Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
McClellan's Inconvenient Truths: Media And GOP Flacks Pile-On
You don't get in trouble in the nation's capital for lying, covering up and stonewalling, even on the most serious issues of the day, like sending over 4,000 US soldiers to their deaths and another 30,000 wounded home sans legs and arms.
What you can count on is getting your nuts handed to you on a platter for is telling the truth, as Scott McClellan is discovering since he launched his promotional tour for his blockbuster tell-all book -- it has climbed to the top of the best-seller list on Amazon within 48 hours -- What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and What's Wrong with Washington.
Watching the mainstream media cover their butts after the former White House spin-meister exposed Bush and his henchmen of rushing into an "unnecessary war" and using propaganda to do it has been the best part of observing the opposition pushback on McClellan.
It's hysterical to watch those high-priced celeb 'nattering nabobs' of television fame cuddling up with former GOP flacks -- notably, Ari Fleischer, Karl Rove, and Dan Bartlett -- as they seek to discredit McClellan while at the same time trying desperately to redeem their sinking credibility in answer to McClellan's assertion that "The White House press corps probably was too deferential to the White House when it came to the choice of invading Iraq... They were too easy on the administration."
On NBC's Today Show, Matt Lauer said, "He [McClellan] said we didn't do our job and we didn't ask the right questions during the build-up to the invasion and the first three years of war."
ABC's Charles Gibson didn't agree, saying, "I think the questions were asked. It was just a drumbeat of support from the administration. It is not our job to debate them. It is our job to ask the questions."
Huh?
NBC's Nightly News Anchor Brian Williams said in a weak admission that maybe they didn't do the right thing "that one problem the media faced was not being able to independently verify the administration's allegations."
What?
When I heard Williams make this statement, I pushed playback on the DVR. I couldn't believe it. The rest of the world knew Bush and the neo-cons' lame excuses for going to war didn't hold water. Doesn't he read any foreign press? Doesn't he read the alternative press and blogosphere? The UN inspector reports?
The lone female broadcast evening news anchor on the show, CBS's Katie Couric, also former co-host of the Today Show, was the only dissenting voice. "I'll start by saying I think he's fairly accurate...I do think we were remiss in not asking some of the right questions."
Williams said the pressure from the White House was tremendous on news organizations that didn't toe the administration party line.
"I was in Kuwait for the buildup to the war, and yes, we heard from the Pentagon, on my cell phone, the minute they heard us report something that they didn't like. The tone of that time was quite extraordinary."
After a particularly tough interview with an administration official, the White House press office called Couric's executive producer and threatened "If you keep it up, we're gonna block access to you during the war."
Couric said the threat didn't make her back down but a threat like this is serious for a big network with hungry advertisers to please and big salaries to pay.
I thought the job of journalists was precisely that, to ask questions and debate. But David Gregory, who was then NBC's White House correspondent, spent hours on his television show, Race to the White House, along with giving numerous interviews to the rest of the MNSBC political talk shows (does he never sleep?) defending his reporting and those of his fellow comrades puttering around the West Wing in their starched shirts and designer suits. How unsurprising and wrong.
Sure, Gregory made a pest out of himself during the Valerie Plame story -- which is why McClellan finally got the axe and felt the need to redeem himself after being told lies and then passing them onto the press. But I seem to recall Gregory was in lockstep with the rest of the gang inside the Beltway during the early months of the Iraq War and pretty much throughout until the public started to turn against it.
A 'real' reporter, The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, told KQED host Kael Kransy before a Berkeley audience on October 8, 2004, "The past two years will go down as one of the classic sort of failures in history." He views his mission to "hold the people in public office to the highest public standard of decency and of honesty. To tolerate anything less, even in the name of national security is wrong... Bush is a liar."
Although there is nothing new under the sun with McClellan's memoir, it somehow soothes the boiling heat of our national disgrace and psycho-drama and gives more credence to those of us who always knew this was a wacky, politically self-serving, cold-hearted, lying crazed group of adolescents playing in the West Wing... the White House press corps just helped make it possible.
