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>