Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush

May 7, 2006 11:03 AM

Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for BushIn this excerpt from his book, Eric Boehlert writes about how "[c]owardly and clueless, the U.S. media abandoned its post as Bush led the country into a disastrous war. A look inside one of the great journalistic collapses of our time."
posted by shivohum (67 comments total)

Great link, thanks.
posted by kaemaril at 11:10 AM on May 7, 2006

Really? Who woulda thunk it. I, for one, am astounded.
posted by reklaw at 11:45 AM on May 7, 2006

More likely journalists could conceive it but, understanding the MSM unspoken guidelines -- both social and political -- were too timid to express it at the time of war.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair
posted by dhartung at 12:03 PM on May 7, 2006

Journalists? What journalists? The media landscape is overrun by good-looking overpaid TV personalities.
posted by disgruntled at 12:08 PM on May 7, 2006

Consider the change from the 60's to the 90's in the Playboy centerfold post. Now map that same transition onto journalists.
posted by localroger at 12:13 PM on May 7, 2006

Funny how if you pay someone enough you can make them say anything you want. I've been trying to pinpoint the exact moment when America became a country of every man for himself and I believe I can track it back to this Reagan quote:

"Are YOU better off today than YOU were four years ago"
posted by any major dude at 12:19 PM on May 7, 2006

The mainstream media were a bunch of spineless pussies long before Dubya arrived on the scene.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 12:25 PM on May 7, 2006

The portrait was so contrary to the public's previous perception of the president that it was reminiscent of the classic "Saturday Night Live" sketch that ran at the height of the Iran-Contra scandal and featured an outwardly jolly and oblivious Ronald Reagan, who in private Oval Office meetings revealed himself as a mastermind of the complicated arms-for-hostage operation, barking out orders to befuddled cabinet members.

By the way, that SNL sketch transcript is finally online. I still think it's one of the most brilliant things they've ever done.
posted by dhartung at 12:28 PM on May 7, 2006

The mainstream media were a bunch of spineless pussies long before Dubya arrived on the scene.

Yeah, look at the free pass they handed Bill Clinton. That guy got the benefit of the doubt on everything and, no matter how scandalous the accusations against him were, the press never mentioned a thing. He had them terrorized.
posted by y2karl at 12:45 PM on May 7, 2006

The interesting question is, if 9/11 had happened on Clinton's watch, would the country and media have rallied behind him to such an extreme level as they did with Bush? Granted, Bush used fear brilliantly to cow the press and the public in way that I believe Clinton would not have, but would the press' deep skepticism of Clinton have kept them clearer-eyed if he'd tried?
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:53 PM on May 7, 2006

The media went after Clinton tooth and nail when he started the War on Terror against Bin Laden (anyone remember wag the dog?) - yes the war on terror begun long before Bush came into office and called it off...
posted by any major dude at 1:00 PM on May 7, 2006

The best way to understand the American media is as a bunch of bitchy, stupid, and vapid high school popular kids.

They didn't like Clinton -- did not fit their definition of cool kid. As such, no problem playing along with right wing propagandists to make the Clinton presidency an embattled one (even though Clinton's politics were much closer to that of the average media person of any president in the last 26 years; politics is much less important than being in the clique to the media).

Bush is a classic "cool kid." As such, the media loves swallowing his spunk. They've been doing that for alpha male aristocrats like Bush their whole damn lives -- it's reflex. Bush uses this to his great advantage. Every journalist in Washington knows they swallow Republican spunk or lose all access (and thus have their career deep-sixed, in all likelihood).

Iraq war? It was very "uncool" to question that, so the thought never even occurred to them.

Reporting as a tool for a healthy democracy? Oh my god you fucking hippy dweeb, get the fuck out of here!
posted by teece at 1:21 PM on May 7, 2006

Yeah, look at the free pass they handed Bill Clinton. That guy got the benefit of the doubt on everything and, no matter how scandalous the accusations against him were, the press never mentioned a thing. He had them terrorized.
posted by y2karl at 12:45 PM PST on May 7 [!]

Yea, damn liberal press.


