As Reporters Seek Details, The Media Climate Shifts By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer
In a single day, the capital's media climate has been transformed.
Reporters pounded White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice at briefings yesterday, skepticism and even indignation in their voices, as they demanded detailed explanations. It was, in short, far different from the tone of flag-bedecked networks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush, riding a wave of popularity and patriotism, was treated with deference by the media. Indeed, the administration likely never faced a more hostile press corps than yesterday.
After Fleischer said Bush had received only vague warnings from intelligence agencies about possible hijackings last summer, ABC correspondent Terry Moran asked: "Why didn't he level with the American people about what he knew?"
Moments later, Moran said: "These questions were asked after September 11th of the president, of the vice president, of you, yourself. And no one in the White House said, yes, the information had come in that al Qaeda was planning hijackings."
Four hours later, Ron Fournier of the Associated Press asked Rice: "Shouldn't the American public have known these facts before they got on planes in the summer and fall of last year?"
In an interview, Fleischer said: "This will be a test to see whether the press sensationalizes or informs. Aggressive questioning is what the press does for a living. Leaping to conclusions is what you hope they won't do for a living."
Fleischer yesterday called New York Post Editor Col Allen to complain about the tabloid's headline: "9/11 bombshell: BUSH KNEW." Smaller type below says: "Prez was warned of possible hijackings before terror attacks." Fleischer called the headline "irresponsible" and "a poster child for bad journalism."
Allen defended his front page, saying: "I reject the notion that the headline suggests that Bush knew about 9/11. . . . '9/11 bombshell' was there to tell people this was a story about terror."
Journalists thrive on such stories because there are dozens of threads on which to pull: what did the CIA know, what did the FBI know, who saw which memo, what was Congress told, why was there no follow-up, were the airlines notified, who will testify, what documents will be subpoenaed. Congressional hearings and rhetorical outrage could fuel weeks of damaging headlines.
From the moment CBS News broke the story Wednesday night that Bush had received an intelligence warning, the media had the one element that was missing from recent accounts of FBI memos about suspicious Middle Eastern men at flight schools: a link to the Oval Office. This produced a journalistic eruption filled with echoes of Howard H. Baker Jr.'s famous "what did the president know" Watergate question.
Damage control specialists say politicians fare better when they release bad or embarrassing information themselves rather than waiting for it to leak -- a technique often used by the Clinton White House. But the question permeating the news briefings was whether last summer's intelligence warning was specific enough to have been made public -- even after the tragedy.
Although some critics have accused news organizations of going soft on the White House after Sept. 11, yesterday's reporting bristled with intensity.
"Journalists have been waiting for a chance to be their old, aggressive, hard-nosed selves," said Robert Lichter of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. But "just because you don't release classified information doesn't mean you're trying to hide it or cover it up."