WaPo's McClellan Coverage Strains The Definition of "In The Loop"

If you've been hunting for coverage of Scott McClellan's book in the Washington Post, you've likely noted what a struggle it's been. Here's some sweet relief. The Post's coverage has been found: third item, nineteenth paragraph of Al Kamen's "In The Loop" column. As a matter of priority, it rates just above a paragraph that revisits former Attorney General John Ashcroft's historic difficulties with boobies, and Post readers difficulties seeing same. Really, just fantastic enterprise reporting from the Post.

Post reporter Anne Kornblut was pressed on the paper's lack of coverage in today's "Post Politics Hour" chat. "Why did The Washington Post (and The New York Times) bury the story on Scott McClellan's confession regarding President Bush?" Her response:

I guess I would disagree that we "buried" it, though it's true it wasn't on the front page. So far, we have only a very brief excerpt from McClellan's book to work with, and some of the context surrounding the incident (about his conveying false information to the public, for those of you who haven't read it) has not yet been disclosed, but hopefully will be when the book is published.

In their defense, the Post parries by posting a link to this article, but it's a wire story, originally from the AP.

Comments

[Chuckbutcher]

10:09 PM on 11/25/2007

let me see it I've got this straight, Scott was Press Secretary for the BushCo. He worked for those people, so who would tell him what to say? Martians? It's a 2 paragraph excerpt of an unwritten book due in 4/08 and there's nothing there.

By an accident of wording and timing I wound up the 1st Google cite on an article creating hundreds of hits to a toss off article about something so obvious I couldn't work up any enthusiasm.

No doubt there is some real dirt lurking in Bushco, this isn't it.

[peterg76]

10:07 PM on 11/21/2007

Be fair, McClellan and false information is hardly news, so why would a newspaper cover it?

[leftLibertarian]

08:09 PM on 11/21/2007

Sounds like the Post and Times are Democrats. They want to bury the truth and not face it. Otherwise they'd have to grow some BALLS and impeach the criminals Bush and Cheney.

[seeingisbelieving]

05:29 PM on 11/21/2007

Who owns the Wash. Post these days?

[NickfromCali]

04:48 PM on 11/21/2007

Hey it's better than the San Francisco Chronicle which will LEAVE ANYTHING OUT of the paper if it casts Sen. Feinstein in a bad light with her Democratic constituency...

[navalvet]

04:46 PM on 11/21/2007

For what it's worth, the NY Times, carried both the Reuters Report and the AP report on its web edition. Also, it was part of the news summary at 7 AM or 7:30 Am, on WQXR and probably WQXR.com, the Times' radio station.
Give the Gray Lady, another day. Remember, the newspaper may want to be thorough to avoid making an embarrassing mistake.

[Bamboo]

04:43 PM on 11/21/2007

Here's another perhaps:
Perhaps they know that the Bush administration has lied so much that they don't consider it much of a revelation, merely a confirmation of what we've all suspected and a rather late confirmation at that.

[ErnestineBass]

04:36 PM on 11/21/2007

Hmmmmm. Sounds like Booosh maybe asked for (and received) a little lead time so that "his people" could get to little Scotty and convince him that he had simply misspoken.

[DanOregon]

04:29 PM on 11/21/2007

Doesn't this dispel any notion that the Plame deal was the action of a rogue WH operative and escalate the deed to that of a criminal conspiracy heightened by the clemency granted to Libby?
I understand they lied to McClellan to cover their ass, but I don't see how this doesn't put Bush's misdeeds in Clinton territory. Cover-up anyone?

[maryec]

04:22 PM on 11/21/2007

there has yet to be any mention of H.R. 1955....look that one up, if you want to be upset about lack of coverage!!!

[emjay1954]

04:16 PM on 11/21/2007

The New York Times has low-keyed its coverage as well. I emailed the Public Editor of the Times to beef, and I received a reply. He said the Times wasn't able to get a copy of the book, and McClellan didn't make himself available for interviews.

I asked them why they didn't interview their own people, such as Judith Miller, who was quoted on Politico.com as saying "You're only as good as your sources."

Haven't heard back on that one.

[SPENCER]

04:02 PM on 11/21/2007

The press has already crossed the line with this story. Imagine 2 of the largest news organizations in the country, largely ignoring a story about a former press secretary accusing the Vice President and 3 WH staffers (I'm excluding Bush because I'll make bets that McClellan will "clarify" his comment about Bush and exonerate
him)of lying about their involvement in outing a CIA analyst, except in their respective blogs?

Don't worry, WH and NYT, the wind is blowing this way on NPR; you can publish a small article now.

[writeaway]

03:59 PM on 11/21/2007

What's the big deal. None of them were under oath when they lied. The only oath Bush was sworn to was to uphold the Constitution. But I'm sure that was followed by a signing statement.

[bimplebean]

03:50 PM on 11/21/2007

This story, profound as it is, is also hard to find on the New York Times web site. I mean, you can find it if you search "Scott McLellan" and the past 7 days, but good luck seeing it on the home page.

Disappointing, to say the least.

[imusintheevening]

03:49 PM on 11/21/2007

There really is nothing newsworthy about this whole episode that could not have been determined by Bush's declassification of information just prior to his announcement that, "anyone leaking classified information..", was made. Only, no one has been asking the obvious questions in the MSM and this administration has determined they can get away with felonious activities every time they want.