohica my other defenders of the Iraq occupation. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a bad man. And we had him bottled up with inspectors all over his country, no fly zones, bombing missions whenever we liked. Our "intelligence" said he had WMD and was pursuing WMD. Didn't work out that way. Sooo, after being told it would cost very little in American wealth to win the peace and that rebuilding would be paid for from Iraqi Oil Revenue, how well has that played out? Iran was Saddam's arch enemy and Hussein was a great counterbalance to the Persians. So why did we take him out? Hussein never once attacked the USA (he did try to kill Bush the Elder but that was PERSONAL), while Al-Queda regularly carried out attacks against us and our interests. Yet after 9/11, we suddenly built up this mytholigical beast that had to be slayed. Bring the troops home. Bring them home from Iraq, Germany, Japan, Korea and a hundred other countries. Let's get our focus back on our country. We can defend our nation from our own borders. We have the naval strength and military alliances to extend our military to a hotspot quickly when called upon. Empire will lead to ruin. America Equity loans will soon come back to bite us until and unless we get our financial house in order. Debt: Nine Trillion Dollars and counting.— JeffA
Comment removed.- The Liberal Media is not a myth its the truth. Thats why Fox News Channels has the best ratings over any cable news channel and the reason the Dems want to shut down talk radio. They don't want you to hear the truth and only want you to hear what the want you to hear. Wake up people!— romanoj
- USA#1 --- Since China is the one who helped Bush pay for the War, this Administration is going to see like Helen Keller when it comes to their human rights violations. The Hamas election showed another example of how full of crap Bush is. He bleats on & on about how good friends we are with Isreal, yet when even they told him not to push for elections in Palestine, he did it anyway, believing all his "knowledge" of the Middle East was more than our allies' who live there. What a dope...— yobill626
- What would Iraq look like today if we had not gone in? I guess it would look like it did before we invaded.— p-diddy
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Hope you aren’t saying Iraq is in fine shape vc bear. Their government can’t function without us. Their soldiers and police can’t control the citizens without us. We are paying for the rebuilding of their infrastructure and we are paying the salaries of there politicians. Also if we were so concerned about spreading democracy how come we have not invaded Cuba or the other countries run by dictators. And last but not least, why are we doing business with China, one of the worst human rights violators on the planet. Gee, do you think the answer could be all that cheap labor? Having control of the oil in Iraq was the reason we invaded Iraq. It certainly couldn’t be because of them violating the U.N. resolutions because the neo-cons don’t want to be part of the U.N. The worst thing about it we still are not getting oil from them, we should be lining up the tankers and using the oil to fill our Strategic Reserve instead of buying it, but then no one would be making money. The other great Bush move was getting elections for the Palestinians, then wondering why they voted for Hamus.— USA#1
- Isn't it a shame that we have so squandered the Right to a Free Press by developing a big money press that wants nothing more than to be liked by the power elite and to be allowed into their confidences. Unfortunately ever since Watergate, the press has operated as if the lesson learned was that it's cool to find a scandal. the more salicious the better, rather then realizing that freedom can be stolen easily if the press doesn't perform their 'watchdog of the powerful' role. At first I also felt annoyedthat McClellan didn't make these statements 5 years ago, but then realized that if he did say something that was not felt to be loyal to the Administration, the Rove-Chaney machine would have crucified him, the right wing cable and AM media would have cheered on the mob calling for his crucifixtion and the main stream media would have sat and sucked it's thumb as it focused on the daily travails of the Britney Spears du jour self-destructing young female star.— atp2007
