Overlooked in the McClellan Coverage

The coverage of the McLellan tell-all book has focused on the White House spin, which amid all the bluster about surprise and how this isn't the Scott they all knew (come on, why should voters care that you're surprised), they aren't really contesting the assertions, or if they are, they're doing it weakly.

Probably some of them want to have jobs in the future, and lying right now wouldn't help them in the careers. Further I think almost everyone who has been paying attention knows that what McClellan says is true. Why didn't he speak out earlier? Why didn't a lot of people? Also consider the possibility that other people in the White House got scooped, the ones trashing McClellan and are jealous that his tell-all book got out before theirs, and others are likely to be tried and perhaps go to jail for their actions. In other words, they all have axes to grind here.

The other point being overlooked, and this is a real problem, is that he says that the press was complicit. This is the more important allegation, and unsurprisingly, it's being swept aside by the press. Had they done their job, and pressed for the truth, it would have been easier for insiders to tell them the truth. But corporate-owned media isn't interested in helping us make decisions as a country, they're only interested in ad revenue. That's why it's so important that we're creating new media that isn't so conflicted, and why the question of whether bloggers run ads or not is far from a trivial issue.

In court, if you have a conflict of interest, you're supposed to disclose it, and if it's serious enough, it disqualifies you. I've recommended many times that professional news media should have relationships with less conflicted bloggers for circumstances like this, so when they become the story, the public can have a discussion about them using the channels they own. They don't have much of a choice here, because the channels are going to develop with them or without them. We could all save a bunch of time if they didn't fight it, and welcomed amateurs into their midst.

Comments

[dadw5boys]

HMMM, The Press is blaming the Press for not doing their job.

Can you blame you for not doing your job? and still get paid?

How can they????

[GeoNorth]

Of course, the press is downplaying their complicity in the lead up to war. It's call CYA, cover your ass.

[wheresthebeef]

A nation gets the politics and press that it deserves. Hold on to your hats, America...­the ride to the bottom is picking up speed.

[innerealm]

If we want to, there are a lot of lessons we can learn from this war...star­ting with an apathetic nation who elected a fool for president. Obviously, the press was not doing their job from the beginning.­..but were we?

[OSUMercutio]

While I agree that the media certainly is to blame, you should also ask yourselves why half the DEMOCRATS supported this war. Perhaps if more Democrats stood up in the beginning, then the media would have been forced to ask more questions.

[wayoutleft]

in wartime, auto plants make tanks and newspapers make propaganda.

[Alethea]

Yup. The run up to the war is a perfect example of what's wrong with coporate owned news. It's also the perfect example of what's wrong with a lot of Republican ideals.

Face it, there are just some things that should never be privatized. News, energy, military, education, health care, and infrastructure among others. It's far to easy to seriously harm everyone involved in these fields when greed gets the better of corporate exec's.

Let free market reign, so long as companies aren't put in a position where harming people is more profitable than doing the moral thing. That's all I ask.

[swift goat pet for truth]

Gee.
Stephen Colbert said the same thing two years ago.
To Corporate Media's face. And Bush's face.

"Oh, no. Just a comedian. And un-funny, too. Move on. Nothing to see here."

[hopeless277]

When the same corporations that own the media write the laws that govern the media it's called facism. Welcome to the Facist States of America.

[JanSP1971]

All we can hope for now is that more will step through the door Scott McLellan opened. What's the old saying....­... THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE.

[HeevenSteven]

Ah, good points Dave.

Did you catch Katie Couric on the Today Today with the two big heads --Bri-Wi, and Charlie Tuna? She nailed it on the war coverage while the other two continued to obfuscate.

[tanghorse]

In regard to Scott McClellan's claim that the White House Press was too easy on the Bush Administration during the buildup to the Iraq war. I agree. I think the majority of the press was too agreeable with the Bush administration for the entire first term of office.

My family and a few friends felt like pariahs during the time around March and April of 2003. Why was it evident to us that the coming war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, as the entire country was led to believe, but not evident to the press? Why did you not make this more clear so that the “bubbas” with whom I had to argue every day could understand that Iraq was not the base of Al Qaeda and that Iraq did not attack us on September 11th?

Look back and you will see that the press was under the Bush blanket of patriotism that quelled all opposition to statements coming from the White House after 9/11 which lasted until the last year or so. It was sickening in so many ways. It felt like McCarthyism all over again.