How to get Scottie to give it up

If the White House Press Secretary shows contempt for the press corps, what should the media do?

I have a solution.

My solution comes from Aristophanes, who put the following words into the mouth of Lysistrata in the 5th century B.C.E. (Rogers' translation):

For if we women will but sit at home,
Powdered and trimmed, clad in our daintiest lawn,
Employing all our charms, and all our arts
To win men's love, and when we've won it, then
Repel them, firmly, till they end the war,
We'll soon get Peace again, be sure of that.

In other words, the national press corps had better stop giving the White House any action if they want anything to change.

Below the fold, I'll try and show three things:

1. The White House and the press corps have an implicit contract: automatic coverage of White House spin in exchange for information
   
2. The White House has broken that contract by embargoing information
   
3. The only way the press corps can remedy this is to withold its favors: stop printing White House spin as if was automatically news
   

1) The White House and the press corps have an implicit contract: automatic coverage of White House spin in exchange for information

If you go to the White House website for a particular day and see the stories they want to get coverage, you'll see they largely get their wish. Let's compare the White House website's January 16th "news" and its coverage in a "left" and "right" paper. The White House website has two 1/16 King-related stories:

"President Honors Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at 'Let Freedom Ring' Celebration"

"President Views Emancipation Proclamation at National Archives"

The national press responds:

Richard Stevenson, "Bush Salutes Memories Of 2 Civil Rights Leaders" in The New York Times (January 17, 2006), Page A12.

Joseph Curl "Bush views Lincoln proclamation, honors King; Work of 'one of America's most important lives' unfinished," in The Washington Times (January 17, 2006), page A3.

The same day Al Gore gave a speech that some outlets covered as news. The New York Times, however, does not extend its "obligatory coverage" paradigm to the opposition party. I searched "Gore" in the Times  for January 16-17, and these were the only hits:

Gore Vidal's. . .  (NYT 1/16, E12)
. . . gore fest . . . (NYT 1/16, E4)
. . .Gore Vidal. . . (NYT 1/16, E6)

In other words, crickets. So, why does the "newspaper of record" only convey one side of the story? It can't be a matter of being newsworthy, because certainly a major opposition speech would also be newsworthy. It's more what people call "etiquette" -- a courtesy that the media extends to the White House. You do them a favor, they do you a favor.  Like all rituals, there are obligations on each side. Until recently, the White House was also mixed information in with the disinformation. Then they stopped . . .

2) The White House has broken that contract by embargoing information

Taking it up a notch from his selective silence on the Plame scandal, the White House Press Secretary has escalated his non-responsiveness to the point that it has become an open contempt for the press:

As Editor & Publisher has pointed out:

On Tuesday, McClellan admitted Abramoff had "a few staff-level meetings" at the Bush White House, but he declined to say with whom Abramoff met, which interests he was representing, or how he got access to the White House.

But, as you can see from these excerpts from the gaggle, the refusal to answer is even more brazen than usual. He is basically saying: we will only tell you something once you show you already know it:

January 17:
 

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, my understanding from the check that we did was that there are just a few staff-level meetings in addition to those.

Q Who was in the staff meetings?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't get into discussing staff-level meetings.

Q Why not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if you got something to bring to my attention, Elisabeth, I'll be glad to look into it. If you've got something specific, I'll be glad to take a look into it.

Q Did he meet with Karl Rove, for example?

MR. McCLELLAN: We don't -- we don't ever tend to get into those staff-level meetings.

MR. McCLELLAN: No. Again, we don't get into discussing staff-level meetings. If you have something specific to bring to my attention, I'll be glad to try to look into that. But I'm not aware of anything specific that you have.

Q What got him in the door here? How did he qualify for meetings here?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I checked on this. What I was asked is to go and check on this, and I did. And there were only a couple of holiday receptions that he attended, and then a few staff-level meetings on top of that. And that's the way I would describe it.

Now, what I can't do is go and say with absolute certainty that he did not have any other visits. We did a check at your request and what I have learned from that request is exactly what I am telling you.

