Another lively Q&A with Villager Ruth Marcus today:
New York: I could care less about Daschle, who is a sleazy lobbyist in all but title, but this Killefer woman’s withdrawal over a $500 tax lien demonstrates conclusively how dishonest and worthless our Washington opinion makers are. Where was the outrage when Bush took millions from the crooks of Enron? When the FDA was turned into a criminal enterprise, and FEMA into a dumping ground for incompetent hacks? When Cheney conspired in secrecy with corporate crooks to design this disastrous energy policy? When Bush lied us into war? How about a president with a criminal felony conviction, by the way! This is our Ground Hog Press: our guardians of public morality fall asleep for eight years, and awaken when a Democrat is inaugurated. What person over six years old sees the logic in dwelling on minor technical departures from high standards, and saying nothing about leaders who immerse themselves in dishonesty and sleeze as a matter of policy?
Ruth Marcus: Sorry, I think you’re forgetting a huge amount of important reporting and critical commentary about the Bush administration over the last eight years. It feels different when the shoe is on the Demoratic foot but, really, not like there’s been a silent, complaisant press.
[….]
Get real, Ruth: The only political leaders you folks in the media ever want to see pay a price for wrongdoing are those who get caught in titillating sex scandals (Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer) or other fun and tawdry episodes that are easy and entertaining to report (Rod Blagojevich, Duke Cunningham). You firmly believe (and write!) that actual abuse of power and the commission of true felonies should be ignored and forgotten when committed by the Serious and Powerful leaders of the royal court you apparently think you serve.
Ruth Marcus: Sorry, but that’s ridiculous. Personally, I hope I never have to cover another sex scandal in my life. But “royal court”?–what, we just serve Bush & Co. in your view and then switch to Obama? I just don’t think that every bad action is the proper subject for criminal prosecution.
Despite what at least one of our commenters thinks, it’s important to push back against these shitheads. I’m glad to see some readers doing that here.
bobbo
That’s some devastating logic there. Clearly, she is suggesting that it would be okay if she served Bush & Co. and then didn’t switch to Obama.
flounder
I was thinking of starting a blog where I simply list the questions I ask these clowns everyday but they are too scared to address. To at least document what they won’t touch. I at least got one acknowledged (but not answered) today by Pearlstein:
DougJ
@flounder
I would read that blog.
NonyNony
I find your thoughts intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Which is to say – I think you should do it. The press has almost zero accountability beyond "voting with our dollars" – and the message sent by voting with your dollar is notoriously difficult for those on the receiving end to parse. I’d love to see the unanswered questions posted, possibly with additional snark towards the non-answer. (And the flip side – seeing what questions get reasonable answers – would also be interesting).
tom p
Do it Flounder, I too would subsribe. While I have neither the time nor the fortitude to engage in such a monumental task, I would love to read about it.
thomas
the villagers are awake. it’s time to sniff sheets again (everyone’s but their own). eight years is a long nap but they’re now well rested and back on task.
flounder
NonyNony, for instance Howard Kurtz claimed to me in his chat a few weeks ago that Tucker Carlson was " banished" from MSNBC, and he actually did print my response that Carlson was fired for low ratings, not banished, although Kurtz claimed they didn’t even let Carlson go on the air occasionally anymore.
Kurtz also claimed that Chris Matthews is a liberal.
Lo and behold Carlson was on Morning Joe last week and Matthews was telling us that he voted for Michael Steele.
This week I asked Kurtz if he saw Carlson on Morning Joe, and asked him if he needed the word "banished" explained to him. I also asked why a "liberal" like Chris Matthews would vote for a etreme right winger like Steele.
Maybe I’ll get this going…it really pisses me off.
IncandenzaH
I love those chats! Attend/comment when I can, but too rarely. I think it’s a great way to make sure a reporter actually sees how their scribblings are viewed by real people — even if questions aren’t answered, they at least get read. Marcus has had to support her whacked views on the Social Security "crisis" and now for her slavish devotion to ensuring the Cheney/Bush’s don’t get investigated. Not sure if these brief dust-ups change her mind any (in fact, it apparenly hasn’t), but at least we know she’s getting pushback that she’s obviously not getting from her editors (or other Villagers, for that matter).
DougJ
Kurtz is the worst about taking tough questions.
One thing I give Broder and Marcus some credit for: they do take the tough questions a lot of the time. They don’t answer them, but they do take them.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Add another yes vote for flounder’s blog of dodging dickheads.
Yeah, I can think of some articles by DianePriest, Anne Hull and … uh … Hmm.
Seriously, the Washington Post ran some decent articles and a couple of blockbusters (such as Walter Reed) but most of the reporting that even scratched the surface of the Bushitery came out during the last year and a half of his second term.
I still can’t figure out why. A quick peek at local voting habits should have assured them that people were a zillion times more likely to cancel their sub over another knob gobbling bout of "critical commentary" by Krauthammer than some honest reporting about Bush. Makes the tag line in their late 90’s ad campaign a wee bit ironic.
liberal
@kommrade reproductive vigor:
But the subscribers are not the people they answer to. They answer, first, to advertisers, which is why most papers refused to cover the bubble until it was too late. (Real estate industry = ad revenue.)
Other than advertisers, they listen to the powers that be.
Brick Oven Bill
I have a question. I remember as a kid, there was this ditty on children’s TV, that went something like ‘I’m just a Bill’. Then the bill goes through congress, and then everybody is happy when the President signs it.
I don’t see any new Executive Orders, so by what mechanism did the President limit executive compensation? Proclamation?
