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!