Q Was it senior staff, at that level?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Would you qualify it as senior staff that he met with here?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm just saying staff-level meetings is the way I would describe it. And if you have anything specific, I'll be glad to take a look into it.

Q Well, we're counting on you for the specifics --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if there's any reason for me to check into it, please bring it to my attention.

Q He's pled guilty to some serious charges.

MR. McCLELLAN: And so are you insinuating something?

Q We're just trying to find out the facts.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if you've got something to bring to my attention, do so, and then I'll be glad to look into it.

Q Scott, that's not a fair burden to place on us. This is a guy who is a tainted lobbyist, and he has connections -- we want to know -- with whom in the White House. You shouldn't demand that we give you something specific to go check it out. I mean, this guy is radioactive in Washington. And he knows guys like Karl Rove. So did he meet with him or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: I know of nothing that --

Q Don't put it on us to bring something specific. It's a specific question about a specific individual.

Q Can you tell us if he met with Karl Rove?

MR. McCLELLAN: Because we don't discuss staff-level meetings --

Q Of course you do, whenever you want to discuss staff-level meetings. And if Karl Rove, who has ties to Ralph Reed, which he does, we want to know if he has ties to Jack Abramoff, and if they met --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I can answer that.

Q Oh, great. Well, before you said --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I mean, about if he knows -- yes, he knows -- he knows Mr. Abramoff. They are both former heads of the College Republicans. That's how they got to know each other way back, I think it was in the early '80s. And my understanding is that Karl would describe it as more of a casual relationship, than a business relationship. That's what he has said.

But if you've got specific matters that I need to look into, it's my point that I think it's your obligation to bring that to my attention and I'll be glad to take a look into it.

Q Well, I don't --

MR. McCLELLAN: There's been no --

Q -- no, no, but I don't think it's our obligation to do anything. If we want to know whether there was pending business that Abramoff represented to members of the staff here at the White House, what do we need --

MR. McCLELLAN: There's been no suggestion of anything like that out of this White House.

Q -- some kind of an affidavit to bring you to --

MR. McCLELLAN: There's been no suggestion of anything like this in this White House.

Q I'm just asking. I'm not suggesting.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, you're insinuating.

January 18:

MR. McCLELLAN: I did a check for you all, to provide you that information. But we're not going to engage in a fishing expedition. I know that there are some that want to do that. But I don't see any reason to do so.

Q Can you explain why you wouldn't want it out there?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this has been in keeping with past practice, in terms of what -- in similar incidents. In terms of why we wouldn't want what out there?

Q Why wouldn't you want to just clear up who these meetings were with, who was there, who wasn't --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think there are some people that are insinuating things based on no evidence whatsoever. I said if you have a specific issue of concern, then we'll be glad to take a look into that. But no one has brought anything like that to my attention.

This is no longer simply stonewalling, this has become farce. I think the White House press corps has only one choice.

3) The only way the press corps can remedy this is to withold its favors: stop printing White House spin as if was automatically news

At what point does the lack of honesty result in the major papers deciding that they will NOT repeat the White House spin point of the day on their front page? It is only there by tacit agreement, and if one side has decided to renege, the only way to get them to start answering is to stop giving away the milk for free.

The White House Press Corps should organize a boycott. Either stop stonewalling, or forget the mandatory front page coverage of the daily symbolic action.

It isn't as if the media has no leverage in this situation. Instead of simply turning into servile lackeys, they can withhold what the White House craves.

Viva Aristophanes!

•  Tips and inspiration

  Is comparing the press corps to the protagonists of Lysistrata demeaning to either the media or to people who have sex? Until someone responds to the these points made by Slaughter and Conyers in their April 25, 2005 open letter to the White House, I'll stand by the comparison:

  1. The Department of Homeland Security's records indicate that Mr. "Gannon" entered the White House Complex 196 times in the past two years. He attended 155 of the 196 press conferences held at the White House in the two year period. This is disconcerting considering that your office and "Mr. Gannon" have maintained that his access was sporadic. At what point is a "hard pass" required?

