
Released yesterday, additional excerpts of the former press-secretary’s forthcoming book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception (which is already #1 at Amazon) continue to elicit commentary all over the map, from former Scott McClellan haters on the left who have predictably embraced his “tell-all” as if it were the gospel truth, to righties who never were that fond of him anyway suggesting that McClellan was a wuss for sticking around the WH even after he supposedly started to believe they were feeding him lines. Commenters to this blog have been weighing in on this story here. I’m a little late writing about it, so here goes.
Defensive reporters, bristling at McClellan’s suggestion in his book that the WH press corp were “too soft” on the president prior to the start of the Iraq war, are hitting back:
An unscientific sampling of Washington journalists expressed puzzlement about McClellan’s criticism — or dissed it as downright hooey.
“It’s a stunning and unsupportable statement,” pronounced Mark Knoller, CBS Radio correspondent. “Transcripts of McClellan’s press briefings provide more than ample evidence of the intense scrutiny imposed on the White House and its policies by members of the press. Most days, McClellan left the briefing room lectern positively spent by the pounding he faced from reporters.”
ABC’s Ann Compton was perplexed: “Is Scott suggesting the White House press corps can stop, or start wars?”
David Gregory, NBC News’ chief White House correspondent, opined: “I think he’s wrong.” He added: “I think we pushed, I think we prodded. …The right questions were asked.”
While on the other hand, one CNN correspondent has weighed in and accused one of her former networks, MSNBC, of pushing its reports to (cough) portray Bush in a flattering light in the run-up to the Iraq war:
“The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president’s high approval ratings,” Yellin said.
“And my own experience at the White House was that the higher the president’s approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives — and I was not at this network at the time — but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president, I think over time….”
But then a shocked Cooper jumped in, asking, “You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?”
“Not in that exact…. They wouldn’t say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces,” Yellin said. “They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical, and try to put on pieces that were more positive. Yes, that was my experience.”
Methinks Ms. Yellin is so not gellin’.
What we can take from this whole drama? 1) Scott McClellan is not only a shameless opportunist in the middle of an election year whose book is of questionable veracity, but also a flaming hypocrite, unless he was lying back in 2004 with his criticisms of tell-alls coming from former administration officials, and 2) the mainstream media continues to agonize over whether or not it was “responsible” for the start of the Iraq war, showing once again their extreme arrogance in thinking that if only they had “pushed harder” and “asked more pointed questions” then they could have been the “heroes” who prevented this “unnecessary war.” In fact, some of the same accusatorial questions they dogged the Bush administration with in the run up to the Iraq war were some of the questions they should have been directing towards the Iraqi regime – when they weren’t too busy coddling its now-dead leader.
Ironically, the only “influencing” that took place in the months – and, in fact, years before – the Iraq war happened at the hands of Yellin’s current network, CNN, whose former chief news executive admitted shortly after the war started how his network ignored the Iraqi regime’s rampant attrocities in order for the network to be allowed to keep its Baghdad bureau operational. In other words, CNN intentionally misled its viewers and allowed torture and murder to continue at the hands of a brutal dictator for business purposes. Jordan resigned a little less than two years later after baseless accusations he made suggesting that US troops were deliberately targeting the news media.
Even though in reality the mainstream media had no say so in influencing the president’s decision on whether or not to go to war, as I noted earlier they are still at war amongst themselves over whether or not they are guility of “not stopping the war,” with most of them trying to “make up” for their pre-war “mistakes” by focusing all their attention on negative news coming out of Iraq (which literally hurts our troops), while ignoring the positive (h/t: ST reader NC Cop).
Oh, and with all the media salivation surrounding McClellan’s book, you might think that they always viewed tell-all books from former administration officials past and present favorably. In reality, they haven’t – it just depends on the administration in question, you see.
Related: Rich Noyes at Newsbusters writes about “What Happens When the Ex-Press Secretary [Ari Fleischer] Doesn’t Trash His Boss.”
Update 1: While we’re on the topic of former press secretaries, please keep Tony Snow, who has cancer, in your thoughts and prayers. He had to cancel a speech tonight at Ashland University in Ohio due to an “unspecified illness.”
