Monday, April 05, 2004
Associated Putz: AP Blows It
Instapundit has one for the ages from the Associated Press.
Headline: Bush Loyalists Pack Press Office
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Inside the marble-floored palace hall that serves as the press office of the U.S.-led coalition, Republican Party operatives lead a team of Americans who promote mostly good news about Iraq
[Ed. note: I swear to God this is NOT a parody from The Onion.]
One-third of the U.S. civilian workers in the press office have GOP ties, running an enterprise that critics see as an outpost of Bush's re-election effort with Iraq a top concern.
[Ed. note: Hmmm. Almost one third of Americans reliably vote Republican themselves. So the Baghdad press office actually votes like America. The reporter may be onto something else here: executive branch government spokespersons often try to paint news in a positive light. Wow, now there's a scoop! (Not!!!!!!!)]
One of the main goals of the Office of Strategic Communications — known as stratcom — is to ensure Americans see the positive side of the Bush administration's invasion, occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, where 600 U.S. soldiers have died and a deadly insurgency thrives.
[Ed. note: This guy does a great job so far in firmly grasping the obvious. Let's see how sceptical he really is.]
Putting a sharp strategist like him in the press room is a campaign masterstroke, said Bob Boorstin of the Center for American Progress, a nonpartisan political think-tank in Washington.
Hmmm. Yellow flag. I never trust anyone who tells me a political think-tank is 'nonpartisans.' Non-partisan people don't bother starting up political think tanks.
You know they're in trouble if they shipped Rich Galen over there," said Boorstin, who worked on four presidential campaigns, all Democratic.
[Ed. note: This is good reporting, as far as it goes, and Krane does a good job establishing Boorstin's credibility, as far as it goes. It doesn't demolish Boorstin's credibility at all, but it does give the reader a chance to assess Boorstin's motive for themselves--an important and commendable nod toward transparency in reporting, which is to be applauded.]
There's some deep questions about whether (the U.S. invasion) was a good idea. Wherever and whenever they can, Bush's political people are manipulating whatever they can," he said.
[Ed. note: Nice little jab. But you can't fault it, because it's obviously absolutely true.]
"Is that a surprise? No. Would Democrats do it? Yes. But it's particularly noxious because people's lives are on the line."
Link.
Well, let's put aside the obvious idea that the Democrats would--and have--manipulate news coverage as much as they could when lives are on the line, too. I can tell you that my own informal sense is that soldiers were not particularly put off by the idea that the Baghdad press office is wanting to guide reporters to cover positive aspects of the Iraq reconstruction. They boys already know what this reporter apparently doesn't: that an attempt at positive spin by Administration spokespersons is part of the game.
See, our soldiers are every bit as smart as--and in many cases, better educated than--journalists of comparable age and experience levels assigned to cover them. I know this is a hard idea for a lot of journo-types to swallow, because so many of them have grown up steeped in condescension towards us working class rubes who were somehow "seduced by the siren song of Jingoism."
No. What the soldiers found particularly noxious was the lack of interest in the positive accomplishments--the rebuilding of schools, the rebuilding of a banking system, the training of Iraqi law enforcement personnel, the capturing or killing of mid-level insurgents.
But let's get to the root of the matter, here. The AP reporter characterizes the Center for American Progress as "nonpartisan."
Now, any time a reporter characterizes a think tank as nonpartisan, it makes me instinctively want to reach for my pistol. But that, in the long run, is counterproductive. So instead, let's visit the CAP's "non-partisan" website and investigate the claim ourselves.
Without even scrolling down, I can see the following links:
"Bush Record Still Worst Since Hoover"
"Economic Policies Have Failed Workers"
"WH [White House] And West Virginia: A Legacy of Leaving Families and Workers Behind."
"Flip-Flopper In Chief: Bush Record Shows Different Stands on Important Issues."
"Inequality In America"
"Caught on Tape: Powell Has No Answer to CAP's Question"
"First Chapters Library: Preview the Latest Progressive Books"
But wait: there's more. Had the AP reporter bothered to look beyond his rolodex, he would have found that the Center for American Progress is headed by its founder, John Podesta--as in the former Chief of Staff to the Clinton White House and long-time Democratic Party advisor John Podesta.
And Podesta himself wouldn't even tell you the Center for American Progress is "nonpartisan."
Rather, he's quoted as saying he wants American Progress to lay the philosophical groundwork "for an enduring progressive majority."
Now, Podesta's a good guy. But to characterize either Podesta or American Progress as "non-partisan" demonstrates, at best, an embarrassing credulity on the part of Kane and his Associated Press editors.