- Isn't it a shame that we have so squandered the Right to a Free Press by developing a big money press that wants nothing more than to be liked by the power elite and to be allowed into their confidences. Unfortunately ever since Watergate, the press has operated as if the lesson learned was that it's cool to find a scandal. the more salicious the better, rather then realizing that freedom can be stolen easily if the press doesn't perform their 'watchdog of the powerful' role. At first I also felt annoyedthat McClellan didn't make these statements 5 years ago, but then realized that if he did say something that was not felt to be loyal to the Administration, the Rove-Chaney machine would have crucified him, the right wing cable and AM media would have cheered on the mob calling for his crucifixtion and the main stream media would have sat and sucked it's thumb as it focused on the daily travails of the Britney Spears du jour self-destructing young female star.— atp2007
- vc bear --- Who knows how Iraq would look? None of us can know for sure what would have happened. I do know that our children & grandchildren would have much more of their own money that wouldn't go to paying down the debts we created because of Iraq. Well over 4000 of our citizens would still be alive & have continued to contribute to our society. The point is, we don't have the right to determine how every country in the world is made up. Have we attacked Zimbabwe, Darfur, Myanmar or any of the scores of other countries that abuse their citizens?— yobill626
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- ok, what would Iraq look like today if we had not gone in? What would the Middle East look like? Would we be better off? What would the future bring? Ask Obama, perhaps his great grand father was their to tell the story.— vc bear
If only Scott stepped up and spoke out against the lies, he would wind up like Valerie Plame, stabbed in the back by the traitor republicans. Resign from what, from where?- The MSM conglomerates are in the business to sell information product. That's what they do. There's no higher calling. The journalists who work in that business may or may not be more liberal, but they overwhelmingly need to get stories aired or published to stay employed. The conglomerates are always looking to present information that they think the public wants to buy. Right now, liberal media slant is selling, because as p-diddy states: Bush has done a terrible job. BAsed on an overwhelming number of polls, most of our fellow citizens think this. Sure enough, most of the news reflects that view. From @'97 (when the Lewinsky scandal started coming out souring most Americans) to @'04/'05, the conservative media slant was what was selling (Iraq & Katrina turned the tide back). This kind of swing has gone on for years. Why do you think Limbaugh & his ilk have done such a poor job of hiding their "rooting" for Hillary? She'd be the golden goose of ratings for these guys.— yobill626
- Actually, the posters like chrissmith and slasher are correct; the media (in general, except for the obvious Fox and its ilk) IS liberal. It has to be to do its job. Facts are inherently liberal. (with due credit to Stephen Colbert, or whoever wrote that line for him).— marty
- I think the Conservative posters need to consider the possibility that the reason Bush gets so much bad press is because he has done a bad job.— p-diddy
- FoxNews created the business model of slanting news to a particular audience. And to compare the degree of slant at Fox to ABC or CBS is nonsense. At FoxNews, you have Karl Rove, O'Reilly, Hannity, Cavuto, Gibson and Hume, plus the giggling morons on Fox and Friends, as well as frequent guests like Laura Ingram, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and many others. No other major news network even comes close to the degree of slant at FoxNews, and I'm a news junkie. MSNBC found they could capture the anti-O'Reilly market after Olbermann started a ridiculous personal feud with Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly obviously recognizes this - that's why he is barred from mentioning Olbermann's name on the air at FoxNews. They realized they were just driving Olbermann's ratings.— p-diddy
- I seem to remember that the Clintons when they went thru their ordeals used to talk about a biased media. As someone else has already stated, news is news. What might be "biased" are commentators who give their opinion -- which they are paid to do -- and opinions are biased. You cannot show me anywhere that the media was easier on Clinton than Bush. Bush has gotten 6+ years of pretty much free reign -- as evidenced by the preponderence of people stating that. Now that it has all backfired, conservatives want to claim a bias in the media? That is laughable and pathetic. Chrissmith, you really do need to think and learn outside that box. It isnt about being liberal or conservative, it is, at this point, about being accountable -- both Bush and the media that have enabled him.— Master Dreamz