Update 2 – 5:52 PM: Yellin “clarifies” her earlier remarks (via Karl at PW):
No, senior corporate leadership never asked me to take out a line in a script or re-write an anchor intro. I did not mean to leave the impression that corporate executives were interfering in my daily work; my interaction was with senior producers. What was clear to me is that many people running the broadcasts wanted coverage that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the country at the time. It was clear to me they wanted their coverage to reflect the mood of the country.
Uh huh.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
“You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?”
“Not in that exact….
It’s really amazing how this part of the conversation was missed by Glen Greenwort in his Salon piece, that assumed the answer to the question was .. yes.
Frankly, so far this McClellan “thing” seems to be incredibly thin. There is this sense in the air that he is saying .. whatever the listener wants to hear .. but so far it’s been real thin on specifics.
I mean .. the press wasn’t tough enough ? No matter whether or not they were or they weren’t .. except to say that reporters should have let their biases show even more, it goes no where.
The President was selective with the intelligence .. intelligence is aways selective else a form of “administrative autism” sets in with everything having meaning and everything having no meaning at the same time .. with no dots ever being connected.
Anyone who truely believes that the public really wanted ever last detail of information in order to make their decision in regard to the war, should ask why the same has never been done with issues like Global Warming, where Congress would have us spend even more than has been spent on the war. The ‘zzzzzz” would have been deafening. Frankly, the Global Warming discussion would be more useful .. especially at this point in time.
I get this feeling that this book won’t fill in the blanks with any meat .. so you’re left thinking .. where’s the beef ?
Woof. This is getting ugly.
The Left’s favorite whipping boy during the 1st Bush term .. James Guckert / Jeff Gannon has weighed in with this ..
- This is a “no new lies that we haven’t already been hearing from the Left for 7+ years” distraction, timed to take the heat off O!’s “Iraq trip” miseries. It isn’t working very well, judging from the fact the Obama campettes are scurrying around changing their story from hour to hour, and each release makes him look even more naive and weak.
- Now, of all things, he has a “White Preacher” that he’s having to distance himself from (He already issued a denouncement, apparently wanting damage control to kick in as soon as possible).
- The question is, how much longer can the Obamamessiah weather these daily mishaps/gaffs before buyers remorse among his supporters sets in. At some point even the true believers are going to grow weary of constantly having to defend this sort of over the top silliness.
- Hillery still lurks, and is expected to “suspend”, not end, her campaign, after the final weeks-end primaries. This so she can stop the financial bleeding, and reorganize for the floor fight she expects to wage at the convention. A mob of screaming Fembots in the auditorium, all screeching for Hillery. Add to that the possibility of a bunch of irate voters from two unhappy state caucases, worth the price of admission.
- BBH –
Sooooo David, you all still want us to believe your charges about it all being a pack of lies??? If you all would have done the proper ground work, we would have known more, but like usual, you lazy butts couldn’t find your a**es with both hands and a flashlight. – Lorica
The only person looking good in this whole silly business is Jessica Yellin.
I’m glad she’s with CNN. She’s very good, and they’ve been featuring her a lot.
As for the rest, who cares? Scott McClellan will get his 15 minutes (I’d estimate there’s about 12:07 left on the clock at this point), and the hardcover of his book will be discounted by Thanksgiving, if not Labor Day, and there will be no paperback second edition.
Raise a glass to Tony Snow and wish him well.
And now back to the NYC crane collapse.
Seeya!
It seems to me that McClellan has never understood just what a Press Secretary’s responsibilities are. Since he was never considered a senior member of the Administration he was never privy to any of the important discussions they may have had on any subject. Thus his “Tell All” tome is reduced immediately to a “Tell Little” whine.
A Press Secretary is not, as McClellan now seems to think, a fourth branch of the Federal Government – something the MSM has claimed to be theirs – but a low-level employee of the President. His job is to dissemminate whatever the Administration wants disseminated, and to answer Press questions. Had he any inkling that he was being lied to, and ignored that inkling, then he was, as he is now, a moral coward. He was a PR man, nothing more. Obviously he never quite ‘got it’ and now is trying to make some fast, unsavory money.