home

Still More on the White House Correspondents' Dinner

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:13:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post has more on Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents Dinner, as does today's New York Times. But it's Froomkin's personal account of the dinner I found most interesting. He got to meet Karl Rove, whom he describes as "charming" and not looking very worried at all. Dan explains why it would have been inappropriate for him to ask Rove any questions about PlameGate or his last grand jury appearance. He also posits that the annual dinner is past its prime.

Indeed, if the press and this particular White House had an even moderately functional professional relationship, then a chance to build personal relationships would be a nice bonus. But it's not a functional professional relationship. From the president down to the freshest press office intern, this White House seems to delight in not answering even our most basic questions.

So the last thing in the world we need is a big party where the only appropriate mode of communication is sucking up.

As to how it should be:

Ideally, every chance we get to talk to these people, we should be pumping them for information. And ideally we would be consistent in expressing our frustration with them -- not for personal reasons, not for partisan reasons, but because they're making it nearly impossible for us to do our job, which is to inform the public on what's going on in the White House and why.

The coziness of the dinner is a perfect example of what's gone wrong with access journalism. What's in it for the readers?

For similar thoughts, see Al Eisele's HuffPo post labeling the dinner a "dinosaur."

< Duke Lacrosse DA Wins Primary Election | Experts: Texas Executed an Innocent Man >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Still More on the White House Correspondents' Dinner | 27 comments (27 topical)
    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#1)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed May 03, 2006 at 05:15:41 AM EST
    What's in it for the readers? Seriously. These days the entire media is like the debutante ball section of the Sunday paper. Self-serving news that nobody can use put out there by the elites because they're just that special and we plebes should be so lucky as to hear about their wonderful, special lives, while we toil in the fields.

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 03, 2006 at 05:31:44 AM EST
    From the post:
    then a chance to build personal relationships would be a nice bonus
    Why would this administration give a flip about building a "personal relationship?" I mean, what is there about the press hating Bush that you guys don't understand. As for Colbert, the Left thought he was funny, everyone else thought his act sucked. Either way he just poisoned the well further to feather his own nest, proving that old saying, "His taste is all in his mouth."

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 03, 2006 at 06:10:30 AM EST
    What's in it for the readers?
    In the past I really couldn't say, but your point no doubt is quite valid. On this occasion however, even if one were to sidestep the catalogue of disasters, failed policies, fiscal vandalism, corruption, total disreguard for the poor, the elderly and the sick,an illegal war and the criminal deaths of tens of thousands of innocents. Put these incidentals to one side and look to the man, Stephen Colbert. I hope you, as do I, look at Mr. Colbert's twenty minutes as a shining beacon of light in this shadowy stinking midden that is Washington. Again I hope you, as I, can comprehend the mettle of this, and here I won't call him a man, but what he truly deserves to be called, and that is American Hero. In truth I am in awe, in awe of such courage, such fortitude, and such resolution. The country, and by now, probably half the world are aware of one man's valiant stand before this despicable, and no doubt soon, extremely vindictive regime. It may not have sunk in yet to the vast majority, but those twenty minutes will become historic. In part for their content, in part that it was in front of what will turn out to be the worlds press, in part that Mr. Colbert delivered his speach not a but a few feet from the President of the United States of America, and not least for the unfliching courage of this truly remarkable man.

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#4)
    by Sailor on Wed May 03, 2006 at 06:24:40 AM EST
    the press 'hates' bush so much they sat on stories that would have helped the nation and exposed bush until after the election, in one case over a year after the election. and the bobbleheads on TV constantly swoon over bush. that liberal press crap is a ridiculous strawman.

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 03, 2006 at 07:02:31 AM EST
    The press deserves it. I don't think I have seen softer reporting in my lifetime, Jim is a tad bit older than I and I am curious as to whether or not he has seen softer coverage, perhaps JFK. Advertising dollars have been driving news coverage into the ground and if we ever see the likes of a Murrow again it would be a very welcome sight......