The interesting question is, if 9/11 had happened on Clinton's watch, would the country and media have rallied behind him to such an extreme level as they did with Bush?

Depends on the framing. There was a 'go get 'em' mentality - and it extended beyond the US borders. That 'goodwill' mostlikely have been better managed under a different leadership. Bush the Elder, Regan, Clinton I feel would have done a better job.

But you squander goodwill with the leadership you have, not the leadership you want.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:30 PM on May 7, 2006

GW benefited greatly from having this occur so early in his presidency; he was still enjoying the honeymoon when 9-11 occurred. If 9-11 had occurred during the first year of Clinton's presidency the country also would have likely rallied around him.
posted by caddis at 1:56 PM on May 7, 2006

Are they really this stupid?
posted by 2sheets at 1:57 PM on May 7, 2006

Blame for this shameful time goes to more than merely the press. The Democrats pretty uniformly backed the invasion of Iraq and few voices were heard in opposition. The press were cowards as a group, but it would have been a heroic act in that environment for any single journalist with clout to have stepped forward with a string of stories challenging the war. At best, they were able to challenge evidence of WMDs. The press let the country, and the world down, but they had a lot of help along the way.
posted by caddis at 2:07 PM on May 7, 2006

Yeah the media really was soft on Clinton.

So soft after this many years I still remember about the sperm stain, about the joint, about that stupid intern and I still don't understand who the fuck cares about a president sexual escapades ? Who the fuck cares ?
posted by elpapacito at 2:11 PM on May 7, 2006

this isn't much of a surprise.. wars are good business for the media. attacking the invasion and having it successfuly stopped: limited coverage. actual invasion: stories and coverage for years! definitely a no brainer. spineless media? i think not!
posted by canned polar bear at 2:17 PM on May 7, 2006

i think not!

Indeed you don't. Remember one thing called : boredom. Always the same shit, that's true also of wars and anything else. Ratings go down.
posted by elpapacito at 2:25 PM on May 7, 2006

Isn't it great how in a democracy national failure is always at least partially someone else's fault.
posted by srboisvert at 2:32 PM on May 7, 2006

Indeed you don't. Remember one thing called : boredom. Always the same shit, that's true also of wars and anything else. Ratings go down.

ah, so everybody is bored of the war now. sorry. didn't realise that. thanks for pointing it out. guess that's why there's absolute silence from the media on that topic. gosh. i sure look foolish.
posted by canned polar bear at 2:34 PM on May 7, 2006

Yea, damn liberal press.

Actually, one of the first things the real liberal press has to do is figure out how and why the conservative press has been able to get this to stick....
posted by namespan at 3:11 PM on May 7, 2006

Good article, thanks.

Also a great reminder of why the only section of the Times I read regularly is the Arts page.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 3:13 PM on May 7, 2006

Consolidation of most news media in the hands of relatively few companies, and replacement of remaining journalistic principles with profit-motivated policies, helped the Republican revolution happen and then served the neocons in this war project. This is no accident; it's part of an ongoing, self-reinforcing process.

Dissent remains strong on the internet, so silencing it there is the next phase. That's why we are seeing the push to abolish net neutrality. When your ISP gets to charge according to which applications and protocols you use and where your traffic comes from and goes, and it's all monitored, it will get harder and harder and more dangerous to do anything other than veg out on corporate entertainment and propaganda.
posted by jam_pony at 3:27 PM on May 7, 2006

i sure look foolish.

Yes you sometimes do, at least to me. Sorry for being somehow brutal and direct, but where did I say everybody is bored by war ? What I said is "ratings go down" because as you probably know, anything becomes boring and uninteresting if you have too much it or watch too much of it. Think about it, how many times do you hear about more soldiers being harmed or killed ? At a certain point it becomes routine, an accepted fact, relevant indeed, but the attention is quickly focused away.

BORING, even if we may find uncomfortable and feel guilty when we realize it..maybe so guilty we repress the idea.

