Dan Froomkin says I would have a *much* better opinion of the White House press corps if I confined myself to reading his column and the articles he recommends:
Zachary Roth asks Dan Froomkin a question:
CJR Campaign Desk: Archives: Zachary Roth: How would you assess the job the press has done covering the campaign so far, and covering the White House under Bush? What would you like to see more, or less, of?
Posted by DeLong at August 6, 2004 08:21 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postDan Froomkin: I think the Washington Post White House correspondents are terrific. Generally speaking, though, I'd like to see a lot less stenography and lot more research. There's context here, people.
In the blogosphere, you hear it over and over again: Don't just do he said/she said. I agree completely.
But I also want to share a fascinating discovery that I've made: If you read a lot of White House coverage daily, which is what I do, you always find some reportage somewhere that's insightful, that's perceptive, that's penetrating, that's eagle-eyed. My column includes the best of the day's coverage, and that, day in and day out, is not at all bad.
I have to say, Froomkin is at least partly right. That column is basically a blog by another name.
I read ABC News' The Note for mostly the same reason. It points me towards stories in the major media I wouldn't find otherwise. Not necessarily in the NYT or the Post, but in the "beyond the Beltway" papers.
Posted by: Linkmeister on August 6, 2004 11:17 PMUmm, can I second Bob Somerby here from the Daily Howler and note what a steaming mountain of horse manure Mr. Froomkin invites us to play in? We already have more stenography than anything else. Real Questions are relegated to an after thought. We have 'reporters' who, don't, or worse can't and won't simply report on the news. These same stellar millionaires just make 'stuff up with amazing and alarming regularity. When they are not making it up from whole cloth, or ignoring the real news of the day, they are swallowing RNC/WH spin wholesale and repeating it back to us ad nauseum.
I've been listening to the news for a very long time. It's not just that standards have slipped since 'Huntley-Brinkey' or even Uncle Walter over at CBS. It's just that w/o commercials Huntley-Brinkley did more and better in 15 min, than you are liable to get in viewing ALL the network news ALL day presently. Why is that? They had no real production values, sets that were borrowed living rooms or assignment desks. Film that took a day or so to show up. B/W TV Sets predominated.
So why was it that nearly everyone listened, and you KNEW the important news of the day when they finished? Who are these poseurs who have taken over OUR media? Why are they hell bent on Missinforming the public with such gleeful regularity that it seems for all the world like a black propaganda operation only Orwell or Stalin could recognize?
Why not finally deregulate the media so anyone, really--ANYONE can start up as a broadcaster? At least the public interest would be better served. If we are unconcerned about the public interest, let's stop pretending to serve it (and doing Poorly by that pledge Mr. Koppel) and sell it to the highest bidder, winner take all? (But only by region, probably). Why not go back to the 1920's when anyone with a bundle of tubes and a phonograph could start and maintain a low power radio station? Let a 1000 stations bloom. Let a 1000 bloggers serve as the conscience and watch dogs of the press. Goodness knows NO ONE else is doing this effectively full time.
Failing this, I move that we put all media ownership and management at the tender mercies of politburo of Ann Coulter, Moore, Somerby, Blumenthal, & Malloy. I'll be accepting more applications soon...
Posted by: VJ on August 7, 2004 12:40 AMFroomkin does a good job of picking articles
and items. Collage is an art form.
Considering that he works for an organization
that whats to appeal to conservatives as well
as Dems, he does a good job. He often quotes
from opposing points of view on aWol. Now, if
he could just find a quote summarizing the complexity of those three votes on the $87
billion for Iraq...
Whitewash. Until the reporters revolt and simply start asking questions not submitted in advance and therefore putting Bush on the spot and McCleland on the spot (and getting their honest answers (none since they have no policy other than tax cutting cures all ills and no-bid guaranteed contracts for friends is good politics)), then I agree with Safire that the White House press has been tamed and turned into lap dogs by this Administration. Hats off to them for the accomphishment, but huge, repeated kicks in the butt to the press for allowing to happen to them.
Posted by: Cal on August 7, 2004 08:00 AMWhitewash. Until the reporters revolt and simply start asking questions not submitted in advance and therefore putting Bush on the spot and McCleland on the spot (and getting their honest answers (none since they have no policy other than tax cutting cures all ills and no-bid guaranteed contracts for friends is good politics)), then I agree with Safire that the White House press has been tamed and turned into lap dogs by this Administration. Hats off to them for the accomphishment, but huge, repeated kicks in the butt to the press for allowing to happen to them.
Posted by: Cal on August 7, 2004 08:01 AM"If you read a lot of White House coverage daily, which is what I do, you always find some reportage somewhere that's insightful, that's perceptive, that's penetrating, that's eagle-eyed."
Yes, and if you read a lot of economists making economic projections you can always find one who turns out to be right.
I'm concerned that in both cases, if you have what it takes to tell ahead of time which one to pay attention to you can probably do without any of them.