Press Nullification

I was toying with the idea of spending more than 17 minutes composing blog posts today in favor of a magnum opus on how Scott McClellan's tenure as White House press secretary represents a significant shift in the way that job has functioned in the past. (In short, McClellan acted more as a hostile witness than press secretary.) Alas, Jay Rosen has already done the heavy-lifting on this. You should read his whole post, but here's a bit of it to whet your appetite:

McClellan’s specialty was non-communication; what’s remarkable about him as a choice for press secretary is that he had no special talent for explaining Bush’s policies to the world. In fact, he usually made things less clear by talking about them. We have to assume that this is the way the President wanted it; and if we do assume that it forces us to ask: why use a bad explainer and a rotten communicator as your spokesman before the entire world? Isn’t that just dumb— and bad politics? Wouldn’t it be suicidal in a media-driven age with its 24-hour news cycle?

You would think so, but if the goal is to skate through unquestioned—because the gaps in your explanations are so large to start with—then to refuse to explain is a demonstration of raw presidential power. (As in “never apologize, never explain.”) So this is another reason McClellan was there. Not to be persuasive, but to refute the assumption that there was anyone the White House needed or wanted to persuade— least of all the press! Politics demands assent, on one hand, and attack on the other. (And those are your choices with Bush and Rove: assent or be attacked.) The very notion of persuasion conceded more to democratic politics than the Bush forces wanted to concede.

Let me also call your attention to one of the comments on Rosen's post (which I agree with, to a minor extent):

This is an excellent analysis of the deliberate demotion of the press by this administration.

The one thing it leaves out is the press' complicity in it. The White House could not practice "press nullification" by itself. It requires the press to participate. And the press does so willingly. They are more concerned with access and appearances than with news.

The media is not a victim in this. It is a partner.

In both the left and rightosphere, folks have the nasty habit of painting all press with the same broad brush. While the recent unprofessionalism of a few national media organizations and marquee reporters doesn't forward my argument, I believe many journalists working in mainstream media are doing an adequate job. Some of them are doing an excellent job. Some of them have lost their lives trying to do an excellent job. 

Comments

[wet pants]

I kind of liked the one that Michael Wolff of Vanity Fair did. He kind of kicked Snotty to the curb.

Here.

As far as the press being partly to blame, I'd ask which press-persons? Very correct that some do a great job, some a less than great job. But then, you take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the Facts of Life™

[greensmile]

Brad DeLong had a post and the commenters added considerably to it making much the same point: the MSM are craven suck-ups when it comes to getting invitations. Jack Anderson would be ashamed.

Mouthpieces have short shelf lives in any administration...may be more to do with people and papers tuning out the spin and forcing a change-up in the pitching.

Scotty's departure changes little as all have noted. What I want to see is the departure of the Bush's worst advisor.

[BroD]

McClellan was W's middle finger.