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 03, 2006 at 07:11:29 AM EST
    Used to be that people in Washington from all parties, Congress & press socialized because they were co-workers, involved in the same processes, same work -- some people made legislation, others reported on it....now I guess the Republican agenda that labels one a traitor if one disagrees with a spoition makes that impossible. See also Mary McCarthy's last book Washington

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#7)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:25:34 AM EST
    As for Colbert, the Left thought he was funny, everyone else thought his act sucked.
    Yeah, yeah, I've seen this spin all over the right-wing blogs. Evidently, you guys think Colbert was trying to do the Jay Leno haha-blowjob routine and screwed it up with a bunch of bad punchlines about torture. Talk about missing the forest.

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#8)
    by Repack Rider on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:32:20 AM EST
    As for Colbert, the Left thought he was funny, everyone else thought his act sucked. Jim, do this little experiment. Use Google blog search to check the blog comments on Colbert. I won't make you do my homework for you, so you can believe me or you can check for yourself. Over 15,000 blogs commented on the event. You have to look through pages and pages of results to find ANYONE who thought it was anything but the best political humor since the death of Will Rogers. It looks to me like the positive reviews outnumber the negatives by about 100-1, but I could be off by two or three -- hundred. If you try searches for "brass cojones" or "balls of steel," you are still going to get hundreds of hits for Stephen Colbert. So the blogosphere is running 100-1 in favor, and the video set a record for downloads ON THE FIRST DAY OF AVAILABLITY, despite virtual silence on the part of the traditional media. But those are mere FACTS, Jim, which have a well known liberal bias. Please tell us how you came to the conclusion that "everyone else" thought it sucked, and how badly you think "everyone else" is outnumbered by those who enjoyed it.

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:01:19 AM EST
    Why is it PPJ's fault or the repubs fault that the press has been so awful in researching facts? If the NYT wants to pay Judy to not check any facts other than what she is receiving from her sources, whose fault is that? Bush? Cheney? Rove? MSM sold out long ago and thank goodness for blogs and alternative media, were it not for them we would still think Qaddafi was a serious threat.

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:26:10 AM EST
    Yeah, everybody but Fox News, The Washington Times, The WSJ, The Weekly Standard, Commentary, The Spectator, The National Review, Krauthammer, Coulter, Hitchens, Hanson, Fields, Thomas, Safire, O'Reilly and three hundred droning Limbaugh clones "hates Bush". Why? Because they're Bush haters who love to bash Bush. Because they're Bush haters.

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:40:30 AM EST
    "The press hates Bush" and "Mission Accomplished was refering to a successful ocean voyage" are "opinions" the same way a mental patient claiming to be Julius Caesar is an opinion; except that the first two statements were made by someone smart enough to know better and therefore amount to passive/aggressive trolls meant to elicit the dreaded "personal attack" in order to get other commentators banned.

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:16:24 AM EST
    "The press hates Bush"
    From what I read of the Us press it would make Pravda blush. and "Mission Accomplished was refering to a successful ocean voyage"
    I love it, priceless!

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:25:07 AM EST
    Individual press people...writers, photographers, etc....they probably overwhelmingly dislike Bush, as these are traditional liberal professions. But their corporate bosses love the guy...and they decide what to print and cover.

