David Sirota: After Moyers Iraq Documentary, DC Reporters in Damage-Control Mode

[marmar]

from WorkingforChange.com, via AlterNet:


After Moyers Iraq Documentary, DC Reporters in Damage-Control Mode

By David Sirota, WorkingForChange.com. Posted April 27, 2007.



In the lead up to and wake of Bill Moyers' much-anticipated mega-dunk on the Washington press corps this week, we are seeing the ugliest side of Beltway culture -- sophistry and damage control.

In the lead up to and wake of Bill Moyers' much-anticipated mega-dunk on the Washington press corps this week, we are seeing the ugliest side of Beltway culture -- the meltdown, damage-control freak out. Only what's new is that instead of politicians melting down, it's reporters themselves. And never underestimate the desperation that comes when Establishment Washington unifies to try to defend itself.

Over here we have professional power-worshiper Chris "It Doesn't Matter Where Political Money Comes From" Cillizza attempting to defend Tim Russert, and in the process insulting the recently deceased journalistic hero David Halberstam.

Yes, Cillizza -- clearly begging for an invite on a Meet the Press panel -- is out there saying that "modern journalists are doing their very best to emulate that sort of reporting" that came from Halberstam, and that "Tim Russert is one of the best examples of that kind of accountability journalism." I guess turning over NBC's airwaves to a Vice President spewing lies, ignoring the solid reporting of Knight Ridder that debunked those lies, and having panel discussions laughing hysterically with fellow pundit friends over predictions for when the war would start is, under Cillizza's warped Beltway definition, "accountability journalism" from Russert (who, I'm sure, Cillizza would also have us believe is just a "blue collar guy from Buffalo," despite Russert's multi-million-dollar salary and quaint Nantucket summers).

Over at CBS, White House reporter Mark Knoller's acrobatic attempts at defense make Rodney Dangerfield's "Triple Lindy" from "Back to School" look like a simple somersault. Knoller actually claims that the now-famous pre-war press conference where reporters fell all over themselves to compliment the president for his leadership was actually a scene of journalistic bravery. Atrios does the takedown of Knoller, showing the full transcript of that press conference, but if you don't want to read that, please just remember what New York Times White House reporter Elisabeth Bumiller said to defend the media's behavior at the event:

"We were very deferential because it's live, it's very intense, it's frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you're standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country's about to go to war. There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time."

Moyers piece is important not just because it has exposed the entire sham that was pre-war Beltway journalism, but also because he has finally exacted a price -- in this case, humiliation -- from the reporters whose power-worshiping, must-stay-on-the-cocktail-party-circuit tendencies led them to aggressively push this country into war. And we can hope that fear of future humiliation will help prevent another gross abdication of responsibility next time around.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/51110/

[BridgeTheGap]

1. It' corporate run "journalism"

and it's been around for awhile. Moyer's piece seems to say that the events of 9/11 changed the tenor of the press. Maybe so, but it doesn't answer why the press never brought up the facts during the 2000 election that the g.o.p. had regime change for Iraq in their platform AND that Bush selected Cheney, a neo-con already pre-disposed toward invading Iraq, whether or not Saddam was still in power.
Moyer's piece (though he has raised the issue in other pieces) did not bring up the fact that major media de-regulation happened during this time period. Was this quid pro quo? - We'll give you what you want AS LONG AS you keep your mouths shut about the war?

[Parisle]

2. If the truth were to be told........

--- The mainstream media was complicit in, and largely responsible for George Bush's fraudulent election in 2000. Then they were instrumentally enabling in both the run-up to war on Iraq, and the 2004 election victory. The stains of the past six years are on their hands.

--- Now that those past six years are almost universally recognized to have been a neocon-manufactured nightmare,.. and disaster is all about us,... the acquiescent press has to take its share of the blame,.... which is, unfortunately, the lion's share. The purpose of a "free press" is to defend honesty, itself in public affairs,... and they deliberately chose not to do this. Corporate media, indeed.

[katty]

3. absolutely-and they know it, no matter how much they protest

[Up2Late]

4. Sorry, but this guy and this article Sucks.

WHERE is the criticism of FOX "news"?

Where is the criticism of The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page?

Where is the Criticism of The Daily Standard?

Sorry, when I see a "reporter" or pendent criticizing The New York Times, NBC, CBS, etc. and leaving out the criticism of the TRUE Mediawhores, I get suspicious of that "reporters" motives and loyalties, and clicking on his link at Alternet (which I do like) you get more of the same: <http://www.alternet.org/authors/6261/>

Looks like this guy's on the RW media payroll to me, but that's just my opinion, for what it's worth.