RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
McClellan: Media During Run-Up to Iraq Were "Complicit Enablers"
May 28, 2008 11:12 AM
Some excerpts from Scott McClellan's new book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception that may not get the same wall-to-wall coverage as his comments about his former colleagues at the Bush White House?
His scathing criticism of the media, particularly during the run-up to the war in Iraq.
Writes McClellan:
"In the fall of 2002, Bush and his White house were engaging in a carefully-orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval to our advantage. We'd done much the same on other issues--tax cuts and education--to great success. But war with Iraq was different. Beyond the irreversible human costs and substantial financial price, the decision to go to war and the way we went about selling it would ultimately lead to increased polarization and intensified partisan warfare. Our lack of candor and honesty in making the case for war would later provoke a partisan response from our opponents that, in its own way, further distorted and obscured a more nuanced reality. Another cycle of deception would cloud the public's ability to see larger, underlying important truths that are critical to understand in order to avoid the same problems in the future.
"And through it all, the media would serve as complicit enablers. Their primary focus would be on covering the campaign to sell the war, rather than aggressively questioning the rationale for war or pursuing the truth behind it… the media would neglect their watchdog role, focusing less on truth and accuracy and more on whether the campaign was succeeding. Was the president winning or losing the argument? How were Democrats responding? What were the electoral implications? What did the polls say? And the truth--about the actual nature of the threat posed by Saddam, the right way to confront it, and the possible risks of military conflict--would get largely left behind…"
McClellan writes that while he thinks most reporters are personally liberal, the "vast majority--including those in the White House press corps--are honest, fair-minded and professional" when it comes to letting their political biases impact their coverage.
"If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. The collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should have never come as such a surprise. The public should have been made much more aware, before the fact, of the uncertainties, doubts, and caveats that underlay the intelligence about the regime of Saddam hussein. The administration did little to convey those nuances to the people, the press should have picked up the slack but largely failed to do so because their focus was elsewhere--on covering the march to war, instead of the necessity of war.
"In this case, the 'liberal media' didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."
Towards the end of the book, McClellan suggests that network news is stuck in the past and needs to change.
"The network that can find a way to shift from excessively covering controversy, the conventional horse race and image-driven coverage to give a greater emphasis to who is right and who is wrong, who is telling the truth and who is not, and the larger truths about our society and our world might achieve some amazing results in our fast-changing media environment."
- jpt
May 28, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (40)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Whatever happened to unbiased reporting? We've lost touch when the news agencies clearly distinguish themselves as democrat, or republican? Then it's just pushing whatever parties agenda, the reporting is neither fair, or unbiased at that point.
We regularly scream for political reform, but we need to demand the same from news organizations as well. If the news were accurately reported, politicians would be getting away with far less nonsense, and be much more accountable for their actions.
Posted by: Doug | May 28, 2008 12:17:36 PM
"the media would neglect their watchdog role, focusing less on truth and accuracy and more on whether the campaign was succeeding."
And that says it clearly. Watch CNN analysts discuss the election as if it were a Lakers game. It is as if the news networks had all become sports networks and can no longer tell the difference between major global events and a pick up game of hoops.
The serious journalists began to talk about this when Roone Arledge took over and made news a profit center. They were all retired. Now virtually no one knows what serious journalism is.
BTW: Jake, have you opened the service records yet for the ObamaMyUncle story yet to check the one vital fact that has to be true for his story to be true?
If not, then you prove McClellan's point by example.
Posted by: len | May 28, 2008 12:16:27 PM
Investigative journalism is gone. Gas prices have doubled since American companies overseen by the VP have taken over the 2nd largest oil producing nation in the world. I am sure some investigative journalism would reveal the corrupt capitalistic monopoly that is squeezing us to death. Instead of reporting daily record prices and oil companies projections of $4, $5, $10, etc. prices reporters need to be investigating the real reason why and not just parroting oil company lies of exploration, speculation, threats from Iran, hurricans, instability, and all their other lies.
Posted by: alan | May 28, 2008 12:12:47 PM
This conversation is a waiste of time. One more book to be published and read so someone can cover their back side. There are problems to solve today. Stop crying over spilt milk and get on with the job.
Posted by: Ron | May 28, 2008 12:12:00 PM
HP Boston | May 28, 2008 11:27:33 AM
Impeach bush ? No.
He is world's war criminal ! The world need justice.
Posted by: Test | May 28, 2008 12:11:51 PM
That is precisely what Rumsfeldt's formation of the "Office of Special Plans" headed by Heath and Bolton were accused of during the run-up. The intent was to mislead Congress and the American people to invade and occupy Iraq, a sovereign nation without emergency war powers - under which propaganda is authorized.