As opposed to general population feeling bored by a topic we have those who have loved ones in a risky situation, maybe in Afghanist or Iraq or who knows where...as far as I know they are NEVER bored of hearing news about what's going on in the warzone..personally I would phone every hour, but that would be obsessive. Such people are never bored and almost never focus their attention away because of the involvment of a loved person, YET even people so much involved reach a saturation point and switch their attention to something else, probably some entertaining relaxing show.

As news media is a business (as opposed to public service TV, viva BBC, viva PBS) their interest is in obtaining as much attention as possible and war may serve this purpose for a while..even a long while...but at the end it can't but become boring and only some exceptional event gets the spotlight. That's tragic, imho, but that's the way it seems to be.
posted by elpapacito at 3:51 PM on May 7, 2006

The news media is good at doing what it needs to do, it just that we don't recognize what that is. The media is now entertainment oriented, even on the left. They want to click with consumers, whip up some excitement, and then sell them toothpaste.

I'm not anti-Capitalist, but I do think it's foolish to depend on those who make their livelihood on advertising revenue to provide us with information. The media is trying to please us and please our sponsors, not on trying to educate or inform us.

Still, some are worse than others. I really hope Paula Zahn chokes next time she interviews a Bush insider. Not to death, just enough to scare her.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:12 PM on May 7, 2006

I do think it's foolish to depend on those who make their livelihood on advertising revenue to provide us with information. The media is trying to please us and please our sponsors, not on trying to educate or inform us.

Well-said, gesamtkunstwerk.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:57 PM on May 7, 2006

Bush used fear brilliantly to cow the press and the public
A truly cunning linguist would never make the mistake of attaching brilliance to Bush, much less doing it in a single sentence. :-) I, for one, was neither cowed nor fooled.
posted by nofundy at 5:01 PM on May 7, 2006

Well that's great for you, but Americans collectively fell for Bush hook line and sinker.
posted by Artw at 5:07 PM on May 7, 2006

Americans collectively fell for Bush hook line and sinker.

Except for the tens of millions who didn't.
posted by scody at 5:21 PM on May 7, 2006

Except for the tens of millions who didn't.

And yet they did nothing.
posted by angrybeaver at 5:36 PM on May 7, 2006

s/did/do
posted by Zozo at 5:37 PM on May 7, 2006

oops. thank you Zozo.
posted by angrybeaver at 5:39 PM on May 7, 2006

The American press and people like winners, be it people or issues. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" was three years ago, exactly. This is not to defend the feckless American media as it is to state the obvious--Rove's all-or-nothing, impression always trumps reality form of politics went hand-in-hand with a press corps bent on making money by telling Americans how great they and their leaders are.

Thing is, as Republicans of all stripes abandon Bush, and three election in Iraq have led to nothing, the cows are coming home, to say the least.

None of this bodes well for the future health of the American press, not at all. But I'd be lying if I didn't say there's pleasure to be taken in watching a man incapable of realizing that the tide has turned for good.
posted by bardic at 6:06 PM on May 7, 2006

Consider the change from the 60's to the 90's in the Playboy centerfold post. Now map that same transition onto journalists.

Splendidly said and spot on!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:40 PM on May 7, 2006

But try to imagine a parallel universe where the WMD facts had been reversed. Imagine that [judy] Miller, playing up tips from Democrats and progressives, had been aggressively skeptical in her prewar reporting about administration claims about Saddam's WMDs, and that time and again her editors gave Miller's

There's a lot of this in the article, where the author asks us to "imagine" a scenario and compare the real world to the imagined scenario.

That's a truly obnoxious style of argumentation, used by right wing demagogs constantly, ("imagine what a liberal would say if..."). Drives me nuts.

Otherwise a good article though.
posted by delmoi at 7:30 PM on May 7, 2006

Just a note: folks against the war didn't do "nothing" as a poster said. They put up massive protests across the nation and the globe, they did exactly what citizens are supposed to do in a civilized democracy.

Oddly enough, Bush did exactly what he's supposed to do also, as an elected representative*: he made up his own mind.

Ladies and gentleman, please give a round of applause for democracy.