- I'm just using common sense guys. I'm not a conservative idealogue by any stretch. Compare the favorable/unfavorable news coverage of McCain and Obama, for exmaple. It becomes pretty clear, pretty fast, which way the media leans.— chrissmith
- I don't think we've destroyed the 'myth' of liberal media as much as we've acknowledged the poor work of some reporters. These books just show what those inside the loop all know and see. This one didn't even bring out anything a lot of people didn't already know.David Stockman and Don Regan wrote books that didn't put Ronald Reagan in a good light. McClellan is just following the script.The need in Washington is to cash in...........And BTW, CHRISSMITH (and others). Polman doesn't present this as a detached,names/dates/places reporting site. It is an OPINION site. He gives his and we (all experts in our own right) give ours. You know what you get when you log in. There's a dozen+ conservative links available from this site alone. It is ridiculous to come here and look for something other than Polman/Libthink.— JimR
- You are delusional if you think the mainstream media is not liberal. How many conservative voices are on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC? I bet you can count them on one hand. How many conservative bloggers are on philly.com??? (And don't call Smerconish "conservative".) Look at the network political shows... NBC's Tim Russert - worked for Democrat Tip O'Neil. ABC's George Stephanopolus - worked for Democrat Bill Clinton. ABC's Cokie Roberts - mother & father were Democrats in Congress. CBS's Katie Couric - 'nuff said. NBC's Chrissy Matthews - worked for Jimmah Carter and Tip O'Neil. Give me a break.— MiddleNameHussein
- Still waiting on the "obvious" examples of a liberal media...waiting...waiting...— tightlines
- Ok, enough of this liberal-media stuff. I am watching Wolfie Blitzer (liberal? conservative?) interview McClellan. Vulf wants to know if Scott wants to apologize to the American people. Scott declines. But this might be a good time for me to apologize to the American people. I'm sorry!— Djoko Pritza
- It's funny how Polman, of all people, talks about the "liberal media." His own column has a clear liberal bias! Very funny stuff here. Is this blog serious or a joke, because I'm getting a lot of laughs out if.— chrissmith
- Some of you guys are crazy. One guy on here cites the some of the following as showing conservative bias: Fox News, WSJ editorial page, the Weekly Standard, the NY Post, the Washington Times...LOL. Are you serious? Now compare these with ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, Inquirer, Daily News....come on guys, it's not even close. The liberal news outlets clearly, easily outweigh the conservative ones enormously. I'm talking about the MAINSTREAM MEDIA here. There's a blatant liberal bias.— chrissmith
- It's amazing the legs that the Nixonian chestnut "liberal media" still has. Let's get something straight here. News isn't liberal. News isn't conservative. It isn't positive nor it it negative. News just is. Get over it. The media are only seen as liberal by those who call it so when it's telling you something you don't want to hear or making you accountable for something you want to accept no responsibility for. I spent 15 years in newsrooms and I can tell you that most of the people in them, particularly in suburban ones, are so far right they don't even make left turns unless they have to. As for the reporting on the war in Iraq, it's kind of similar to the free pass that Mayor Nutter is getting right now on a variety of things. If you're nice to reporters these days, they don't ask you questions that they should be asking, like how do you know that Saddam Hussein still has weapons of mass destruction? Do you have visual proof and if so, let's see it. If nothing else, this whole episode should illustrate to all of us the evils of media consolidation. When everyone is so afraid to lose market share that they don't want to appear to be too "hard" on the president, you get timid reporting. That's what happened here.— Raiderfan
- Survey after survey of journalists have shown that they are overwhelmingly Democratic. This is beyond debate. As somebody who's spent a couple of decades in newsrooms, I happen to know it's true. As far as the media abdicating its responsibility, that's also true. And you don't have to go as high as the Washington press corps. Just look at the people who cover City Hall here in town or the Eagles, or any college team. If they wrote what they really thought, they'd lose their access, and if they kept it up, they'd be out of a job.— slasher
- Comment removed.
