Long past stupid…
“Is Scotty here? Where’s Scotty?” Bush asked, half-grinning, according to two people who were in the meeting but asked not to be quoted by name because they were discussing a private event. Bush scanned the room for Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary.
“I want to especially thank Scotty,” the president said, looking at his aide. “I want to thank Scotty for saying” — and he paused for effect…
“Nothing.”
This anecdote, as reported in the Washington Post, is interesting in that it fits what we understand about message control in the modern presidency: Sometimes, controlling the message–and, thus, the press–by saying nothing works better than saying something. “Works” in this regard means keeping civic conversation framed in ways favorable to the administration.
That’s politics. We have no alternative, Arcadian model. We merely have examples of presidents who thought it was better to talk a bit more to control the message than to talk less.
What interests me here is not Bush’s message control. What interests me is the press’ willing role in Bush’s message control.
Consider this:
“We’ve come to understand that no matter how we slice and dice something, Scott’s going to stick to the recipe,” says Ken Herman, White House correspondent for Cox News Service. “I can’t think of any topic where on the sixth or seventh iteration of a question we get something different from the original answer. By somebody’s measure, that’s the definition of doing the job well. Certainly not ours.”
So why do you participate?
It isn’t a matter of doing a poor job, as if it were possible to do a better job. Participating in this farce leads journalists to do a poor job (which, by the way, is part of the rhetorical intention of the administration). It’s not possible to do a better job. Under the circumstances, I’m not sure I know what would constitute a “better job.”
The icon of the Bush administration’s message machine is Muhammad Ali. Not the man who floated like a butterfly and stung like a bee. Nope. It’s the Ali who beat George Foreman in the Rumble in the Jungle by laying against the ropes and waiting for Foreman to wear out. From that point on, it became stupid to flail at Ali if he huddled on the ropes. It’s long past stupid regarding the press’ participation in the press gaggle.
Just stop.
I’ve been wondering lately why we participate in consuming mass media at all. Aren’t we doing the same thing as the White House Press Corps? We open our papers or watch the news with questions in our heads that never get answered. We leave frustrated, but return again the next time, granting our attention (which translates into revenue), thereby reinforcing the behavior.
Why do we do this? Why do we play willing participants in the press’s own Rope-A-Dope strategy? Aren’t there enough online alternatives to traditional media by now that we could turn to other sources of news? If the press is no longer serving its function, isn’t it imperative that we seek out that fulfillment elsewhere?
A ceremonial flak jacket hangs in the closet of McClellan’s West Wing office, following in a tradition of previous tenants, beginning with Ford spokesman Ron Nessen.
Double entendre, no?
Stumax– That’s a question a lot of people are asking. My first response: “Media” is a lot of things–from the NYT to the Weekly Bugle. Each organization is doing similar things and very different things. The answer to your questions is: You’re responsible for deciding what information you need and where the best place is to get it. Mass media offer a certain type of product. And it’s good for certain things–adequate coverage of politics and governance (def.: providing the information we need to be self-governing), however, isn’t among them, IMO.
Sven– haha! Yeah, that’s a telling “joke.”