Bush press policy: Castrate the media

[quaoar]

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/

< snip >

The very art of “spin,” which we still talk about, is the old model speaking. The original logic of spin assumed the story the press told was a kind of base line in the public narrative. Therefore you had to win the spin by playing the game of interpreting events with journalists. Bush has challenged that assumption.

Of course Bush spin is still around— lots of it. But notice: Scott McClellan isn’t particularly good at spin or telling the President’s side of the story. That’s not the game anymore. His are the skills of non-communication; he was hired to absorb questions and let no light escape through his non-answers. Beyond that he repeats a pre-determined White House line in rote (many say robotic) fashion.

Press rollback, the policy for which McClellan signed on, means not feeding but starving the beast, downgrading journalism where possible, and reducing its effectiveness as an interlocutor with the president. This goes for Bush theory, as well as Bush practice. The president and his advisors have declared invalid the “fourth estate” and watchdog press model. (See my earlier posts here and here on it.) They have moved on, and take it for granted that adversaries will not be as bold.

The old notion (still being taught in J-school, I’m afraid) had the press permanently incorporated into the republic as one part of the system of checks and balances— not a branch of government, but a necessary, vital and legitimate part of open government and a free society. The First Amendment was interpreted as protection for that part of the system, and this is the grand thinking behind which Judy Miller has gone to jail.

[Oversea Visitor]

1. xxxxxxxx

You write what I tell you to write and not what you want to write

RIGHT

[Robbien]

2. "absorb questions and let no light escape through his non-answers"

The part I do not understand is why the supposedly elite WH correspondents let him get away with it.

[ComerPerro]

5. They don't want to make the WH "mad" and lose access

[wli]

3. I still doubt this was Bush's "administrative branch"

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

4. It seems now that Bush will take no question about Rove, for any reason

even if it's not specifically related to the investigation. Rove has become an untouchable subject. If a reporter for example asked him what Rove's current security clearance was, in its full extent, I doubt that Bush would answer. If a reporter asked Bush what Rove's security clearance was before his promotion to Deputy Chief of Staff in February, 2005, I doubt that Bush would answer. If a reporter asked Bush whether Rove's security clearance was expanded after February, 2005, I doubt Bush would answer. If a reporter asked Bush WHY he promoted Rove in February, 2005, I doubt he would answer. If a reporter asked Bush whether, in giving Rove a promotion, a full review of his past performance was made, I doubt Bush would answer. I'll be very interested to see if this stonewalling continues, as the investigation proceeds.

[Sparkly]

6. Yup, stonewalling all the way --

Not that they have anything to HIDE, of course. :eyes:

[xchrom]

7. the white house press corps has been given orders

certain questions will cut access -- period.

the conglomerate owners are on the same page as bushco.

meaning that unless it's an independant news source -- the information coming from the majors is all questionable.