Somehow it’s hard to imagine David Halberstam yukking it up with Alberto Gonzales, Paul Wolfowitz and two discarded “American Idol” contestants at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. Before there was a Woodward and Bernstein, there was Halberstam, still not yet 30 in the early 1960s, calling those in power to account for lying about our “progress” in Vietnam. He did so even though J.F.K. told the publisher of The Times, “I wish like hell that you’d get Halberstam out of there.” He did so despite public ridicule from the dean of that era’s Georgetown punditocracy, the now forgotten columnist (and Vietnam War cheerleader) Joseph Alsop.
It was Alsop’s spirit, not Halberstam’s, that could be seen in C-Span’s live broadcast of the correspondents’ dinner last Saturday, two days before Halberstam’s death in a car crash in California. This fete is a crystallization of the press’s failures in the post-9/11 era: it illustrates how easily a propaganda-driven White House can enlist the Washington news media in its shows. Such is literally the case at the annual dinner, where journalists serve as a supporting cast, but it has been figuratively true year-round. The press has enabled stunts from the manufactured threat of imminent “mushroom clouds” to “Saving Private Lynch” to “Mission Accomplished,” whose fourth anniversary arrives on Tuesday. For all the recrimination, self-flagellation and reforms that followed these journalistic failures, it’s far from clear that the entire profession yet understands why it has lost the public’s faith.
That state of denial was center stage at the correspondents’ dinner last year, when the invited entertainer, Stephen Colbert, “fell flat,” as The Washington Post summed up the local consensus. To the astonishment of those in attendance, a funny thing happened outside the Beltway the morning after: the video of Mr. Colbert’s performance became a national sensation. (Last week it was still No. 2 among audiobook downloads on iTunes.) Washington wisdom had it that Mr. Colbert bombed because he was rude to the president. His real sin was to be rude to the capital press corps, whom he caricatured as stenographers. Though most of the Washington audience failed to find the joke funny, Americans elsewhere, having paid a heavy price for the press’s failure to challenge White House propaganda about Iraq, laughed until it hurt.
You’d think that l’affaire Colbert would have led to a little circumspection, but last Saturday’s dinner was another humiliation. And not just because this year’s entertainer, an apolitical nightclub has-been (Rich Little), was a ludicrously tone-deaf flop. More appalling — and symptomatic of the larger sycophancy — was the press’s insidious role in President Bush’s star turn at the event.
It’s the practice on these occasions that the president do his own comic shtick, but this year Mr. Bush made a grand show of abstaining, saying that the killings at Virginia Tech precluded his being a “funny guy.” Any civilian watching on TV could formulate the question left hanging by this pronouncement: Why did the killings in Iraq not preclude his being a “funny guy” at other press banquets we’ve watched on C-Span? At the equivalent Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association gala three years ago, the president contributed an elaborate (and tasteless) comic sketch about his failed search for Saddam’s W.M.D.
But the revelers in the ballroom last Saturday could not raise that discrepancy and challenge Mr. Bush’s hypocrisy; they could only clap. And so they served as captive dress extras in a propaganda stunt, lending their credibility to the president’s sanctimonious exploitation of the Virginia Tech tragedy for his own political self-aggrandizement on national television. Meanwhile the war was kept as tightly under wraps as the troops’ coffins.
By coincidence, this year’s dinner occurred just before a Congressional hearing filled in some new blanks in the still incomplete story of a more egregious White House propaganda extravaganza: the Pat Tillman hoax. As it turns out, the correspondents’ dinner played an embarrassing cameo role in it, too.
What the hearing underscored was the likelihood that the White House also knew very early on what the Army knew and covered up: the football star’s supposed death in battle in Afghanistan, vividly described in a Pentagon press release awarding him a Silver Star, was a complete fabrication, told to the world (and Tillman’s parents) even though top officers already suspected he had died by friendly fire. The White House apparently decided to join the Pentagon in maintaining that lie so that it could be milked for P.R. purposes on two television shows, the correspondents’ dinner on May 1, 2004, and a memorial service for Tillman two days later.
The timeline of events in the week or so leading up to that dinner is startling. Tillman was killed on April 22, 2004. By the next day top officers knew he had not been killed by enemy fire. On April 29, a top special operations commander sent a memo to John Abizaid, among other generals, suggesting that the White House be warned off making specific public claims about how Tillman died. Simultaneously, according to an e-mail that surfaced last week, a White House speechwriter contacted the Pentagon to gather information about Tillman for use at the correspondents’ dinner.