   2. The records show that Mr. "Gannon" was allowed access to the White House 38 times when no public press events occurred. He also spent hours in the White House both before and after press events took place. With whom did he meet on those occasions and what was the subject matter of those meetings?

   3. On 13 occasions there is a record where he checked in with security, but is never registered as leaving the White House complex. How do you explain this?

  Clearly it was the White House that made sex workers into journalists, I'm only drawing an analogy. But I want to thank them for the inspiration for this diary.
  

  by MarkC on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:25:30 AM PDT

  •  ILOVETHEAMERICANINFORMATIONMINISTER.COM

    WOOT! GO SCOTTY! I love this show. Best comedy show Grammy please, oh wait no...that's the Daily Show.

    by lushboi on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:50:15 AM PDT

•  Lysistrata

  is as relevant a play today as it was 2500 years ago.

  There are times when I wish modern women would take the same stand and deny the administration -- and yes, that would include whomever Condi is with -- until they stop their despicable attempt to destroy this world.

  by Timroff on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:28:25 AM PDT

•  The WH not only embargoes information,

  they spread disinformation.

  And this:

  MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if you got something to bring to my attention, Elisabeth, I'll be glad to look into it. If you've got something specific, I'll be glad to take a look into it.

  is ridiculous.  If anything specific was brought to Scotty's attention, he wouldn't "look into it", he'd simply deny it.  Like when he said it was ridiculous to suggest that Rove had anything to do with the Plame leak.

  by GTPinNJ on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:33:56 AM PDT

•  Nice work, Mark...

  ...well reasoned, too. Of course that's why it seems as if it's kind of anathema in these Bizarro World days. I, too, keep hoping that some day, logic, reason and truth will win out here but I continually am disappointed. I suspect that our slowly dissolving educational system is to blame, as I'd like to think that these issues would engage our higher faculties rather than the far more base, reptilian of them. If it's true that people voted for Bush as more of a vote against people they din't agree with, then maybe once they understand how truly corrupt the Rethugs are, they'll stop identifying with them.
  Yeah, I know: Dream on...(cue Aerosmith...and Brian Benben)

  by Newton Snookers on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:48:07 AM PDT

  •  Thanks!

    I appreciate the compliment. You know, I teach at a public university, and many of the kids I get are so interested in learning and have really good critical thinking skills. In other words, I'm not sure it is one the consumption end of information, but as GTPinNJ says above, it is more on the production end. I think that at the heart of what is going on is a disenfranchisement through the control of information. Their next step, as the recent diaries about UCLAprofs.com show, is to neuter the ability of schools to teach critical thinking skills, but they haven't gotten as far with that yet.

    by MarkC on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:57:03 AM PDT

    •  I think you're right...

      ...but my primary concern are ALL those who don't/can't make it to college. And I think you'd have to agree that's MOST of those that attend school and get past, say, 6th grade, which is quite a remarkable voting bloc.
      Here's the problem: In my mind, I think I'm a pretty unbiased guy. In fact, I tend to overthink stuff, which, of course, leads to its own problems. That aside, when I engage my own critical thinking skills and see the political landscapre before me, I'm continually boggled by the clear dichotomy between what people say they believe and how those "beliefs" are put into action. Very many conservative Christians, for example, say they vote Republican because of the party's "values," yet they CANNOT SEE that that party REFUSES to do all those things Jesus tells us to do for the poor in the Bible; they also refuse to see and hear the outright lies and duplicity with which the Shrub "adumbistration" rules so imperiously. Just watching Scotty McLellan's "yes, it's not/no, it is" act distills the hypocrisy and the sheer dissonance (I was SO trying not to use that word!) for all the world to see...and to wonder, "WTF?"
      Sure, "smart people" also vote Republican and, in their world, it makes sense. I have what I modestly admit is a pretty powerful imagination (just ask the ex-Mrs. Snookers), but even I can't imagine how anyone, unless they are demonstrably wealthy, would ever "vote their pocketbook" for a Republican, given what they've done to Social Security, MediCare and the federal deficit. And even someone like my grandmother, who never got past third grade in Ireland, could see how the Republicans are. They play, by using fear and terror, against our reptilian/birdlike, "flight-or-fight" mind, more of an instinct than a learned behavior.

      by Newton Snookers on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:09:50 PM PDT

    •  Yikes!

