Until recently, Daniel Ellsburg was probably America’s best-known whistle-blower. In 1971, he made copies of classified documents showing that the Vietnam War most likely not be won, and distributed them, most notably, to the New York Times. The documents clearly showed that President Johnson had lied to the American people about the war. President Kennedy come out looking to well either.
The Nixon Administration immediately order the Times to halt publication. The Times refused. The federal government lost in court. Ellsburg faced charges under the Espionage Act of 1917. He might very well have lost, but the judge threw out the case when it became clear that the FBI had illegally wire-tapped Ellsburg and broken into his psychiatrist’s office.
Without the bravery of the New York Times, however, these facts would not have come to light. The Washington Post showed similar courage when reporting on Watergate. This doesn’t happen now. That’s what Ellsberg said in an interview with Alan Chartock on WAMC.
Ellsburg compared the actions of the New York Times then, and in 2004 when the gray lady’s Executive Editor Bill Keller sat (for an entire year) on a story about the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping. Keller finally decided to publish the story when, New York Times reporter Jame Riesen’s book on the subject was approaching publication.
The story might have changed the results of the election, and the most respected newspaper in our country chickened out. Bear in mind, this was the same newspaper that published Judith Miller’s stenography on the Iraq War.
Miller made more news when she cited reporter’s privilege rather than testify about Scooter Libby’s leak of Valerie Plame’s name. (Plame, you’ll recall was a CIA operative outed by Vice President’s office). From the incident,
Neither The Times nor its cause has emerged unbruised. Three courts, including the Supreme Court, declined to back Ms. Miller. Critics said The Times was protecting not a whistle-blower but an administration campaign intended to squelch dissent. The Times’s coverage of itself was under assault: While the editorial page had crusaded on Ms. Miller’s behalf, the news department had more than once been scooped on the paper’s own story, even including the news of Ms. Miller’s release from jail.
The most egregious failure of the Times in recent months has been its erroneous report that “A criminal investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton by the Justice Department was being sought by two federal inspectors general over her email practices while secretary of state.”
Ten days ago, Chris Cilizza wrote
It makes sense as a campaign strategy. But that doesn’t make it right. Clinton is one of two people running to be the most powerful person in the world. Part — I would argue a big part — of that job is an ability to think on your feet, to deal with questions that you didn’t expect and, more importantly, questions you don’t really want to answer. By bunkering herself away from the media, Clinton doesn’t stretch that muscle — and robs voters of a chance to see how she might think and act in a pinch in the White House.
Clinton’s willingness and ability to keep the media at arm’s length is part of a disturbing trend pursued by Democrats and Republicans alike in recent years. The rise of Flickr, YouTube channels, Twitter, Facebook and a thousand other technological innovations has made it incredibly easy for candidates to end-run the media — pushing their message undiluted to their supporters.
Although I generally respect Cilizza, I completely disagree with him here. JimC and I have butted heads on this issue, but that was during the primary, when emotions were running too high to avoid comments that would devolve into Sanders/Clinton rants. Cilizza’s comments here are part-concern troll and part-gatekeeper advocate. Or to extend Cilizza’s analogy, the media’s role is “dilution.”
I’m writing here not to argue with JimC, but to pose the question, what, if anything, do we, or for that matter, Hillary Clinton owe the media?
What does the press owe us? I would answer by saying they owe us coverage of this election that really dissects the issue positions of the candidates and the potential consequences thereof. They owe us more intelligent reporting than just what the latest poll shows. (Don’t y’all know national polls mean squat – ever heard of the Electoral College, people?!) The press failed miserably on the GOP side in any gatekeeper role they may or should have. I blame the rise of Donald Trump squarely at their feet for constantly breaking into coverage to carry him live. Not only did they not do this with other candidates, but when they did carry him live they could have redeemed themselves a bit by following it with several minutes of explaining how he’s full of it.
With television news, the Nixon Administration had no compunctions at all about using the regulatory levers of executive power to affect how it was covered. That, by the way, was how many more people, per Gallop polling, went into the 1972 election thinking that Nixon was more honest than McGovern (McGovern’s 1000% support of Eagleton, followed by ditching Eagleton didn’t help, but still). The press, afraid of the Nixon White House, balanced every story of Nixon wrongdoing with something about McGovern. This included the New York Times.
I’m not sure of the extent to which the previous Bush Administration indulged in such machinations, but, in the present day, aggrieved conservatives are completely convinced that all non-conservative media outlets are biased against them. Thus, I believe, administrative pressure has been replaced by political pressure.
What we seem to have seen is an abandonment of seeking objective truth in favor of a kind of even-handedness that provides a poor reflection when things are no longer so.
Just a couple of points.
One, to state the obvious, there’s a bias at work in this discussion. It assumes that good reporting = reporting from our point of view, so that balance would always favor us.
Second, the key principle is FREEDOM of the press. With great freedom comes great irresponsibility. Jefferson et al gave no official role to newspapers; they just assumed, correctly, that the press would be hostile to power.