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 03, 2006 at 11:13:24 AM EST
    Jondee - The individuals you noted are columnists, not reporters. They do opinion pieces/broadcasts. You really need to understand the difference between "opinion" and "reporting news." i.e. The Fitzgerald quote I gave in a recent thread was a fact. Hitchens wrote an opnion article that used the quote. That doesn't mean the quote becomes "opinion." And yes, the WT and the WSJ have a conservative editorial page. That is opinion again. The NY Times, the Chicago Trib, The WaPost, the LA Times, and many, many others, have a left leaning editorial page. That is opinion again. How they present the news on the supposed unbiased news pages is another story. The Right is convinced that the news is slanted against the country. The Left is convinced otherwise. I can, and have, provided many examples of media bias, but that is neither here or now. The magzaines you list are also opinion vessels, as is The Nation, Time, Newsweek, etc. The three I just mentioned are about as biased as you can get, so I think we can just say both sides have their mouth pieces. My comment here was, I thought, straightforward. The bias against the Bush administration is so clear that no one can miss it, and I wonder why Bush just doesn't ignore the press. Their reaction to him is, and will be, terrible, so why bother trying to be "buds?" I'd just tell'em to pis* off and pick up 7 or 8 points on the old approval poll. Colbert's attempt at humor has been roundly cheered by the Bush haters and booed by everyone else. Call me old fashion but I don't making 70% of your potential audience disgusted and angry is smart, or necessary. And since the venue has historically been neutral, Colbert's actions were in poor taste, and crossed the line. Kind of like making fun of a family member during Christmas dinner..(Sorry, make that Happy Hollidays Dinner.) You might note that the Dixie Chicks, for example, aren't starving, but their career has not exactly been progressing nicely. Mahr is another example.. from network to cable in one easy ego trip. But such actions have become typical of the Left, while cringing and crying when someone, like Cheney, uses the big FU words on one of them. BTW - I loved your complaint about my little attempt at education on the meaning of the phrase, "mission accomplished." As to why you would even disagree with me when I say the press hates Bush I do not know.

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 03, 2006 at 11:22:13 AM EST
    scar - There is a time and place for everything. Somehow I do not think that those who put the event together, considered Colbert's remarks suitable. He could go on Air America, for example, and no one would have blinked an eye. That I am having to explain the relationship between acceptable and unacceptable actions in relationship to an event says more about the collapse of manners in the US than I would have ever believed five years ago. And that you seem to find it acceptable doesn't surprise me. I am reminded of the old "be careful what you ask for, you might get it." You did and you did. You should also remember that "success is getting what you want, happiness is wanting what you get."

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Wed May 03, 2006 at 11:38:41 AM EST
    The bias against the Bush administration is so clear that no one can miss it, and I wonder why Bush just doesn't ignore the press.
    Gee wiz ppj, then how come the biased MSM is silent on Colbert. Reading your regurgitation of Fox and Powerline one would think the grand conspiracy of biased MSM would jump on Colbert's bandwagon. Could it be that he caught out your lie, dished it up front and center for all to see? At best the press is so afraid of being accused of having a liberal bais they constantly fail to report news critical of this administration. At worst the MSM is pandering to its corporate paymasters by providing entertainment instead of news. If there was a bias against Bush all the MSM would be up in arms defending the fact that they are doing their job. But no we have silence. America does not like to be woken up from dreams of freedom, and a free press.
    But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!
    yes, ppj, reality does have a "well-known liberal bias."

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Wed May 03, 2006 at 11:41:20 AM EST
    torture OK, check, Lying about WMDs OK, check. murdering iraqi civilians OK, check. Making fun of the pres at an event that always roasts the pres and where he makes fun of himself, well that's just plain wrong.
    The Right is convinced that the news is slanted against the country.
    More evidence that the rw and reality have a complete disconnect. If it had been 'against the right', I might maybe could have seen that POV, but against the country!? Sheesh, what a bunch of bedwetters.

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Wed May 03, 2006 at 11:51:01 AM EST
    He equates The Nation, Time and Newsweek. What more needs to be said? It would be hilarious if it wasnt so pathetic.

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 03, 2006 at 11:53:10 AM EST
    TL: Are you sure Al Eisele wrote that piece? Or did Huffington write the piece and attribute it to him? These questions have to be asked now.

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Wed May 03, 2006 at 11:57:28 AM EST
    ppj - Look, who do you think you're kidding? You've already pretty much outed yourself as being a member of the we're at war and any criticism of the administration weakens its credibility which emboldens the enemy camp; in other words, dictatorship and propaganda masquerading as news as long as "we're at war." Which also explains why your avowed "social liberalism" is as substantial as a wet paper towel in the face of the most socially illiberal administration in the last fifty years.