At least the legs of this story will dull the more mundane political buzz of the day; John McCain's stupefying Bush-ATM fundraising strategy and Hillary Clinton's dastardly attempts to steal the nomination from Barack Obama with her Kabuki math and cries of victimhood.
As Bill Clinton would say, "Give me a break!" and we just got one.
Now, it's the media's turn to turn inward, posing the ugly question without crouching in defensive mode: Why didn't we do our jobs?
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
MSM as well as main stream religion was part of the conspiracy to mis-lead the American people leading up to the Iraq war. The war wasn't about WMDs, advancing democracy, not even about oil.. Phillip Zelikow, adviser to Bush and member of the 911 commission said "Iraq war lunched to protect Israel." Its all about Israel and promoting the NWO agenda.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0329-11.htm
http://joeland7.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/the-new-world-order-religious-and-political-conspiracy/
http://joeland7.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/beware-of-the-beast-the-beasts-of-revelation-13-identified
I do not understand why being late is taking precedence over what was reported. There is something fishy going on here. I can understand why Dole et al would attack back, but Scott was blowing the whistle. I don't think it is a matter of disagreement, waging war is more than disagreement, so regardless of when he does it, what really matters is that he has done it. I don't understand why McAullif would attack Scott, maybe as a warning to any of his staff members? "Listen good, if you don't like what you see leave, but do not write a book about it." Maybe they lied so much that they actually believed their lies, and what we all knew was new to them. Maybe they believed that no one knew. Maybe they got so good at isolating Bush from protestors he actualy believed that there were no protestors. It just doesn't feel right. Could it be that McAuillf is really one of them?
Those in the media who are now seeking to vilify Scott McClellan, are as reprehensible as any of the White House goons.
Okay, maybe I should rethink this. Maybe we're being too hard on them. Can we really blame David Gregory? Guys gotta make a buck, right? Then there's his reputation.
How could he not stand up for himself and the people he's cozied up to to gain access?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln5RD9BhcCo
The media let us down. They will not take the responsibility. They will shot another messenger!
To Hotshortie:I think the Media is CONTROLLED, AT LEAST SOMEWHAT, by the admin, they KNOW NOT TO BASH THE ADMIN, I ALSO THINK REPORTERS KNOW NOT TO ASK GW BUSH A HARD QUESTION
Freedom of the Press, This line should be stricken from the United States Constitution. When the Press jumps in bed with any administration, protects the crimes of said administration, is the "Mouthpiece for said administration, You have stopped working on behalf of the "American people and in their interest, to make inform decisions on how their representatives are conducting themselves and doing the work of the people, and not for just a few.
Freedom of the Press is freedom to print whatever the owner wants! We really don't live in a total democracy and the owners of networks are big time Republican cohorts though they cover their a***s by giving to both parties. Bush told media not to show flag-draped coffins of soldiers coming home dead and they did exactly what he said. The white house has been trying to get the public to forget about the soldiers and the human beings they are. It's totally disgusting. There is no real news anymore; it's tabloid. I read Huffington to get my news.
I think McClellan is a decent guy and just got caught up in things. He should stand tall and let those b******s hang.
freedom from the press is better; do support talking heads that do not bother to do research or ask tough question.
Scott I have not read your book but it seems to me you could have been a hero if you had the courage to be a whisle blower when things matter.
Corporate owned media is crying because this is twice they have been called out ; StevenCobert had to b-slap them but I guess after the sting they continued their sins.