- This crap about the media not asking enough questions before Iraq invasion! WTF - since when has the media and its questions (or lack thereof) determined national defense policy. Liberal MSM types like Polman have deluded themselves into believeing the MSM is way more important than they are. We could live without the crappy liberal MSM IMO.— justablogger
- USA#1, I think you're wrong. It's dangerous to think that you can't trust ANY of the mainstream news sources. That's how we get loonies like the 9/11 Truthers and the Cornerstone Church. Slasher, does that mean you think Conservatives are against feminism and don't believe in evolution? That's silly.— p-diddy
- Comment removed.
- How about some evidence in support of the existence of a liberal bias in the media. Simply stating that "it is obvious" does not make it true. In only means that it is obvious to one person. Can anyone cite data in support of this claim. Does anyone even know how to measure a liberal bias?— dctrueblood
- Sorry, the liberal press is no myth. The vast majority of all reporters are liberal Democrats who believe in affirmative action, abortion, femminism, gay rights, gun control, evolution, diversity, global warming, etc. Now we know a lot of them are also cowards.— slasher
- Chrissmith, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS and FOX are all biased. Take what each one says and the real story is probably somewhere in the middle. They all play to their target audiences. BFlint, are you talking about voting for the so called conservatives that for 6 years spent money like crazy and made the government larger then it was before Bush was elected. These are facts, take some time and look them up. Huge deficits, larger government, and more government programs, that is what these so call conservatives gave us when they were in charge for six years.— USA#1
- Ok, instead read/watch/listen to Fox News, WSJ editorial page, the Weekly Standard, the NY Post, the Washington Times, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Commentary, National Review, Drudge Report, American Spectator, Limbaugh, Beck, Boortz. Any reasonable, independent-minded person knows the conservatives are playing with you, chrissmith, spinning everyone, everything who doesn't agree with them as liberal. It's a game. Get a clue. How do you think a minority philosophy gets and holds power? They lie, distort and cover up. BFlint, it’s hard to tell whether you’re one of the conservative demagogues or just a dupe. Which are you?— Djoko Pritza
- Ok, instead read/watch/listen to Fox News, WSJ editorial page, the Weekly Standard, the NY Post, the Washington Times, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Commentary, National Review, Drudge Report, American Spectator, Limbaugh, Beck, Boortz. Any reasonable, independent-minded person knows the conservatives are playing with you, chrissmith, spinning everyone, everything who doesn't agree with them as liberal. It's a game. Get a clue. How do you think a minority philosophy gets and holds power? They lie, distort and cover up.— Djoko Pritza
- GW Bush is still being attacked - someone trying to make a name for themselves - and the LIBERAL media reports it as a HEADLINE. The truth is that the liberal media does not want you to be a capitalist as it takes away from their socialist agenda which requires large tax increases in order to pay for socialized healthcare, a bloated Federal govt and entitlement programs for the unions and the poor. Wake up and teach your friends and neighbors that we need to have LOW Taxes, small Federal govt, keep healthcare as it is, change social security to allow investment options and school vouchers. I don't want politicians telling me how they are going to take and spend my money. Keep the politicians out of our pockets and vote for conservative candidates.— BFlint
- These kind of articles make me think conservatives and liberals live in different worlds. The liberal bias in the mainstream media is blatantly obvious in my opinion. It's crystal clear. I read a lot of different newspapers and watch a lot of different news programs. Just read the New York Times, Inquirer, Washington Post, or watch ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and CBS. OK Polman, one former Bush guy said that the media didn't ask enough tough questions in the lead up to the Iraq War. Nice try. But what about the bias in the media in general? Let's look at the big picture. Anyone who reads the New York Times, Washington Post, Inquirer, or Daily News, or watches MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, or CBS, knows that, YES, there really is a liberal bias. Any reasonable, independent-minded person can easily see it. Numerous studies have shown that a very strong majority of journalists in the U.S. are Democrats. This really isn't even a debate, is it?— chrissmith