When President Bush spoke at the dinner at week’s end, he followed his jokes with a eulogy about Tillman’s sacrifice. But he kept the circumstances of Tillman’s death vague, no doubt because the White House did indeed get the message that the Pentagon’s press release about Tillman’s losing his life in battle was fiction. Yet it would be four more weeks before Pat Tillman’s own family was let in on the truth.
To see why the administration wanted to keep the myth going, just look at other events happening in the week before that correspondents’ dinner. On April 28, 2004, CBS broadcast the first photographs from Abu Ghraib; on April 29 a poll on The Times’s front page found the president’s approval rating on the war was plummeting; on April 30 Ted Koppel challenged the administration’s efforts to keep the war dead hidden by reading the names of the fallen on “Nightline.” Tillman could be useful to help drown out all this bad news, and to an extent he was. The Washington press corps that applauded the president at the correspondents’ dinner is the same press corps that was slow to recognize the importance of Abu Ghraib that weekend and, as documented by a new study, “When the Press Fails” (University of Chicago Press), even slower to label the crimes as torture.
In his PBS report last week about the journalism breakdown before the war, Bill Moyers said that “the press has yet to come to terms with its role in enabling the Bush administration to go to war on false pretenses.” That’s not universally true; a number of news organizations have owned up to their disasters and tried to learn from them. Yet old habits die hard: for too long the full weight of the scandal in the Gonzales Justice Department eluded some of the Washington media pack, just as Abu Ghraib and the C.I.A. leak case did.
After last weekend’s correspondents’ dinner, The Times decided to end its participation in such events. But even were the dinner to vanish altogether, it remains but a yearly televised snapshot of the overall syndrome. The current White House, weakened as it is, can still establish story lines as fake as “Mission Accomplished” and get a free pass.
To pick just one overarching example: much of the press still takes it as a given that Iraq has a functioning government that might meet political benchmarks (oil law, de-Baathification reform, etc., etc.) that would facilitate an American withdrawal. In reality, the Maliki “government” can’t meet any benchmarks, even if they were enforced, because that government exists only as a fictional White House talking point. As Gen. Barry McCaffrey said last week, this government doesn’t fully control a single province. Its Parliament, now approaching a scheduled summer recess, has passed no major legislation in months. Iraq’s sole recent democratic achievement is to ban the release of civilian casualty figures, lest they challenge White House happy talk about “progress” in Iraq.
It’s our country’s bitter fortune that while David Halberstam is gone, too many Joe Alsops still hold sway. Take the current dean of the Washington press corps, David Broder, who is leading the charge in ridiculing Harry Reid for saying the obvious — that “this war is lost” (as it is militarily, unless we stay in perpetuity and draft many more troops). In February, Mr. Broder handed down another gem of Beltway conventional wisdom, suggesting that “at the very moment the House of Representatives is repudiating his policy in Iraq, President Bush is poised for a political comeback.”
Some may recall that Stephen Colbert offered the same prediction in his monologue at the correspondents’ dinner a year ago. “I don’t believe this is a low point in this presidency,” he said. “I believe it is just a lull before a comeback.” But the fake pundit, unlike the real one, recognized that this was a joke.
© Copyright 2007 The New York Times
Nice to see that the New York Times is finally recognizing the errors of its ways during the Bush era (error).
If only the Washington Post would show some signs of joining the Times. Putting David Broder out to pasture would be a good start.
bdrube, you are on to something. The Times could also retire William Saphire. Its affiliate, the Washington Post could retire Charles Krauthammer.
Speaking of 4 years after mission accomplished, check this web site http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2842
It tells what the pols said 4 years ago after the invasion of Iraq.
When the working press respects working men and women then will they deserve respect.
As is the case now, the men and women of the press are timid, frightened boys and girls who sidle up to their superiors with the courage of a sycophant. . The cynicism in Washington is the only refuge of the shallow.
The movies let us see what fools the press and elected representatives are. One considers that any press in Washington today would deserve the ire of Mr. Longfellow Deeds as well as Senator Jefferson Smith.
For film references, see Robert Ryan’s snide editor William Shrike in Nathaniel West’s “Miss Lonelyhearts,” Burt Lancaster’s opportunistic columnist J.J. Hunsecker in “Sweet Smell of Success,” and Fay Dunaway’s cynical producer Diana Christensen in “Network.”