      This just in from AP (via USA Today website):

      Study: most college students lack skills
      WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nearing a diploma, most college students cannot handle many complex but common tasks, from understanding credit card offers to comparing the cost per ounce of food.
      Those are the sobering findings of a study of literacy on college campuses, the first to target the skills of students as they approach the start of their careers.

      More than 50% of students at four-year schools and more than 75% at two-year colleges lacked the skills to perform complex literacy tasks.

      That means they could not interpret a table about exercise and blood pressure, understand the arguments of newspaper editorials, compare credit card offers with different interest rates and annual fees or summarize results of a survey about parental involvement in school.

      The results cut across three types of literacy: analyzing news stories and other prose, understanding documents and having math skills needed for checkbooks or restaurant tips.
      <snip>

      Just sayin'...   ;-)

      by Newton Snookers on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 02:13:22 PM PDT

•  Great Diary!

  Well put! Great thinking and right on the money. Thank you MarkC.

  Now if the press only followed your suggestions. If only the truth came out of the MSM. In a perfect world, Americans would have an inkling as to what is going on in that White House.

  by Eddie C on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 11:54:39 AM PDT

•  Great diary . The Fuchw Administration is

  running up against that right now. Admittedly,this is a maddeningly slow process for most Kossacks who are already 30 moves ahead in the game. Nonetheless, the MSM is coming around if not herded in the right direction by voices such as yours.

  Helluva thing how things evolved. The thrust of a story v. 'look elswhere' used to be driven by some clear factors:

  A. Plausable deniability in the face of   unverifiable or wholly self serving sources.

  B. 'Pacing' a story to protect access and sources when corroberated background leads up the food chain.  

  Many in the press corps have been tired of eating the turd sandwiches served up by the White House. In a very real way,the press- who "haven't been gettin any" in the infosack in a while- are now willing to stay out late carrying on all SORTS of clandestine affairs: In bed with some of the Bushies former friends...

  by Robert Davies on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:24 PM PDT

•  The press should simply stop

  attending the media fests until Scottie agrees to actually answer direct questions and agrees to stop lying.

  If they are unwilling to do that they should agree on a question of the day and everyone of them endlessly repeat the one question until Scottie either answers it or his head explodes, whichever comes first.

  by PAprogressive on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 12:23:21 PM PDT

  •  Another good strategy

    I agree -- I think they tried the second strategy with Plame and that threw him off his stride for weeks.

    Actually not attending would be interesting, but there would always be smaller outlets that would take their place. Or perhaps we would get an hour of Les Kinsolving questions! What a treat!

    by MarkC on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 12:31:42 PM PDT

    •  An hour

      of Lee Kinsolving's questions might actually be interesting.  At some point all that arse kissing could get interesting....  After all don't you think Scottie and JimmyJeff's hour long sessions got pretty kinky?  

      by PAprogressive on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 12:45:09 PM PDT

•  I was thinking about this the other day...

  I don't know if it was the Daily Show or some other outlet which showed clips of reporters rolling their eyes at Scotty's daily spew.

  Why don't they just get up in the middle of his crap and leave? What's going to happen? Will they be denied "access?" Every press briefing can be summed up by the following:

  These are the questions that were asked of Mr. McClellan today:

  List questions.

  These are the answers given by Mr. McClellan.

  <Blank space.>

  Any newspaper or media outlet can run the above and it will be an accurate reflection of what went on the briefing room.

  Seriously. What's going to happen? A few talking heads will get their panties in a knot? The American public will be less informed?

   

  by marci in ca on Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 12:31:27 PM PDT