- It is pretty clear to me that Scott McClellan did not write that book, or at least not before an alien – a left-leaning alien – from outer space took over his earthly body. But, seriously folks, the accuracy of what he wrote can be judged by the Attack Index: the more attacks on the author, not what he wrote, and the more personal they are, the closer he has hit home. And did he hit home! As to the conservative posters – the Christines, the VC Bears, the 77volks, the JMCs – who continue to buy the Bushie/Cheney/Rovian line, after their administration and all it stands for have been a disaster on issue after issue, and caused this country serious harm, they are a pretty pathetic lot. People too dim to put facts above partisanship must bear some responsibility for making the world of W possible.— Djoko Pritza
- As a person who was skeptical about the need for this war from the beginning, none of this surprises me. I'm glad the truth is coming out not that it helps the 4000 dead soldiers along with countless thousands of injured GIs and dead and injured Iraqis. One thing that really irks me is if Obama is elected, the same neocon idiots that helped enable this failed war policy will be the first ones to want to put under the microscope anything he proposes especially anything to do with foreign policy. What a bunch of hypocrites! I want all policies to be examined. I want this done for ALL presidents and other politicians, not just democratic ones. It's time for a change in any case. This country cannot afford the same lies and failed policies we are now experiencing. Vote Obama or it's more of the same!— James TL
- I think JMC has a point. I certainly don't think mainstream media is Conservative, but I do think it is conservative. We're not just talking about lazy reporting, but an aversion to risk by playing to the prejudices of various market demographics. Let's not let the congressional Democrats off the hook either. If the Democratic party took a real stand against the war from the start, the anti-war position would have been politically legitimized, which would have made it okay for media to be more questioning.— p-diddy
- I don't know if we've destroyed the myth. It's a bit of a political excuse for reporters who just didn't do their job. This is playing out like you would expect. The spin doctors have to trash McClellan but the most damning info always comes from within the loop. David Stockman and Don Regan both wrote books that didn't paint their boss, Ronald Reagan, in the best light. It's the chance to turn the buck, and that's what Washington is about.— JimR
Look, I'm a consumer of news from many sources and it could not be more obvious that a vast majority of major news outlets tilt left. I posted over in Will Bunch's blog that I can also see Fox tilts right. It is what it is. Just because these news outlets supposedly didn't challenge the administration on Iraq doesn't prove the absence of a leftist slant. It just means they weren't doing their jobs. Poor job performance doesn't make you objective, a track record of objectivity does. Unfortuneately these news outlets don't have that track record.— jmc- "The book appears to simply use the language of the Daily Kos and the more liberal blogs to make its points." "Appears to"? To whom? And what is "the language of the Daily Kos and the more liberal blogs," exactly? "As Ron Nessen noted, there are serious questions as to whether Scott McClellan wrote this book." Got a source for that? I've found Ron Nessen going on at length about how he and Mr. McClellan may have approached the job of press secretary differently, but that's it. And "there are serious questions" -- there's that passive voice again. Who has the "serious questions," according to Mr. Nessen, and upon what putative difficulties in the McClellan book are these "serious questions" based? "People who know him say that this does not sound like McClellan..." "People who know him"? Who, his mother? His wife? Any observers with a claim to objectivity or expertise? "If, indeed, this book is not a representation of McClellan's ideas but rather a manifesto against the administration to sell books as per the desires of the publishing house" Ah, because the publishing houses *only* bash Bush! So *that's* why Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly haven't been able to sell any books! "On the other hand, nothing that's said in the book...hasn't been said by other disgruntled" (Hey, that's Dana Perino's word! She wants it back!) "veterans of the administration in the past." So: Mr. McClellan's book is wrong because it says wrong things, which Christine hasn't proven are wrong, but also because it echoes what others have said, which Christine hasn't proven are wrong. Ah. Christine's missive comes straight from the right-wing playbook: if you can't attack points, attack the person. She doesn't present *any* evidence that Mr. Bush presented the case for war honestly, or that the press asked the hard questions on Iraq or wasn't "deferential" to Mr. Bush; instead, she casts aspersions at Mr. McClellan.
