shifting climate

R rhisiart at earthlink.net
Fri May 17 19:36:29 PDT 2002


anyone know who funds the Center for Media and Public Affairs? checked their website but couldn't find any specifics.

thanks, R

----- Original Message -----

From: Doug Henwood

To: lbo-talk

Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 9:16 AM

Subject: shifting climate

Washington Post - May 17, 2002

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."

-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20020517/364227d9/attachment.htm>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list