*Yeah, I remember the 2000 election. Bush got the keys, though some of us may not like it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:49 PM on May 7, 2006

The protests were one day wonders, all sound and fury, signifying nothing. Not one single American (or Canadian or Brit for that matter) is willing to risk anything more than a weekend day in order to stop King George and his crusades. The people are just as complicit as the media.
posted by angrybeaver at 8:20 PM on May 7, 2006

But try to imagine a parallel universe where the WMD facts had been reversed. Imagine that [judy] Miller, playing up tips from Democrats and progressives, had been aggressively skeptical in her prewar reporting about administration claims about Saddam's WMDs.

delmoi:There's a lot of this in the article, where the author asks us to "imagine" a scenario and compare the real world to the imagined scenario.

That's a crap scenario, anyway. The "reverse" situation on WMDs would be not only that Saddam had them, but also (importantly) that we were in possession of strong evidence of this, from reputable sources without obvious vested interests in lying.

The issue here is not some silly hypothetical on reversed roles, but whether or not a journalist should uncritically report unsubstantiated rumour as fact, especially when the stake is war.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:31 PM on May 7, 2006

Ladies and gentleman, please give a round of applause for democracy.

Brandon Blatcher, that's kinda what I fear most about the whole thing. But I don't have any better options, do you?

I guess don't vote for jackasses in the first place. Don't see that changing any time soon.
posted by BaxterG4 at 8:43 PM on May 7, 2006

The protests were one day wonders, all sound and fury, signifying nothing. Not one single American (or Canadian or Brit for that matter) is willing to risk anything more than a weekend day in order to stop King George and his crusades. The people are just as complicit as the media.

Can you be more spesific about what you belive people should have done?
posted by delmoi at 9:05 PM on May 7, 2006

The protests were one day wonders, all sound and fury, signifying nothing.Not one single American (or Canadian or Brit for that matter) is willing to risk anything more than a weekend day in order to stop King George and his crusades. The people are just as complicit as the media.

posted by angrybeaver at 9:20 PM MST on May 7

We have a winner!

The majority simply isn't going to do anything. We're fat (obese, in fact), mostly happy, "free" to do what we want (mostly to get fatter) - someone please remind me: what's the incentive to rock the boat?
posted by C.Batt at 9:10 PM on May 7, 2006

Can you be more spesific about what you belive people should have done?

I've boycotted American products, as far as possible :)
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:11 PM on May 7, 2006

Oddly enough, Bush did exactly what he's supposed to do also, as an elected representative*: he made up his own mind.

That's more than a bit disingenous. Bush didn't do what an elected representative is supposed to do. Elected representatives are not supposed to fabricate bullshit stories to mislead the people who elected them. Elected representatives are not supposed to sell out the people they represent for cold hard cash.

But they do.
posted by papakwanz at 9:12 PM on May 7, 2006

I've boycotted American products, as far as possible :)

And it's done wonders...
posted by delmoi at 9:13 PM on May 7, 2006

I've boycotted American products, as far as possible :)

And it's done wonders...
posted by delmoi at 9:13 PM on May 7, 2006

In a way, democracy can be viewed as a dangerous social state. Not because it's bad...it's great. However, the freedom of a well functioning democracy leads the populace into being soft in the head, and not recognizing when criminals are taking over their government until it's too late to do anything about it.

The idealistic state of democracy makes it hard for people to believe and understand that their are some truly bad people in the world who case the joint while the populace are eating their ice cream and going to their amusement parks, and wait for the right time to seize power. Bushco is a perfect example of this; the contempt with which they view human rights and humanistic attitudes, and the relentless way they are manouevering all their repulsive little cronies into all the key positions of power, is textbook incipient fascism.

Jeez, just writing this gives me the willies.

"My skin is crawling just being in your little rat's nest."
Jerry Seinfeld, when visiting Newman's apartment.
posted by Nicholas West at 9:14 PM on May 7, 2006

It is not up to me to say what people should or should not do. As an obese and happy Canadian, I have been far too willing to accept the shame of my government collaborating with the American regime. I certainly have bitched to my Member of Parliament, to the Minister of Defence and to the media; all for naught.