These characters embody in shorthand the sort of human offal who infest the nation’s newsrooms these days, the kind who can feel very comfortable yukking it up with ‘Mr. Rove’ at a banquet and laughing along with their appointed president as he pretends to search for WMD while the peons die in Iraq. After all, the Bush debacle has been very good for the careers of those who play ball.
As Hunter S. Thompson wrote in “Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ‘72,”:
“So much for Objective Journalism. Don’t bother to look for it here — not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.”
Don’t bother to look for it in Washington DC or most parts of the mainstream New York media, either, Frank Rich and a few others excepted.
Miss Lonelyhearts: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085944/
Sweet Smell of Success:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051036/
Network:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(film)
If anybody wo8uld like to see an honest critique of yteh press during the Bush erea I suggest you go to Democracy Now and watch the Stephen Colbert’s address in 2006. Please expecially notice how the audience members get quieter and quieter as Colbert proceeds. Notice also how looks of embarassed shock turn to catatonic and icy stone-faced and stunned silence. Shock and awe indeed!
It is about 19 minutes and can be found at:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/03/145234&mode=thread&tid=25
Colbert’s piece is addictive. It’s also a masterpiece.
Absolutely perfect.
I think I listened to it for ….
When I first read the Colbert material I thought it must be satire, a Saturday Night Live skit… that could not really have been said. Think of this guy’s courage! As Shakespeare duly noted, often it is ONLY the fool/comedian who can tell the truth to the king.
I grew up being told that you never trusted politicians, used car salesmen (sorry), and always take what the press writes with a pound of salt (research alternatives). I fear that Americans are too fond of reverence for those who “inform” them, be it their politicians (especially their president for some odd reason), or their press. I truly wish that the revolutionary thinking I am finding on indie sites are a sign of change for the US.
Authority, or “authoratative” voices should always be challenged. Who believes that the Pope is infallible? Why believe that a vice or full, president should be so considered? Commander-in-Chief: bah!! Colbert and Stewart rock!
Why doesn’t Frank Rich give the reason for the mainstream media’s sins of omission? Seven or so major conservative organizations own the mainstream media and control what is reported but, more importantly, also what is not said. Even now it is seldom reported that the Iraqi war violates the Geneva Conventions, the principles of the United Nation–the US is signatory to both–and the US Constitution which makes Bush and his administrators war criminals.
The mainstream media’s guilt in the leadup to the Iraqi war consists of not thinking outside of the box and challenging Bush’s statements:
1. Even if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, it would not be alone. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently, former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright noted, “There are perhaps half a dozen other countries that are thought to have weapons of mass destruction programs and links to terrorism that are at least as extensive as Iraq’s.” Why select Iraq for disarmament? In fairness, we should go after these countries, too. A more basic question, why can the U.S. have weapons of mass destruction but other nations cannot?
2. The Central Intelligence Agency released a letter in August. In it, a senior intelligence official said that the likelihood of an attack by Saddam using weapons of mass destruction in the “foreseeable future” is low. But he went on to say that if Saddam was attacked, the likelihood of him using chemical or biological weapons or providing them to terrorist organizations was “pretty high.” In other words, a war against Iraq would likely create exactly the disaster that President Bush claims it will prevent.
3. There are many nations that have defied United Nations resolutions, Israel among them. Why, then, pick on Iraq? At least it is not unlawfully in another territory causing havoc and destruction as Israel is doing in Palestine.
4. Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) says the CIA has “absolutely no evidence” that Iraq possesses or will soon possess nuclear weapons. Even if it had them, it does not have the missiles to deliver them. Not having threatened us in the last ten years, where is the “imminent danger”?
How the MSM reporters live with themselves with all of the soldiers’ blood on their hands is for them to consider.
” why it has lost the public’s faith.” Wrong , Americans are still watching fox ( small case intended ) and still reading time magazine .
