Karl Rove and the Media-Politico Revolving Door: It Goes Further Back than Stephanopoulos

Today's NYT looks at Karl Rove's new role as multi-media bloviator. It hits many of the expected notes, including the question of whether his advice to the McCain campaign qualifies him as an "adviser."

More broadly the piece uses Rove as the illustrative example of a trend in journalism (or "journalism," depending on one's point of view). The article traces the trend as far back as George Stephanopoulos's switch from the Clinton White House to ABC News, it goes much further back.

From the NYT:

One year ago, when he was still a deputy White House chief of staff in the Bush administration, Mr. Rove was more likely than not ducking news organizations.

Now, he has joined them, as an analyst for Fox News and a contributor to Newsweek and The Wall Street Journal. A book is in the offing, too. (Still no word on a radio show, but there was an NPR appearance late last week.)

At times clearly partisan, at others apparently offering down-the-middle analysis, Mr. Rove in his new role as a media star marks another step in the evolution of mainstream journalism, where opinion, "straight news" reporting and unmistakable spin increasingly mingle, especially on television.

George Stephanopoulos's abrupt move 11 years ago from the Clinton White House to ABC News -- initially as a partisan member of a Sunday political panel who would also do some reporting -- raised hackles inside and outside the network.

If anything, the trend has become more open. As I recount in White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters, Franklin Roosevelt's first presidential speechwriter was an aide named Raymond Moley who left the administration within its first few months -- officially.

In October, 1933, Moley, as editor and columnist, helped launch Today, a weekly news and opinion magazine which in 1937 would merge with News-week to form Newsweek. What few knew at the time was that Moley would periodically take secret trips to Washington, slipping unnoticed into the White House to help the president draft his speeches. Imagine the scandal if it were disclosed today that, say, Dan Klaidman, Newsweek's managing editor, were secretly President Bush's top speechwriter.

Moley split with FDR after the first term, but the presidential-press dance continued. The Eisenhower administration had such deep ties to the Time/Life publishing company, as I recount in White House Ghosts, that Time/Life officials became concerned that the company had become a "house organ and captive publisher."

(A note of full disclosure, lest anyone accuse me of favoring my employer: U.S. News & World Report has probably produced or hired more presidential speechwriters -- David Gergen, James Fallows and Michael Gerson to name a few -- than any other media organization.)

The roster of former presidential aides who have assumed prominent roles as commentators and journalists is long and distinguished, including not only the aformentioned trio but also the likes of Hendrik Hertzberg, Chris Matthews, Peggy Noonan, William Safire, Pat Buchanan, Tony Snow ... I could go on.

This is to say nothing of the informal advice reporters have given to presidents over the years, including to FDR, JFK and even through Bill Clinton. But of course you'll have to read the book to find out the details.

None of this is to suggest that the increased (and increasingly visible) blurring of the lines between journalism, advocacy and politics is not distressing. But we should be aware of the deep roots of the phenomenon.

Comments

[mamacat]

This blog (is that the right term?) does not address the issue of corporate control of news dissemination organisations. If a pundit on TV, radio, or for a newspaper, is or is not a former White House employee can be trumped by the decisions of the owner of the TV, radio, or newspaper.

Many people on TV have obvious, strong, repugnant biases. (Remember the Democratic and Republican debates?) This is very distressing for those of us who would like to get some form of neutral reporting. However, I believe that biases are more likely to be controlled from a board room than from the White House.

[longislandlol]

It makes for a more biased media-- but when G.S. was plucked from obscurity by Bill Clinton, G.S. must have realized that there'd be payback down the road..

[JScott]

Of course it goes back longer that that but folks have short forgetful memories.
Only now do folks see BOR used to host 'A Current Affair' from a recent post.
And how many folks know Sonny used to be Mayor and Rep of Palm Springs and used to be married to Cher?

[kae]

OK? but, deep roots of the phenomenon aside..

1. Valerie Plame
2. Gov. Spiegelman

Rove does not belong in the world of punditry.

Just saying, you know some people are sayin' it. ;)

[SamThornton]

While the history of political aparatchiks morphing into an afterlife of journalism may be long, it's hardly distinguished. To quote Mr. Schlesinger, "...the likes of Hendrik Hertzberg, Chris Matthews, Peggy Noonan, William Safire, Pat Buchanan, Tony Snow" hardly qualifies as a list of "distinguished" players. What they have in common is that they're political hacks with a history of sycophancy and contempt for the truth. Too bad we don't have a law banning these revolving door asshats from rotating into positions which presume to public trust.

[nickyhartzell]

"The [NYT] article traces the trend as far back as George Stephanopoulos's switch from the Clinton White House to ABC News, it goes much further back."

GS's move may have been 11 years ago, but the fact that it was ill-advised has only surfaced in the past year. GS' coverage of Clinton v Obama has been ridiculously partisan, and he's not alone. Even PBS' Gwen Ifill is openly and shamefully partisan in her coverage and obvious loyalties. Diane Sawyer can be audibly heard on more than one occasion in conversation with GS sucking her teeth in disgust as bad news from the Clinton camp rolls in. She and Georgie on the same team. I don't know how (a) this country can continue to support such a biased media, which does not deliver fairly or objectively on any topic, and (b) because of that, we can have any hope for a well-educated voting public that will steer us away from catastrophe. The three-ring circus of media coverage, which seems overly amused at itself and its enormous power, is the number-one responsible factor for where we are today, mired in a toxic war, a population that can watch news 24/7 and still learn nothing of substance on important issues, and unable to counter political powerplays because the media is owned and beholden to big corporations (or potential future bosses, as with GS).

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

I wish someone like Robert Schlesinger could look into why CNN has such a pro-Clinton/anti-Obama bias. William Schneider, of CNN and the American Enterprise Institute, grumpily claimed on Saturday that the only way for Obama to heal the party was to choose Clinton for his running mate. A caption read "Obama's Uphill Climb"-- in regard to West Virginia's primary tomorrow with very few delegates at stake. While every other news outlet had Obama ahead in superdelegates, CNN still showed him trailing. Prior to the contests of last Tuesday, Anderson Cooper asked, "Will the gas tax holiday issue help Senator Clinton, or hurt Obama?" Heads I win, tails you lose.

Do the Clintons have a special personal or financial relationship with TimeWarner? Does TimeWarner fear something in Obama's candidacy? Or is this bias limited to executives, producers and reporters at CNN?

In fairness, MSNBC recently has shown a pro-Obama/anti-Clinton bias. However, their treatment of the Rev. Wright controversy was no less superficial and almost as destructive as CNN's. Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, even Tim Russert and Tom Brokaw regularly speak in negative terms about Obama.

The bottom line: Obama needs the media on his side. The inability of Gore and Kerry to make it into the White House was due in large part to the media's bias against them.

[AustinCynic]

Conflict = drama, as any creative writing teacher will drum into you ad nauseam in a writing class. And as annoying as that phrase becomes when you hear it after a while, it is very true--in art and in nature.

CNN was to create drama by sustaining, even inventing drama. I believe that they are taking a pro-Clinton stance because without Clinton in the race, there is no drama in the Democratic contest, and the network knows that once there's one nominee for each party, no one outside the die hards will give a damn till Labor Day. They want ratings, and with ratings ad revenue, and they've calculated that the way to do this is to pretend Hillary has a snowball's chance in hell at winning the Democratic nomination. Because then, maybe people will keep watching CNN for the latest installment of their little soap opera.