People in other countries have been more proactive about protesting. Witness the Prague Spring, Tiananmen Square, Solidarity, the Orange Revolution, and the french riots and general strikes. Those are the steps that would make Western governments sit up and take notice, not the one-day wonders of mass protests.

Everybody has their breaking point. I'm somewhat surprised that on their behalf the American people have accepted pre-emptive war, torture, extraordinary rendition, and world-wide secret gulags.

It scares the hell out of me that pre-emptive nuclear war against Iran is on the table. Even if it is a bluff, it is an extremely dangerous and reckless move.

That is my breaking point. If the United States unilaterally drops a nuclear bomb on Iran and the American people do not rise up against their government, then I believe that ordinary American citizens will not be safe anywhere outside of their country.
posted by angrybeaver at 9:46 PM on May 7, 2006

I've boycotted American products, as far as possible :)

Delmoi: And it's done wonders...

Well, apartheid was not brought down overnight, either.

As Gandhi said, "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it"
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:47 PM on May 7, 2006

Bottom line: until we get private money out of public elections, nothing will change.
posted by rougy at 9:57 PM on May 7, 2006

[This is good.]
posted by squirrel at 10:23 PM on May 7, 2006

To continue this excellent observation from gesamtkunstwerk:

I do think it's foolish to depend on those who make their livelihood on advertising revenue to provide us with information. The media is trying to please us and please our sponsors, not on trying to educate or inform us.

Any business exists for only one reason: to make money. Media companies make money by selling advertising. More viewers means that a company can charge more for advertising, which means that they will increase revenue.

There simply isn't a single corporate-owned media outlet in the US that gives a shit about informing the populace, or being watchdogs, or any other sort of civic-minded virtues that could be ascribed to them (though individual journalists, and news divisions collectively, used to care about these things). They are only interested in maintaining and increasing their number of viewers ("market share"). Rupert Murdoch, I would venture to guess, did not found Fox News because he has an ideological axe to grind--he did it because he saw a huge demographic that was not being pandered to, and knew he could make a whole lot of money if he did.

Further, I think it's even deeper than that--most Americans receive most of their information about the world through television, and the medium itself has done much to enable what's been going on. As Neil Postman has written (which I mentioned in a thread a couple of days ago):

Television is our culture’s principal mode of knowing about itself. Therefore—and this is the critical point—how television stages the world becomes the model for how the world is properly to be staged. It is not merely that on the television screen entertainment is the metaphor for all discourse. It is that off screen the same metaphor prevails.

Giant media corporations simply will not do anything to shake up the status quo--they need to keep the customers they have, and if possible gain some more. There is little profit in dissent.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:51 PM on May 7, 2006

Yes you sometimes do, at least to me. Sorry for being somehow brutal and direct, but where did I say everybody is bored by war ? What I said is "ratings go down" because as you probably know, anything becomes boring and uninteresting if you have too much it or watch too much of it. Think about it, how many times do you hear about more soldiers being harmed or killed ? At a certain point it becomes routine, an accepted fact, relevant indeed, but the attention is quickly focused away.

wow, i had no idea somebody followed my, um.. 18 posts so closely. my point was that the press have been milking the situation for something like 3 years now compared to perhaps 6 months (who knows obviously) where they might have spent tearing Bush's bullshit to shreds.
posted by canned polar bear at 10:51 PM on May 7, 2006

The brilliant Jay Rosen says that if new Press Sec Snow plays the same game of refusing to answer questions let alone recognize they've been asked, the press should quit the WH press briefings.

Doesn't this sound awesome:

If Snow turns out to be McClellan with better hair, the press ought to quit the briefing room and give up on getting explanations from the White House. Beat Bolten to the punch, in other words.

By “quit” I mean pull your top talent. Send interns instead to occupy the seats without asking questions or filing reports. That means no correspondents at the two daily briefings, none on the President’s plane, none at his public appearances. (Except for foreign trips.) Let the White House publicize itself.