- Interesting. Time to do a Lexus-Nexus search on all your favorite political analysts. Many of the formerly pro-war analysts have predictably adopted a "right war, wrong tactics" position as a way of deflecting criticism. I'd be interested to read one of Polman's columns published during the buildup to the Iraq invasion. Polman likes to present himself as a political moderate, which can be a dangerous mindset when times call for unequivocal opposition to the harebrained schemes like the Iraq invasion. Christine - You may want to read Polman's column about the "willfully ignorant" from several days ago.— p-diddy
- Comment removed.
- If we relied on the Washington press corps to conduct hard hitting journalism, Richard Nixon would have served out his second term. Big, brave Katie Couric ----they're all piling on now that it's popular. But she and Donahue point out what we all know to be true: Allowing giant media companies to own and operate our TV, Radio, and Print journalism has damaged the Fourth Estate.— JeffA
- Complete lack of skepticism in regard to related 'facts' originating in administration talking points has rendered the press impotent. After relaying the talking points provided by the administrations, lets look at this from not only a national/international standpoint but a state government view as well, the press does NOTHING with the 'facts' provided. If so, the aluminum tubes photos and claims to the UN relayed by Powell would've been more thoroughly questioned. The idea that this guy decides, after the fact, that he doesn't want to be a standard bearer makes him irrelevant. I'll even grab Ari's viewpoint here, if he objected so strenuously why did he not say anything while it was happening. From the lack of coverage of the last 8 months of Bush's military service to the failure to completely investigate Slick's denials of sexual relations, the press is no longer independent and therefore irrelevant. Until the investigative side of REAL issues returns, paid readership and quality reporting will continue to suffer. After all, with a corporate dominated media deciding what's worth reporting, if they can't make a dime spinning it their way, the info is worthless— 77volks
- Wow, Christine, way to read the book and form your own ideas. Of course, I see that you've already taken the Rove line that McClellan sounds like a "left-wing blogger." As always, leave it to conservatives to be incredibly uninformed robots who do whatever and believe whatever their leaders tell them. You read like the poor fool who Chris Matthews got to admit didn't know why he screamed "appeasement!" when discussing Neville Chamberlain. You are correct in noting that this book is not a shocker, however. As wave upon wave of administration cronies wipe the blood of dead Americans and Iraqis off their hands, they all finally own up to what "left-wing bloggers" have been saying since the beginning: the war was criminal and sold to the American public under false pretenses. This is a sad, sad time in our nation's history, and I can only hope that we recover from it in my lifetime.— tightlines
- I don't think that anyone is implying that Scott McClellan has introduced previously unsaid. This article states that others have discussed the failing of the media during this administration before. However, repetition is often the only way the general public gets the message. Namely that this administration has been playing fast and loose for too long, and some reform will be necessary to keep us on the right track.— t_dmanns
- As anyone can see by today's comments so far, the "liberal media" myth is still alive and well and continues to be spread by the "true believers".— AHiredGun
- It looks more like a get rich quick scheme.— vc bear
- The book appears to simply use the language of the Daily Kos and the more liberal blogs to make its points. As Ron Nessen noted, there are serious questions as to whether Scott McClellan wrote this book. People who know him say that this does not sound like McClellan, not simply because of philosophy but also phraseology. If, indeed, this book is not a representation of McClellan's ideas but rather a manifesto against the administration to sell books as per the desires of the publishing house, it isn't anything more than a straight-to-the-bargain-basement bin tome. On the other hand, nothing that's said in the book, according to those who've read it, hasn't been said by other disgruntled veterans of the administration in the past. So either way, it's hardly a blockbuster or a shocker. Or, as you indicate Mr. Polman, an indictment of the press.— Christine
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