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#22)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed May 03, 2006 at 12:00:15 PM EST
    That I am having to explain the relationship between acceptable and unacceptable actions in relationship to an event says more about the collapse of manners in the US than I would have ever believed five years ago.
    Oh, manners. With apologies to Tbogg, alright, Letitia Baldrige. Yes, Stephen was very mean and rude and probably made Bush cry on the inside. That was the point. He gave up his right to unquestioning deference a long time ago.

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 04, 2006 at 07:45:06 AM EST
    Squeaky - That the MSM hasn't said anything proves either that they have enough good taste and common sense to be embarassed or that they agree. My guess is the latter. scar - I understand what he wanted to do. The issue is the time and place. And there is no "right" involved. Just the lack of good taste by the attacker. Jondee writes:
    Which also explains why your avowed "social liberalism" is as substantial as a wet paper towel
    I again challenge you to show proof that I have attacked national health care, gay rights, tax reform, etc. You can't and know you can't, yet you continue to make claims. Why? Do you not recognize that making false claims hurts your very own position? Because I do believe the war is necessary, and I do believe the type of attacks leveled against the administration regarding the war does help the enemy. To a large degree I am a "Jacksonian." Especially on national defense.

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 04, 2006 at 10:00:16 AM EST
    that the MSM hasn't said anything proves either that they have enough good taste and common sense to be embarassed or that they agree. Gee, I guess MSNBC isn't MSM:Link of course, the fact that there were massive marches around the country that would swamp stories that are 'In the Beltway' by comparison for news space, paper or electronic, that isn't a sensible conclusion, no, not at all........... TTFN

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#25)
    by Sailor on Thu May 04, 2006 at 01:46:20 PM EST
    That the MSM hasn't said anything proves either that they have enough good taste and common sense to be embarassed or that they agree.
    and
    what is there about the press hating Bush that you guys don't understand.
    are oxymoronic.

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu May 04, 2006 at 01:56:58 PM EST
    "At the recent White House Correspondents Dinner, master comedian Stephen Colbert performed magnificently. With the rapier of wit and the mace of truth, he respectively skewered and censured the presidency of "dum'ass botch". And that's not all Mr Colbert accomplished. Tucked away in his address to the dinner's flabbergasted attendees, like a ticking time bomb, there was an "easter egg", which we had absolutely . . . here "we" is a polite nod . . . NO right to expect. Like the Easter Bunny in a mischievous mood, Mr Colbert camouflaged a bon mot, so profound as to approach philosophical. oh, before I reveal Mr Colbert's casual accomplishment, I should like to preface with a cave-- . . . " The above blue text, which is enclosed within quotes, can be found appended to the article, which is located on the other side of the below hyperlink. thanking you in advance for your gracious patience, toodles ...../ .he who is known as sefton http://hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com/2006/04/rehabilitation-of-and-by-and-for-right.html . . . oh, yeah, I should add that the full title for that post is "rehabilitation of and by and for the right wing" . . .

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Thu May 04, 2006 at 06:07:46 PM EST
    ppj - The "Jacksonian" that you liked to sounds like he's writing a prescription for how elites (clue: non-elites dont accumulate $200 mil war chests) can manipulate the SYMBOLS of populism in order to better appeal to the hoi polloi. Genuine populism is a matter of walking your talk, not endlessly evoking focus-group derived images and buzz-phrases about a romanticized past and tribal identity for the unwashed while at the same time continuing to make the business-as-usual paying back of The Pioneers and the continuing of the out-sourcing, down-sizing status quo the number one priorities. Also, in passing, I might add that the authors choosing to quote, of all people, an Imperial Wizard of the KKK as an authoritative source in support of his thesis, betrays a tendency to serious lapses in judgement and maybe something alot worse.

    Re: Still More on the White House Correspondents' (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Thu May 04, 2006 at 06:16:05 PM EST
    That should be: "Jacksonian that you linked to"..

    Still More on the White House Correspondents' Dinner | 27 comments (27 topical)