Meanwhile, re-deploy your top people, so that they still report on the Bush Administration and what its doing, but only from the outside-in. (Which is what the top reporters say they do, anyway. See this portrait of Elisabeth Bumiller.) Outside-in reporting, a practical step, recognizes the futility of trying to get information out of the Bush White House. Quitting the briefing—before Bolten gets to close it down—would be a symbolic step, recognition of how far the contempt for reason-giving has gone under Bush.
posted by overanxious ducksqueezer at 11:41 PM on May 7, 2006

God how I would love to see that.

Just the idea of Bush walking up to the podium and finding himself in front of a bunch of skeptical, unknown interns; to find himself not even worthy of the attention of the nation's top reporters, is such a deeply deeply satisfying thought.
posted by Nicholas West at 2:25 AM on May 8, 2006

caddis said The Democrats pretty uniformly backed the invasion of Iraq and few voices were heard in opposition.

True.

I was also disappointed in the career CIA and State Department employees who remained silent. I don't know why they didn't cast doubt on the WMD lies (yellowcake, forgeries, etc) using the European press. Would the Bush administration have been able to intimidate the foreign press like that? Bloomberg and BBC could have been useful preventing Tony Blair from joining the "coalition".
posted by surplus at 2:47 AM on May 8, 2006

The author's intro talks about that pre-war press conference. I remember it vividly.

One reporter's hard-hitting question:
"Mr. President, how has your faith helped you during these difficult times?"
posted by surplus at 2:51 AM on May 8, 2006

"Mr. President, how has your faith helped you during these difficult times?"

even then God was steering that perch toward his line!
posted by quonsar at 4:23 AM on May 8, 2006

The media does not exist as a public service, they are here to make money. They don't care about anything but keeping the ratings high and the advertising money flowing.

I don't think they support any particular party or ideology, they just say whatever the public will tune in to hear. After 9/11 the country was stupid with patriotic fervor, and the media was more than happy to make money off of it. Now the public wants to believe they were misled, so the media spins their broadcasts to give the marks what they want to hear.
posted by Jatayu das at 4:49 AM on May 8, 2006

Witness the Prague Spring, Tiananmen Square, Solidarity, the Orange Revolution, and the french riots and general strikes.

it's only fair to point out that some of those sustained protests you list ended with the protesters being squashed like bugs

Everybody has their breaking point. I'm somewhat surprised that on their behalf the American people have accepted pre-emptive war, torture, extraordinary rendition, and world-wide secret gulags.

as long as americans aren't suffering the consequences, they're not going to reach the breaking point

all of the protests you cite were over domestic issues, not things that were happening thousands of miles away

If the United States unilaterally drops a nuclear bomb on Iran and the American people do not rise up against their government, then I believe that ordinary American citizens will not be safe anywhere outside of their country.

they won't rise up because the iranians got nuked ... they'll rise up because gas is 10 bucks a gallon due to all the crap that will start if we do nuke iran

truthfully, there's no damn telling what such a monsterous decision could lead to ... neither of us know, but i'd bet it won't be good

you also seem to think that the american people rising up would be a good thing ... it could well result in despotism, a civil war or both
posted by pyramid termite at 5:08 AM on May 8, 2006

The people are just as complicit as the media.
posted by angrybeaver

I strongly disagree.
The media were complicit in omission of critical facts, in promoting the Bush propaganda and of failing in their duty as the fourth column of good government. Whores for rent, no perversion too extreme.

Many people peacefullyprotested and many have been active ever since in opposing unlawful war and exposing the layers of lies and deception.

Don't be Eeyore or critical of others, be active yourself please and set the example you think others should live.
posted by nofundy at 6:08 AM on May 8, 2006

Bottom line: until we get private money out of public elections, nothing will change.

Someone gets the prize for this thread.


Everybody has their breaking point. I'm somewhat surprised that on their behalf the American people have accepted pre-emptive war, torture, extraordinary rendition, and world-wide secret gulags.

It scares the hell out of me that pre-emptive nuclear war against Iran is on the table. Even if it is a bluff, it is an extremely dangerous and reckless move.

That is my breaking point. If the United States unilaterally drops a nuclear bomb on Iran and the American people do not rise up against their government, then I believe that ordinary American citizens will not be safe anywhere outside of their country.

