I Don't Like You Either.

Quote O' the Day 2 for 26 April 2007. Bill Moyers on The Press as Enabler.

I haven't seen it yet, but I have seen the Washington Post article by Tom Shales.   "Moyers and producer Kathleen Hughes use alarming evidence and an array of respected journalists to make the case that, in the rage that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the media abandoned their role as watchdog and became a lapdog instead." 

Gee, you think?  I posted this note---Read all about it!  "Amazing"  "Revelations"- way back in 2005, when the mainstream press suddenly "discovered" all the things about the Bush Administration that the fearless warriors of Salon and the Huffington Post, and a few (a very few) real journalists from the mainstream press had been telling the doubters and skeptics among the population ALL ALONG. 

You know, you get the feeling sometimes that the mainstream press really IS just beginning to work this out.

[quote begins from Shales, The Washington Post, A Media Role in Selling the War?  No Question]
The show asks: Did the Bush administration benefit from having an effective collection of accomplished dupers -- a contingent that Washington Post investigative reporter Walter Pincus calls "the marketing group" -- or did the outrage of 9/11 made the press more vulnerable to being duped?

Pressures subtle and blatant were brought to bear. Phil Donahue's nightly MSNBC talk show was virtually the only program of its type that gave antiwar voices a chance to be heard. Donahue was canceled 22 days before the invasion of Iraq, Moyers says. The reason was supposedly low ratings, but the New York Times intercepted an in-house memo in which a network executive complained: "Donahue represents a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war. At the same time, our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."

Dissent was deemed not only unpatriotic, Donahue recalls, but -- perhaps even worse -- "not good for business." Most of Moyers's report involves serious, respected journalists who let themselves be swept up in war fever and who were manipulated by the administration sources who had cozied up to them. Instead of investigating administration claims about al-Qaeda and WMDs and such, cable news offered up hours and hours of talking-head television.

[quote ends]

You know, turning the news into a money-making venture for big corporations really hasn't worked out too well for either journalists or the public.  I wonder if anything now will change.  I'm not sure it has.  There's not any great courage required to attack the president at this point. 

And if you think about it, we really should NOT have been overflowing with gratitude toward people who were "bold" enough to criticize the Administration during Katrina.  Isn't that what they're for?

Commentary from "Eat the Press" at The Huffington Post is here.

Hey, The Man Can do a KICK-ASS impression of Nixon. Some Comments on the White House Correspondents' Dinner and Rich Little's "Way-Back Machine" (plus Illustrative links!).

I remember Rich Little, yes I do.  From way, way back.  He used to impersonate Nixon, annoying my father.  He could make his jowls wobble when he did it, too.  When I was a little girl, the man was cutting-edge.  And this is why the comments on the White House Press Corps Dinner fascinate me.

As all the world knows, last years' dinner was a debacle because Stephen Colbert was very, very rude to the entire assembled press and to the President, offending everyone.  So this year, nobody was taking any chances, I guess.  Hey---as my dad used to say---you pays your money and you takes your choice.   Which kind of sums up what happened here:  a completely different kind of debacle.

Here's a pre-dinner note by Jim Rutenberg.

[quote begins from Jim Rutenberg, The New York Times, No Offense Intended With This Year’s Choice of Entertainer, but Still an Outcry.

In hiring an impersonator practiced in an old-school approach to comedy, meant to entertain but not offend, the White House Correspondents’ Association has, however, provoked left-leaning political activists, who see his assignment as a retreat from last year’s dinner. Then, the television satirist Stephen Colbert delivered a stinging roast of President Bush and, to a lesser extent, the White House press corps.

Mr. Little has said he would deliver no such performance this year. And his selection has become something of a symbol in the liberal blogosphere for what its members consider the proclivity of Washington reporters to give Mr. Bush and his administration a pass.

“It represents that the White House press corps is more interested in playing friendly and cozying up to the Bush administration than it is in providing the sort of oversight that a free press should provide in a democracy,” said Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder of the Daily Kos. “They shouldn’t be yukking it up together as if they’re pals and friends, and that’s why we’ve had so much terrible coverage.”

[quote ends; links in original

Here's a post-dinner assessment by David Carr.

[ quote begins from Carr, New York Times, Carson-Era  Humor, Post-Colbert]

Two Stupid GOP Arguments and How they Backfired.

NERVOUS IN THE [GOP'S] SERVICE. Hmmm-hmmm-HMMM!  So.  After the Republicans successfully blocked debate on the Warner-Levin resolution (opposing the "surge," so-called) because the Democrats wouldn't agree to the party's procedural plans, some Republicans---including Warner (who voted against his own resolution--- have attempted to explain their continuing commitment to "advocate the concepts of the resolution."  It wasn't that they opposed the resolution; it's just that the Democrats are big meanies who wouldn't play nice (by agreeing to GOP procedural demands). 

[quote begins from WashingtonPost.com, "7 Senators Back War Debate," by Shailagh Murray]

In a letter distributed yesterday evening to Senate leaders, John W. Warner (Va.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and five other GOP supporters of the resolution threatened to attach their measure to any bill sent to the floor in the coming weeks. Noting that the war is the "most pressing issue of our time," the senators declared: "We will explore all of our options under the Senate procedures and practices to ensure a full and open debate."...

The letter began circulating yesterday evening after it became apparent the Senate was deadlocked over the war resolution and Reid was prepared to move on to other matters. McConnell [Senate Minority Leader] and many in his party have aggressively defended their decision to block the bipartisan resolution as an issue of fairness because Democrats would not agree to GOP procedural demands.

But some Republicans were uneasy about appearing to have stymied the debate....

"Monday's procedural vote should not be interpreted as any lessening of our resolve to go forward advocating the concepts" of the resolution, the letter said. "The current stalemate is unacceptable to us and to the people of this country."...

"The Senate should be allowed to work its will on our resolution as well as the concepts being brought forward by other senators," the letter stated.

The other Republican senators who signed the letter were Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Norm Coleman (Minn.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), and George V. Voinovich (Ohio).

[quote ends; links in original]

[quote ends]

You can see why they'd want to get this letter out ASAP; otherwise, it might appear that their party interests have overridden what most voters would view as the national interest. 

The Dems have been dismissive.  [quote from previously linked article begins:]   "Democrats brushed off the Republicans' declaration as too little, too late. Reid spokesman Jim Manley said in a statement: "Senator Reid gave Senator Warner and the others a chance to vote for their own resolution on Monday, but only two of them chose to do so. Hopefully this letter signifies that the others have had a change of heart, and will be willing to vote for their own resolution in the future."[quote ends]

To both parties:  Stop quarreling and jostling for credit, or whatever the hell it is you want, and get the job done. Jesus.

IT WAS ALWAYS A STUPID ARGUMENT. Cause for rejoicing: the stupid platitude that debating the war will "undermine" the troops finally got cut off at the knees by someone from the Pentagon.  That one's been shoved in our faces since the war began and I've been wondering when---or if-----someone with street cred would finally point out that it's contrary to the principles that the war was (allegedly) mounted to further/protect.

[quote begins from WashingtonPost.com, "7 Senators Back War Debate," by Shailagh Murray]

A top Pentagon leader weighed in yesterday on the war debate and appeared to undercut the argument advanced by the White House and many GOP lawmakers that a congressional debate challenging the Bush plan would hurt troop morale.

"There's no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period," Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the House Armed Services Committee. He added that potential enemies may take some comfort from the rancor but said they "don't have a clue how democracy works."

[quote ends]

Can I hear you say, "Amen!"?