unless we stay in perpetuity and draft many more troops). That , my dear watson , is the classic-Yogi Berra oxymoron . What a sweet and simple guy Harry Reid is . Has he completely forgotten that the Vietnam War may have continued far longer than it did had all soldiers been volunteers
Long live Stephen Colbert! As I watched his monologue last year, as the crowd turned to stone, I hooted and hollered and thanked Colbert over and over again, thank you, thank you, thank you for having such courage. The press is so in bed with the prez (I just had to laugh today when I read that they will give Tony Snow about 30 seconds of “glad you’re back” before they start with the “hard questions”. Hard questions???? I’ve watched a lot of White House briefings and never ever do they ask the hard question). Why are we in such a mess in our ‘homeland’? (I absolutely hate that word). Because the press has failed our democracy over and over again. Yesterday I started my Sunday morning routine, flipping from this talk show to that talk show…Condi was on two…and I just turned it off. Tim Russert? What a joke. Bob Schiefer? He tries but has no power anymore. Georgie the fawn? Ridiculous. Fox? Give me a break. No more watching for me. It’s simply a waste of time and emotion. I am counting the days until Bush/Cheney and the whole bunch of war criminals are gone, almost holding my breath and praying they will not fabricate an “emergency” that will keep them in power, in some nefarious way and send all of us who speak out to our own local concentration camps (It sounds ridiculous but I put absolutely nothing past these thugs). So, thank you Frank Rich for this article and thank you, Mr. Colbert, the smartest (and hottest!)man in America today.
I believe most of our institutions are broken. But by far the most important is the fourth estate. If we first “fix” the press, then maybe, MAYBE, we have a chance to fix our other broken institutions and establisments:
e.g. elections, education, health care, war profiteering, corruption in department of justice, illegal invasions, corporate/political cronyism, false flag operations etc. etc. etc.
Magikpowerwoman, I also watched the Sunday talk shows and had a similar reaction. When was the last time Condi said anything true besides “Hello”? Her appearance on Face the Nation was one long string of outright lies and cheesy evasions.
Tim Russert’s quizzing of Non-Smoking Joe Biden was just a snore, and the only two things worth watching on George’s Steph’s Animal Farm were Sen. Russ Feingold and Broken Clock George ‘Effing’ Will, who actually snuck in something worth hearing amid all his David Broderish gibbering.
The most interesting part of the morning came with Wolf Blitzer and a panel of the Usual Suspects — Ed Henry, Dana Bash and Wolf’s valet — on CNN. They managed to ‘assess’ the winners and losers of the Dem debate without once mentioning Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel. If I hadn’t seen the debate, I never would have known those two were in it.
Thank you, Mass Media Anointers, for telling us who our Acceptable Democratic Candidates will be.
As Colbert said the other day, now I know who to send my money to.
BTW, sadly and incredibly, some neocons, even at this late date, still believe Mr. Americone Dream was serious in his speech last year.
They are, after all, neocons — not notorious for being useful as kitchen slicing implements.
RSJ….thanks for the validation! I almost hung in there because of Feingold (next to Al Gore, the person I want most for president is Russ, and I was very sorry he bailed)but it wasn’t enough. I ‘awoke’ after Katrina (hoping I could stay asleep for all of the Bush years)and have been almost obsessive about politics. My partner was very happy for my impulsive ‘that’s enough, I don’t need to watch any more” action. It’s all about ‘infotainment’now, nothing more. It’s so very, very sad for all of us who love this country - and I still do, even after reading Howard Zinn and experiencing another ‘wakeup’. The Empire, with it’s 700 military bases around this globe, is already crumbling and I cry for my 20 year old daughter, for what she will inherit from her elders….a broken US and a warming planet.
Let’s try to save the Country while we can. Nader for Prez. Do I need to say more? What has Obama, Clinton and rest done for this Country? Nothing. What has Nader done for us? Seat belts, Airbags and numerous other things, way too many to write up here. If you don’t know about Nader and Nader’s Raiders, do yourself a favor and Google him. What this man has done for the greater good has been forgotten for some reason. This man is a person who actually CARES!!!! Go Nader!!! Let’s elect a REAL MAN to office for once.
Magikpowerwoman, I don’t know if it’s on in your area, but Democracy Now has an hour-long TV show on cable access. (Unfortunately on a 7:00am in my neck of the woods.) It’s worth hunting for to get a better angle on the news.
Nader4prez, I voted for Ralph in 2000, so you don’t have to sell me on what a great president he would be, but Obama, even though he’s become cautious lately due to his celebrity, had been advocating legitimate progressive movements in Illinois, opposed the Iraq debacle from the beginning and, considering the alternatives, may be worth voting for this year.
This is not an unreserved endorsement, though — he did vote for Condi Rice for Secy of State, for example — but of the candidates available, except for Kucinich, I think he’d make the best president. I also think he might actually listen to Ralph Nader advice; times have changed since 2000.
Best of all, he’s not a DLC Dem like Hillary, who owes her war chest to lobbyists, bundled corporate contributors and the usual Washington scum. Obama collected most of his campaign donations from small contributors and refused to take PAC money, and I hope that doesn’t change.