The sad truth is that Americans have accepted these things as 'the new world order' and that many of them are happy that they are happening. Out of a deluded sense of safety, threats from the Dept. of Homeland Security Scaring, and Faux news reports Americans will continue to find moral justification for these reprehensible activities.

Sadly, if American Idol is on at the same time, most Americans probably won't even notice if when we nuke Iran. It is wishful thinking, at best, that they will publicly demonstrate against it.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 6:34 AM on May 8, 2006

"Mr. President, how has your faith helped you during these difficult times?"

The exact question was (according to the transcript of the March 6, 2003, press conference):
Q: Mr. President, as the nation is at odds over war, with many organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing for continued diplomacy through the U.N., how is your faith guiding you? And what should you tell America -- well, what should America do, collectively, as you instructed before 9/11? Should it be "pray?" Because you're saying, let's continue the war on terror.

I'll concede it was pretty much a softball question. But given Bush's messianic occupation of the Oval Office, surely the public ought to know exactly how the president is driven by his own faith.

The question, by the way, was posed by April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks (not exactly one of those evil corporate conglomerates). I'm not familiar with Ryan's work, but it looks like Salon is. In this piece last year on the dynamics of the White House press corps, Salon (but not Boehlert) compared her favorably to that most tenacious of questioners, Helen Thomas.
posted by sixpack at 6:51 AM on May 8, 2006

sixpack said surely the public ought to know exactly how the president is driven by his own faith.

And given the scripted question, I'm disappointed we didn't get some small miracle as part of the answer.
posted by surplus at 9:04 AM on May 8, 2006

Though I am disappointed by the way things are in the U.S., I think perhaps some of the more... vitriolic critics of the American public in this thread think about why exactly Americans respond with apathy. You seem to be implying that there's something wrong with American people inherently, and that's why they "do nothing."

What you fail to take into account is that there are lots of different reasons why people respond the way they do to government action: sure, some just don't care, but others are misinformed or misled by corporate infotainment, some are too poor to do anything but try to feed their families, and maybe, just maybe, there are some Americans who are doing what they think they can and should do in response.

In conclusion, why not find some examples of immorral things your country has done that weren't challenged by the public. Does it mean your people are inherently evil/lazy/stupid? I don't think so. Why do you think the same of Americans?
posted by diocletian at 12:51 PM on May 8, 2006

I am *shocked* to find that the media would sit idly by - or even collude - as the government goes forth into a poorly planned, imperialistic land grab couched as freedom fighting.

On Preview: Remember the Maine!
posted by absalom at 2:13 PM on May 8, 2006

diocletian
My vitriol is not directly exclusively at the American people. I mention Canadians and British and myself. However, *YOU* elected George Bush. He is *YOUR* leader. His actions reflect upon *YOU*. (striked due to nofundy's comment)

Fortunately my government is more responsive to the people. After the Somalia Affair, in which members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment tortured a Somali teenager to death and took trophy photos, public outrage forced an inquiry which led to criminal charges, resignations of generals up the chain of command and disbandment of the regiment. Contrast that with Abu Ghraib.

And yes I have vitriol for people who have never heard of the Secret Trial Five or those who don't care about Maher Arar.

nofundy
Why do you hold the media to a higher standard than the American populace?

Don't be Eeyore or critical of others, be active yourself please and set the example you think others should live.

Accepted.

pyramid termite
it's only fair to point out that some of those sustained protests you list ended with the protesters being squashed like bugs

The anti-war protests in America were not sustained. Imagine millions of Americans protesting in Washington DC and in front of their state legislatures, day after day after day. That is not something the politicians and media could ignore.

Americans are willing to engage in violent protest. Look at the Seattle WTO protests.

all of the protests you cite were over domestic issues, not things that were happening thousands of miles away

good point. what will it take to jar the American people out of their apathy?

you also seem to think that the american people rising up would be a good thing ... it could well result in despotism, a civil war or both

Domestic civil war in the United States or international nuclear war -- I know as a non-American which one I would prefer.
posted by angrybeaver at 6:03 PM on May 8, 2006