Unfortunately one thing we have now, in the guise of fairness, is a kind of mutual whacking. “Oh, I just called Trump a racist … I better bring up Clinton’s e-mails again.”
Cilizza’s key point is “questions you don’t want to answer.” The press can’t play its watchdog role at events the Clinton campaign stages and issues credentials for.
What do WE owe the press? Nothing.
What do would-be presidents owe the press? Something. Semi-regular access, as much truth as possible. Because when they’re talking to the press, they’re talking to the people.
I would further argue — and I know I’m alone on this, locally — that political activists have an obligation to respect the press’s watchdog role. In other words, Clinton’s own aides should be pushing her to be more accessible, “strategy” be damned. I know this is too much to ask — but why? We’ve just accepted a compromise, and given leaders more power. That’s not democratic.
I think it would demonstrate the leadership abilities required to be a good President to answer any and all questions, no matter how hostile. Reagan took a ton of hostile questions from the press corps, particularly during Iran Contra, and it didn’t seem to affect his personal ratings (hence the “Teflon” label) nor impede his ability to get his agenda enacted. I completely disagree with the folks here who think Hillary should hide from the press. So what if they are mean? That’s part of the job description-from either end.
I think it’s good policy, as a matter of course, to allow access. Particularly when we critique other nations when their leaders are hostile to the press. Second, I think it’s smart politics. Trump has banned several major new outlets from covering his campaign and Hillary has largely shied away from the media, it’s time for her to open the doors like McCain did and let them on the bus and do bull sessions. It’ll probably led to more favorable coverage anyway, and even if it didn’t, the contrast would be between someone who respects the freedom of the press as a pillar of the American system of government and someone who doesn’t.
Freedom of the press doesn’t obligate availability. You just can’t have them arrested for covering you badly, which there is probably less chance of if you do make yourself available. The press is there to serve the public, but quite frankly they ask questions often that actually DON’T interest or enlighten the public. There are so many other means and platforms outside what is traditionally called the press that offers opportunities to communicate in both directions that the end is still accomplished. Besides, HRC has given plenty of interviews – I’ve seen them!
Fair point; I would say modern tradition comes close to obligating it.
As Cilizza notes, social media is unfiltered. Make no mistake, that is why candidates use it. They want their (pardon the expression) spin.
Part of me as a recipient of news WANTS to hear directly from the candidates rather than the filter. There almost needs to be a division of labor so that direct access gives us the candidate’s message and traditional media then come in to do the fact-checking and other analysis. I’ve even had occasion to see myself quoted and think that’s not quite what I said, or there’s context missing.
Reagan, coming from an inspiring world of American boy’s storybooks, was able to color all his and his Administration’s doings with a kind of innocent-eyed narrative of manly heroism. He was able to hold to that kind of script remarkably well because that’s how he thought.
The guy who said, “I like to harness their youthful energy with a strap,” (i.e., a beating) frequently cracked down and cracked down hard on campus radicals. The result was more and not less campus unrest. So he had a hell of a lot of practice talking to the press about failed policies as if they were laudable exploits from his days as a life guard.
Mrs. Clinton lacks this skill.
That’s a good thing, by the way.
presidents. Presidents certainly. I have a lot of ambivalence about the press. Locally, I help and cooperate with the reporters. At one meeting, I had some very choice words for some officials in another town. I mean really choice words. The reporter came up to me after. He didn’t really want to cause me a problem. I told him, I said it in an open meeting, it’s fair game.
A couple of days ago, I sent one an email telling her what a good job she did on an article. She not only reported an event, but she put it into context. I’ve done it before. I did email a local reporter about having an unattributed opinion in her lede. We had a nice exchange. Having had my own blog for a while, I certainly appreciated what journalists do.
Part of the problem, I think, is that the traditional press doesn’t really know its role. Like much of society, it was taken over by hyper-capitalism. I think it was Walter Lippmann who saw the press as essential in making news understandable for the general populace. There was a paternalism, albeit liberal in this kind of thinking, but whatever good it did has played out.
I think Cilizza’s choice of words in the following paragraph is telling:
“Pushing their message undiluted to their supporters.” Is that what the press does? Water down candidate messages? Cilizza isn’t writing a treatise here, but his choice of words suggests he really doesn’t know or want to say what exactly the media does. If he said that we need the media to protect the populace from campaigns, it would sound incredibly patronizing. So what is the role?
They would say “filter them.” Because candidates lie. As reported, HRC is the most honest candidate who ran this cycle, and she still “misspeaks” slightly less than half the time.
By the way, there are many problems with the press, but that might be worth a separate diary.
NYTimes printed Ellsberg’s leaks and Washington Post bird-dogged Watergate for months before it blew up. These days both newspapers passed on Snowden’s and Manning’s information, if memory serves, when they were approached.
I’d say the press has been doing a poor job for a long time and is no longer in the business of informing the citizenry. They sell consumers to advertisers almost exclusively, picking and choosing very carefully their minor inconvenient truths with which to confront the powerful. Don’t want to upset the bottom line.