Also known as the Noble Lie.
Posted by: Edward Holman | May 28, 2008 12:11:30 PM
This is the first indicment in the case against the "Fifth Estate." Long overdue, but who will care when "American Idol" is on. The media and the government are the Lions and we are the Lambs to be led to the slaughter, while they pick at and profit off of our corpse. The manistream media IS a part of the government. They are used to govern YOU! I'm sorry if you haven't figured this out yet, but you will be a better person if you do.
Posted by: ugh | May 28, 2008 12:09:37 PM
Blame the government, blame the media, blame Obama (???)...the problem in America is not inherent in its institutions, the problem lies in the corrupted, simple minds of its people. America is a nation built on greed, backstabbing and blind ambition, and its lack of contemplation and foresight is now coming full circle to bring it to its knees.
It's a shame.
Posted by: Canuck | May 28, 2008 12:05:52 PM
I wander who wrote the book?
Scott McClellan is not articulate enough to have written it
Posted by: Tabesh | May 28, 2008 12:04:19 PM
But it seems to me that some of the garbage being said is in the book is coming from Liberal blogger and reporters!!
LOL Spock!....THE WH has not cried lies!
Rove and the gang have suggested that Scott is deranged, have not called him a liar. They easily identify with both as they are clearly deranged and LIARS!!!
Posted by: HP Boston | May 28, 2008 12:02:37 PM
First and foremost is not McClellan part of the media?
Would a book have sold if he said the truth? NO!
If he complimented Pres. Bush the press would not even report it.
But it seems to me that some of the garbage being said is in the book is coming from Liberal blogger and reporters!!
But then again it seems that there is nobody that can be trusted anymore, How trust worthy in McClellan? if what is reported on the book is true?
Lets take a look at Katrina! it was not the federal Governments fault it was the Governor and Mayors fault on what happened, no matter how you spin it!! By the Constitution and other laws the State MUST request help from the Feds before the Feds can come in, this is to keep State rights otherwise the Feds could come in whenever they wanted.
And the Governor waited too late before calling the Feds.
The mayor allowed buses to flood, and turned away Amtrak who offered a train to bring people out.
Posted by: spock | May 28, 2008 11:48:01 AM
The media has tried to run this country for the last decade, but people are waking up and seeing they are running it into the ground. We need to learn to use our brains and not parrott the talking heads on tv. Say NO TO MR. MICHELLE OBAMA
Posted by: justme | May 28, 2008 11:47:34 AM
This is absolutely uncanny. The criticisms' precise language could be lodged against the MSM's coverage of the Dem presidential race, with hardly an alteration. Scathing criticism and provocative to read, given Obama coverage today.
Posted by: countallthevotes | May 28, 2008 11:39:17 AM
Sounds like the media is complicit in the Vilifying of the Clinton's AGAIN!
The myth of a liberal MEDIA is just that a MYTH! BIG BIZ REPUBS are the media also running this OBAMA campaign, he will be easy to annihilate! The fix is hard to make stick this time. When are they going to close the deal for him?
Posted by: HP Boston | May 28, 2008 11:34:52 AM
Isn't this just more proof of what most of us already know?
Posted by: JR | May 28, 2008 11:31:40 AM
I see the same patterns continuing in this election year. The MSM have crowned the king already, and there are more states still to vote. It's ridiculous how many sources one has to read these days to get any semblance of the truth from the media. I can't believe there would be anyone working for this administration that I could ever respect, but please step forward Mr. McClellan and take a bow. Well done!
Posted by: Dee | May 28, 2008 11:30:22 AM
He's right! The media was looking for ratings. They did nothing to question Bush on the war.
Posted by: Erik | May 28, 2008 11:28:55 AM
Jake,
Do you think Scott is right? Is the media failing?
I know that in my experience, the only voices questioning the Bush administration in the run up to the war were only to be found on blogs and news message boards.
For the entire Bush administration, the media have been nothing more than glorified stenographers. Why is that?
Posted by: Hip Hop Anonymous | May 28, 2008 11:28:01 AM
Subpoena McClellan!
Start the impeachment process NOW!
Posted by: HP Boston | May 28, 2008 11:27:33 AM
So McClellan's argument is that "the media should not have bought the lies that I and others were selling?" Does McClellan address his own guilt as one of the primary "propagandists"? I hope so. If not, that would be quite an omission.
Posted by: LESD | May 28, 2008 11:26:25 AM
Post a comment
