A while back when
Dentene and I were arguing over his post I made a point of saying that the reasons the MSM in this country was cowed to the current administration was the use of "Play or Pay." "Ask us no hard questions, do not investigate, let us lead the interview and burn up your precious time with our same staid presentation. If you don't you will have no more access, we will make trouble for you where you work." etc. etc.
Play with us, follow our rules or you will pay.
We have often asked "Where are the Woodward’s and Bernstein's? Why isn't the MSM asking the questions we want asked? Why do we have to look to the media in other countries to get information?" etc. etc. etc.
Well if
Carole Coleman’s "interview" with the president is any indication of how the MSM is being kept control of, then it's worse than I thought. I think many have missed not only what the implications for American MSM have been, but how significant her experience was in explaining why our MSM seems to have become gutless wonders. That is, until Hurricane Katrina.
The majority of the Irish public, as far as I could tell, was angry with Bush and did not want to hear a cosy fireside chat in the middle of the most disputed war since Vietnam. Instead of the kid-glove start, I would get down to business.
. . .
had just been admonished by the president of the United States and now I was turning cartwheels in order to get the interview on air. As I dashed past a waste bin, I had a fleeting urge to throw in the tapes and run home instead.
. . .
"You were given an opportunity to interview the leader of the free world and you blew it,” she began.
I was beginning to feel as if I might be dreaming. I had naively believed the American president was referred to as the “leader of the free world” only in an unofficial tongue-in-cheek sort of way by outsiders, and not among his closest staff.
“You were more vicious than any of the White House press corps or even some of them up on Capitol Hill . . .The president leads the interview,” she said.
“I don’t agree,” I replied, my initial worry now turning to frustration. “It’s the journalist’s job to lead the interview.”
It was suggested that perhaps I could edit the tapes to take out the interruptions, but I made it clear that this would not be possible.
As the conversation progressed, I learnt that I might find it difficult to secure further co-operation from the White House. A man’s voice then came on the line. Colby, I assumed. “And, it goes without saying, you can forget about the interview with Laura Bush.”
It was suggested that perhaps I could edit the tapes to take out the interruptions, but I made it clear that this would not be possible.
As the conversation progressed, I learnt that I might find it difficult to secure further co-operation from the White House. A man’s voice then came on the line. Colby, I assumed. “And, it goes without saying, you can forget about the interview with Laura Bush.”
And indeed the White House logged an official complaint with the Irish Embassy.
If they do this for a foreign reporter, how would/do they treat one of ours? A "Play or Pay" memo probably was sent to all the MSM in the last 5 years, with intimidation about the consequences. Indeed look at the outing of Plame, because someone in the media (her husband) didn't play along. This White House plays for keeps.
But you'd never know it looking at the conservative blogs. Taken from
The Conservative VoiceA few of Al’s Wednesday speech-rants included quotes from avowed communist Walter Lippman, a brief dissertation on the subject of “the refeudalization of the public sphere” (as explained by German philosopher Jurgen Habermas) toward Gore’s real goal—the idiotic yet subversive argument toward bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine”. Note: The Fairness Doctrine (which was not the least bit “fair”) forced newspapers, Radio and television stations to seek out opposing viewpoints on every controversial issue. The Left effectively used this to its advantage. If a conservative made a statement on an issue, the Left demanded equal time. However, as today, if a leftist voiced a statement, he or she would say their comments were “mainstream” and that the “Fairness Doctrine” didn’t apply. The 1987 case Meredith Corp. v. FCC settled the dispute. It resulted in the courts declaring that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress. Therefore, the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. Subsequently, the FCC dissolved it. Conservative talk-show hosts are winning on Radio. Al doesn’t like it.
Gore even felt compelled to bash not only President Bush but, Jeff Gannon (AKA James Guckert) when he spewed forth in rage: “The present executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations: from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. They placed a former male escort in the White House press pool to pose as a reporter and then called upon him to give the president a hand at crucial moments!” Yep! Only leftist reporters should be heard—‘eh Al? Then Al reverted to one of his standard lines against Republicans in general, when he spouted: “And every day they unleash squadrons of digital brownshirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President!” Gee, Al. It’s actually the other way around. It’s the ostensible “reporters” who unmercifully harass President Bush. Note: I guess Al has been too busy trying to get his own cable network up and running or he would have heard NBC ‘journalist’ David Gregory regularly attempting to eviscerate President Bush and any and all members of his administration. Either that or Al’s been hanging out with the hemp crowd again.
Given what Ms. Coleman experienced, and that all the questions she asked were submitted in advance, it is hard to see how reporters have been able to "harass" the president. Even in one on one interviews the president seeks to control the situation, and unfortunately the press has let him.
Many "old timers" in the news biz say that this started when the network news organizations stopped being run by newsmen (and women) and started being run by bean counters and those in entertainment. Newspapers had to follow suit to stay alive. Even Time and Newsweek are no where near the magazines they were in the 40s, 50's, 60s and 70s (Go to a university library that keeps these gems as bound periodicals in their stacks. It's quite enlightening.
But really it is time the gloves come off for the fourth estate to be the other check and balance it's supposed to be.
FoxNews isn't ashamed to be unabashedly conservative in it's reporting and commentaries. Why is CNN so ashamed to be the other side of the coin? Fairness? The need to promote both sides and let the viewer decide. (Fox doesn't care about that). Fox and Limbaugh both claim that they are the balance to the liberal media, but for that to be true then the MSM must be liberal, not quasi conservative. And not play deaf, dumb and blind to what is going on.
They have the resources to play clips from Hans Blixx when Rumsfield says that everyone thought Saddam had WMD. If the media cannot be or will not be the keeper of records, then all we have is what the White House wants us to believe.
Woodward and Bernstien didn't stop when the pressure was on, and when they lost access, they continued. Cronkite didn't continue to frame the Vietnam in the way the White House wanted after he traveled to Nam shortly after Tet. So when will the new generation of reporters stand up and fill these shoes? Afterall, why did they get into journalism in the first place?
The Interviewhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040625-2.html http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_06/004222.phphttp://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_06_20_atrios_archive.html#108825764687097446