Splash, out
Jason
Headline: Bush Loyalists Pack Press Office
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Inside the marble-floored palace hall that serves as the press office of the U.S.-led coalition, Republican Party operatives lead a team of Americans who promote mostly good news about Iraq
[Ed. note: I swear to God this is NOT a parody from The Onion.]
One-third of the U.S. civilian workers in the press office have GOP ties, running an enterprise that critics see as an outpost of Bush's re-election effort with Iraq a top concern.
[Ed. note: Hmmm. Almost one third of Americans reliably vote Republican themselves. So the Baghdad press office actually votes like America. The reporter may be onto something else here: executive branch government spokespersons often try to paint news in a positive light. Wow, now there's a scoop! (Not!!!!!!!)]
One of the main goals of the Office of Strategic Communications — known as stratcom — is to ensure Americans see the positive side of the Bush administration's invasion, occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, where 600 U.S. soldiers have died and a deadly insurgency thrives.
[Ed. note: This guy does a great job so far in firmly grasping the obvious. Let's see how sceptical he really is.]
Putting a sharp strategist like him in the press room is a campaign masterstroke, said Bob Boorstin of the Center for American Progress, a nonpartisan political think-tank in Washington.
Hmmm. Yellow flag. I never trust anyone who tells me a political think-tank is 'nonpartisans.' Non-partisan people don't bother starting up political think tanks.
You know they're in trouble if they shipped Rich Galen over there," said Boorstin, who worked on four presidential campaigns, all Democratic.
[Ed. note: This is good reporting, as far as it goes, and Krane does a good job establishing Boorstin's credibility, as far as it goes. It doesn't demolish Boorstin's credibility at all, but it does give the reader a chance to assess Boorstin's motive for themselves--an important and commendable nod toward transparency in reporting, which is to be applauded.]
There's some deep questions about whether (the U.S. invasion) was a good idea. Wherever and whenever they can, Bush's political people are manipulating whatever they can," he said.
[Ed. note: Nice little jab. But you can't fault it, because it's obviously absolutely true.]
"Is that a surprise? No. Would Democrats do it? Yes. But it's particularly noxious because people's lives are on the line."
Link.
Well, let's put aside the obvious idea that the Democrats would--and have--manipulate news coverage as much as they could when lives are on the line, too. I can tell you that my own informal sense is that soldiers were not particularly put off by the idea that the Baghdad press office is wanting to guide reporters to cover positive aspects of the Iraq reconstruction. They boys already know what this reporter apparently doesn't: that an attempt at positive spin by Administration spokespersons is part of the game.
See, our soldiers are every bit as smart as--and in many cases, better educated than--journalists of comparable age and experience levels assigned to cover them. I know this is a hard idea for a lot of journo-types to swallow, because so many of them have grown up steeped in condescension towards us working class rubes who were somehow "seduced by the siren song of Jingoism."
No. What the soldiers found particularly noxious was the lack of interest in the positive accomplishments--the rebuilding of schools, the rebuilding of a banking system, the training of Iraqi law enforcement personnel, the capturing or killing of mid-level insurgents.
But let's get to the root of the matter, here. The AP reporter characterizes the Center for American Progress as "nonpartisan."
Now, any time a reporter characterizes a think tank as nonpartisan, it makes me instinctively want to reach for my pistol. But that, in the long run, is counterproductive. So instead, let's visit the CAP's "non-partisan" website and investigate the claim ourselves.
Without even scrolling down, I can see the following links:
"Bush Record Still Worst Since Hoover"
"Economic Policies Have Failed Workers"
"WH [White House] And West Virginia: A Legacy of Leaving Families and Workers Behind."
"Flip-Flopper In Chief: Bush Record Shows Different Stands on Important Issues."
"Inequality In America"
"Caught on Tape: Powell Has No Answer to CAP's Question"
"First Chapters Library: Preview the Latest Progressive Books"
But wait: there's more. Had the AP reporter bothered to look beyond his rolodex, he would have found that the Center for American Progress is headed by its founder, John Podesta--as in the former Chief of Staff to the Clinton White House and long-time Democratic Party advisor John Podesta.
And Podesta himself wouldn't even tell you the Center for American Progress is "nonpartisan."
Rather, he's quoted as saying he wants American Progress to lay the philosophical groundwork "for an enduring progressive majority."
Now, Podesta's a good guy. But to characterize either Podesta or American Progress as "non-partisan" demonstrates, at best, an embarrassing credulity on the part of Kane and his Associated Press editors.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Post a Comment