If media want viewers/readers for advertisers it seems they could acquire them by publishing/airing this juicy content, just as long as they don’t go overboard and turn everything into a scandal.
The Washington Post consistently buried Watergate stories to back pages, so that public opinion was completely unmoved by them going into the 1972 election. Other newspapers avoided publishing on Watergate. There was a sense that this was the Post’s story. Hence the quiet from the New York Times.(Pearlstein, Invisible Bridge)
So maybe the journalists were heroic; the editors not so much.
I’ve read several books on Watergate, and I’m always amazed by how much seemed to be known about it BEFORE voters went to the polls in November of 1972, yet had no impact. That is also the ironic tragedy of Watergate – Nixon would and could have won easily WITHOUT these shenanigans.
The Committee to Re-elect the President set out to sabotage every Democratic primary campaign except McGovern’s. The Muskie campaign’s airplane ended up landing in the wrong airport, campaigns received pizzas they didn’t order, one campaign’s headquarters was plastered with stickers from a rival campaign.
Before all that, Muskie looked certain to get the nomination and go on and beat Nixon.
Until James McCord broke his silence with his letter to Judge John Sirica, the White House coverup had been successful. That event happened AFTER the 1972 election. The mainstream media ignored Watergate, and marginalized the Washington Post as a liberal left-wing rag.
The story that voters heard until early 1973 was that the Watergate was a second-rate burglary committed by a small group of Cuban misfits with no connections to anybody. The burglars were caught, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced. End of story. That’s the way all three major broadcast networks handled the story, and that’s the way most newspapers (aside from the NY Times and Washington Post) portrayed it.
I lived in Rockville, a MD suburb of Washington DC during the Watergate years (coincidentally the home of James McCord, see below). I guess I’d have to look at the actual images of the daily paper during those years to be sure. My recollection is that there was a story pretty much every day, and each generally had a front-page placement with a jump to the back, just like most of the the other stories. I therefore challenge your assertion that the Post “consistently buried Watergate stories to back pages”.
The Evening Star was the other paper in town, and was more conservative. There was less coverage there during the runup. My family also subscribed to a weekly called “The Montgomery County Sentinel”, and the Sentinel ran its own Watergate stories pretty much each week.
The party line from the White House was that the Watergate was a “second-rate burglary” with no import or connections beyond the immediate episode. Most of the press and networks ran with that, and public opinion followed.
The Watergate scandal did not actually break until well after the 1972 elections were over, when convicted Watergate burglar and ex-CIA agent James McCord wrote a 1973 letter to Judge John Sirica. It was this letter, with the following six specific statements, that blew open the Watergate scandal:
The fact that Washington Post published the reporting of Mr. Woodward and Mr. Bernstain AT ALL was an act of great courage. The unfolding of the scandal, beginning with this letter from Mr. McCord, validated virtually every piece published by the Post.
I disagree with your assertion that the editors were not heroic. I think your assertion understates the explicit threats that the Nixon administration repeatedly made against both the Washington Post and the New York Times. The Nixon tapes, now public information, confirm that these threats were real, were substantive, and were made in the context of a corrupt administration that had the means, opportunity, and will to carry them out.
Because of the pardons by Gerald Ford, history will never have a full reckoning of just how far-reaching the abuses we call “Watergate” actually were.
the specific quotations from Nixonland on which my comment was based.
Chris Cilizza is a good reporter and, I am told, a nice guy. But he is the among the worst of the worst when it comes to horserace coverage. He grades absolutely everything on those terms.
“You may not like X, but it’s good strategy” — Ugh. He drives me nuts when he does that.
own ideology, one that allows them to feel objective by reporting false equivalence and campaign horse races. Innovations are happening on some sites like Vox that are carrying over to my local newspaper like “What you need to know…” These new strategies are more valuable to readers than horse races.
I’m wondering whether some kind of subscription model is needed to support actual journalism.
The trouble is that what we’re most likely to want to pay for is journalism that reinforces our existing beliefs. This is somewhat the problem I have with Talking Points Memo whose business model likely does not give robust support to journalism that might undermine a cherished belief we liberals might hold. Unless you are want to read such evidence, you’re not really a supporter of journalism.
Without a subscription model supported by people who want real journalism, a media outlet is going either to lean toward horse race coverage of elections and the shallowest coverage of policy, or to become a confirmation bias factory. It’s either sports or Fox.
That’s just the force of the economic incentives.
The model is still used by some traditional outlets’ online platforms. What seems to have changed is the segmentation into what we want to hear.
The subscription model has not changed. What seems to have changed, however, is that a couple big journals (Washington Post, Boston Globe) were purchased by very wealthy proprietors who are more or less uninterested in the editorial direction of the newspaper. Which, in my opinion, have caused the WaPo and the Globe to move from the left to the center left.
All of a sudden, it was not anathema for the Globe editorial page to endorse a centrist Republican as Governor – to give an example.
The direction given by owners, at the end of the day, is often stronger than the spin imposed by readers. I get the same impression when I read ‘The powers that be’, the David Halberstam bioptic of the American press from Muckracker era up to the 1970s.