This election has shown us that their days are numbered; many of the younger voters do not uave house phones, do not watch TV, and get most of their news online, and are well versed at factcheck; Now liderman is trying to killl the messenger, youtube.
most candidates were well into the election cycle with just a top down website this means that they had their heads in the sand when Dean showed the possibilities of online fundrasing. Why? Because the media told them so. Hannity, O'Reily, Limbaugh will go the way of the VCR.
scott, you are only guilty of one component of this tragedy of the last 7+ years, and that is to be naive, as many of us have been. it only underscores the changes that must accompany these next discussions. turning the page starts with insiders like yourself, taking responsibility for the deliberate deception that was fed the naive, trusting, american people. my personal thanks, for helping to verify where the accountability lies. it does help to have the written word to reflect upon when we are keeping ever vigilant in never letting this war, katrina, and valerie plume type problems distract us from the very real problems we all face, like educating this next generation (we must have intelligent mature citizens), feeding our starving children, housing low income families, environmental issues, economic issues, and of course foreign diplomacy! it's not an easy task we ask of our leadership, but honesty is a MUST, no?
obama '08
The MSM and GOP are one and the same. Wolf Blitzer, John King, Candy Crowley, David "Let me introduce you to M.C. Rove" Gregory, Andrea "My husband is a Republican operative" Mitchell, Charlie Gibson, Brian Williams et al are just towing the party line. The more we complain in the blogosphere, the more those corporate toadies tune out.
They won't tune us out if people stop watching their shit shows. The more we complain and boycott, the more reason they have to listen. The internet is only becoming more and more essential. Its use is spreading by the day. One day the most paid-attention-to news is going to be on the internet. If enough of us raise a stink over their lousy coverage, the more it will be in their best interests to listen to us. So, let's keep bitching.
I can clearly remember asking myself, "Where are the follow-up questions? Where are the goddamned follow-ups!"
Why are these anchors speaking in the past tense? They are STILL not asking the right questions.
No doubt.
The media were complicit even before Bushco took office. I recall watching a "debate" on TV during the 2000 campaign when Bush wandered off topic into a semantic swamp where his blithering and dithering made absolutely no sense at all. It was so bad I was embarassed for him.
But when I read the news reports thr next day all I could get out of them was what a plain talker GW Bush was, that he was so focused that he was eminently believable.
Huh? I asked myself. "Were they watching the same debate I watched?"
But the took Al Gore apart for looking at his watch during one of Bush's senseless tirades and made him out to be the most untrustworthy person imaginable.
From that point forward I shut off MSM and focused on PBS Nightly News, Bill Moyers' Specials and Frontline reports. They are the last bastion of honesty in public reporting.
There is a serious problem with "journalism" in this country and it is class-based.
50 years ago, if an upper-class pleb had told Mummy and Daddy he/she was going into "journalism" school, they would have disowned him/her on the spot. "Journalism" was the realm of the flat-foot, the bum, the lower-class "Kolchak" type of reporter. Refined people didn't "do" that type of work. The wealthy did not "report" on their own class, much less write exposes on them.
In the 70's, the "Woodward and Bernstein" type of reporting became "vogue" and the concept of a "crusading journalist" was "sexy" to the plastic-hippy upper-classes. They joined "journalism" schools in droves. In the 80's, these "journalists" were replaced by the "pretty-boy talking heads" and news organizations were transformed into "profit centers".
Now you don't need to be smart and tenacious to be a journalist, just "pretty". To maintain your connections to power, you need to be "one of them" (i.e. upper-class) thus you don't rock the boat and report critically on those you just had afternoon tea with at the country club.
The flat-foot bum reporter rooting out corruption among the ruling-class elite is a long-gone anachronism. Now it is ivy-league graduates "reporting" on other ivy-league graduates and they will never write exposes on their "own" because they cannot stand to look in the mirror and criticize what they see.
Wrong wrong wrong! The flat-foot bum reporters are back - they are now on the internet. The news world is changing. The networks don't understand why they are losing viewers. Their logic is remarkable: (1) they do the bad stuff (empty-headed pretty news guys/gals); (2) people stop watching; (3) they counter by doing MORE of the bad stuff. Rinse and repeat. Most of us are looking for our news on the internet. You're here, aren't you?
spot on; TV gang will go the way of the VCR.
This was one tough response KHAAANNN...politicians are ugly celeb's...however, the female broadcasters must all go to the same plastic surgeon...the cut and pasted pretty face...just look at all the female journalists on TV...talk about sexism!
