MyDD :: Press corps finds its balls in jar, take them out, puts them on

Press corps finds its balls in jar, take them out, puts them on

by jcjcjc, Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 02:21:41 PM EST

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_07_10.php#006048

The White House press corps actually savaged Scott McClellan?

Consider this:

"Scott, is the President aware of Karl Rove's role in leaking information about Joe Wilson's wife?"

"It's not an answer. And you were perfectly willing to comment from that podium while the investigation was going on, and try to clear Karl Rove. Why the double standard?"

"Scott, without commenting on the investigation, you said in September of '03, if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration. Does that standard still hold?"

Just think about the state of the world if the press had gotten its shit together and acted like this in, say, October 2002.

Apparently, once they starterd tossing reporters in jail, the reporters figured out it might not pay to be kind to the administration.

So much for Bush's reputation for reciprocating orally with his lap dogs.

Guess those will just have to be the good ol' days.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050711/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_investigation;_ylt=AvrWFzJ0FL84Xu4heG6zE jes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

On the other hand, initial versions of the reporting seem pretty sanatized.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 4 Comments :: Post a Comment

Actually, (none / 0)

this happened before, when reporters grilled Scottie over Gee-Dub's TANG documents.

My working hypothesis is that reporters are hesitant to stick their necks out by acting on things that are likely to hang on the statement of some person or people that can be discredited by the administration, whereas documents, like the TANG stuff or and records of Rove interviews, represent blood in the water, hard evidence rather than mere assertion.

The distinction is pretty minor in real terms, but when it comes to selling a story to the public, "documentation" goes a long way.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 05:12:25 PM EST

In fairness, though (none / 0)

Someone has to call the Bushies out on all the FUD. At some point, you can't tremble before the bastards, or else you'll never see the end of it.

by jcjcjc on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 09:57:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

FUD? (none / 0)

(I thought they stopped selling that after all those miners went blind.)

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 11:06:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FUD? (3.00 / 1)

FUD =

Fear
Uncertainty
Doubt

It's a core marketing concept. People won't make changes if they're off kilter about the transition process.

Therefore, instead of promoting the good of your plan, once you'r product is entrenched, you simply make people afraid of THEIR plan.

Hell, it's the only thing keeping the GOP from taking on water these days.

by jcjcjc on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 11:39:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.