But let's face it...anyone running for prez is among the politically elite and the journalists that follow them are as well...and the kids running the campaigns are often graduates from the small or large Ivies, too...though I do know some excellent print reporters/columnists...one called me on Friday afternoon - a syndicated guy from a major newspaper - wanting to know 'how I knew that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction' and it was a good question...and honestly I couldn't recall the exact evidence after all these years...except that on the face of it, even if Sadaam did have weapons of mass destruction, there was no reason to wage war.
It is sad that great newspapers like the DM Register, which I grew up reading (at the time had earned more Pulitzers for national reporting than any other newspaper except the NYTimes) is now part of that corporate profit center mentality...
Journalists are flawed (me included) but mostly trying to do their job...some are just smarter than others.
You would think that the best thing the media - the lying Charlie Gibsons of this world, could do would be to say, "Yes, we screwed up" and then carry on asking dumbass questions like "is Obama patriotic enough to be President." But they aren't even smart enough for that.
Nor where they smart enough to see that the White House threatening them with being cut out for asking questions in the lead up to war was of itself a news story.
The breach in the public trust committed by Charlie Gibson and his colleagues in the 4th estate, in the name of access, is truly ironic. Rather than be labeled "unpatriotic" for asking awkward questions, they decided to be unpatriotic and not ask the questions. Screw them.
Scotty is late with this so called expose. You could tell he was lying to the press corp from just watching and listening. You forgot Helen Thomas tho, she did ask questions and look how she was treated..with sneers and innuendos. Plus her "friends" on the press corp seemed to distance themselves, not wanting to be hard on Scott or any of those lying sons. And Brian Williams is just another pretty face, he is about as deep as a petri dish. The media prima donas must be having quite a time sleeping at night, first they slobbererd over the wild eyed retired generals while propagandizing the war and now they are accused of pandering to bush's actions. HA...I hope they sweat bullets. Truth be told they have done the same thing with this election campaign. Manipulated, obsessed and catered. We don't have a news outlet anymore, so why even try to fake it?
I think it's the MSM's turn to reveal what external pressures were exerted and by whom in the presentation and coverage of the events leading up to the war. I'm guessing that we would find out that Corporate owners of the MSM had aligned with the Bush administration to an almost complete degree, transforming the MSM into basically an extension mouthpiece of Bush and co.
I recall at the time after 9/11 and extending past the invasion of Iraq how much newspapers and TV coverage simply echoed the press statements of the administration and presented the Republican talking points as unchallenged facts. When the Sec. of State was in front of the UN laying out the arguments for war, we could have read a headline like "Powell's justification for war based on flimsy evidence", but we didn't see that, or anything like that calling it what it was -- bold-faced propaganda.
Obviously the bulk of the blame rests on the administration. However, the years 2002 and 2003 should go down in journalism history as a "dark period" when the MSM were completely co-opted by the administration. Thanks to Scott McClellan for his efforts to reveal this truth.
It IS their turn. You are dead on.
However, we should expect to be very disappointed. This crop of "journalists" are vain, self-absorbed knuckleheads. The media outlets are too focused on keeping their revenue, access, and advertisers. Admitting their weakness in the face of an adversarial government will be viewed as suicidal.
The author added a comment that Waxman is asking for McLelland to testify before Congress. The only way we'll get anything out of the media about how they've been ritually abused by govt is to take that testimony and subpoena members of the media to demand their stories.
Maybe McClellan's 'St. Paul moment' took longer than what we would have hoped, but in a way I feel that it lends credibility to him. It was simply that difficult to completely overhaul all his political beliefs, world views, and discard very powerful allies. Given the brutally efficient way that the Bush Administration dealt with skeptics and critics, it's hard not to imagine that a substantial degree of fear was involved. Watching his interview on Countdown, McClellan now speaks with conviction, lucidity and fluency that can only come with a dedication to truth. He never sounded anywhere near as convincing when he was press secretary. I hope he gets an 'attaboy' from John Dean.
Loading comments…
Posted May 29, 2008 | 02:06 PM (EST)