This is a serious question.
linda
I think you’re forgetting a huge amount of important reporting and critical commentary about the Bush administration over the last eight years.
you mean like this:
"ensuring that these mistakes are not repeated . . . may be more important than punishing those who acted wrongly in pursuit of what they thought was right."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/30/AR2008123002396_pf.html
qwerty42
I believe these are the columnists, not reporters. many may have started as reporters, but that was in the past. It does allow them to think they have researched and reported on a story, but it doesn’t make their self-serving deceits real. Clearly they believe the opposite; both the left and the right think they are biased and lying (the left with more justification, but I’ll accept they don’t much care for the fringe right as well). What should be remembered is that they do not see it as lying. It would seem they are incapable of this. I’m not going to go all Greenwald, so I’ll stop now.
Wile E. Quixote
If the Washington Post had been as complaisant and unquestioning in the early 1970s as they were from 2001 to 2008 Dick Nixon’s zombie corpse would have started his 11th term in the White House two weeks ago.
former capitalist
Yes, Ruth, you did "just serve Bush & Co.". For 8 horrid years. Do we have to point this out to you every friggin’ week?
This enabling sap is brought to you by The Washington Post, the same newspaper that brought down Richard Milhous Nixon.
Sheesh.
IncandenzaH
yeah… Kurtz is terrible. Never addresses anything controversial. And always finds a lot of space for wingnut rants, and far fewer for us moonbats addressing questions like the media’s complicity in not investigating Bush admin crimes. Paul Kane is similarly "yellow." And I call both of them on it, at the end of their respective chats! Title: "Coward!"
Zifnab
Thank god Ruth Marcus isn’t a member of the US Justice Department.
Potted Plant
flounder — I like your idea and your passion about it, but in the spirit of John Cole’s entry about Bob Somerby (who insists on accuracy), I should point out that according to Wikipedia Elliot Abrams wasn’t convicted of a felony. Multiple felony counts were prepared, but a special prosecutor never indicted Abrams on those counts. Instead, Abrams pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor violations, was sentenced (fine, probation and community service) and later pardoned by Bush Sr.
JL
@Brick Oven Bill: When Congress approved the TARP funds they also gave Treasury the right to disperse the money and allowed Treasury to set up the rules. Treasury today decided that funds can only be dispersed to businesses who agree to cap executive pay. In other words Treasury can do what ever it wishes with funds.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Does not compute. If people stop buying a paper because they feel it’s not worth the money, how does it serve a corporation’s proposes to speed up that process?
In other words, if an ad runs in a paper and no one reads it, does it make a dollar?
sean
push back? hell no. not good enough. some of them need to be lined up against the wall next to the Thains and Mozilos of the world
mistermix
"Groundhog day" is right. I saw a copy of Time Magazine the other day and it’s got an in-depth story on stem cell research, detailing all that’s been lost in the last 8 years of Bush Administration asinine pandering.
Where was that story 6 years ago?
AhabTRuler
@kommrade reproductive vigor: The problem is that the WaPo has legitimacy as a national paper, and is the only choice as a local "big" news paper. I won’t even take the Washington Times when they are giving it away for free (wouldn’t use it to line a bird’s cage, it would be insulting to the bird shit).
That being said, when I had a sub to the Post, their sales dept would call me every other week to offer me a new sub, to the point where I threatened to cancel if they didn’t stop. Then I canceled anyway, ’cause I get my news from teh intertubz.
Brick Oven Bill
Thank you JL.
Ward 3 Denizen
BOB- the ditty in question was from Schoolhouse Rock. The link is here
ricky
Sean @23
Can I find that wall through Mapquest or Google Earth?
I seem to have missed it.
Calming Influence
"…go Flounder, go Flounder…"
I’ll click on every ad link on you blog.
Multiple times. I swear.
sean
ricky – i’m still looking for it myself. but i’ll sure be ready when the time comes
Brick Oven Bill
Thank you too Ward 3 Denisen. I am a fan of the “I’m Just a Bill” process.
Mnemosyne
It’s pretty simple: if the companies want taxpayer money, they have to cap executive compensation. If they don’t take taxpayer money, they can do whatever they want.
Why do you think it’s a good idea to hand over taxpayer money with no strings to people who have already used it for bonuses for themselves?
MH
BZZZT you said the magic word, "think". Brick Oven Bill hasn’t, doesn’t, and probably won’t ever do that.
Zifnab
It’s more a question of executive authority versus legislative authority. If the President wants to block funds to banks based on CEO pay when the legislature has released the funds with no strings attached, what keeps the President from controlling funds any other way? Can he restrict funds based on a company’s vacation policy? Can he restrict funds based on its carbon footprint? Can he redistribute funds if he doesn’t like a particular CEO for personal reasons?
The power of the purse is rendered somewhat moot if the President can just take the money and spend it however he pleases.
Josh Hueco
@Brick Oven Bill:
Brickshithouse Bill wins the ‘Slow On the Uptake for the Past Eight Years’ prize.
kay
Maybe I’m putting lipstick on this pig, but if Obama started at a 40/60 ratio tax cuts/spending, and he ends at a 50/50 ratio, tax cuts/spending that’s just not a big difference.
Isn’t that where he started? 40/60? House Democrats took it back to 30/70, and it will end up 50/50, I think.
And Democrats want the new car tax rebate, and the payroll refundable credit, and the new house credit. Fully 30 of that 50 are tax cuts Democrats want.
Obama also promised a middle class tax cut, so that’s in there. Is this really horrible?
Wile E. Quixote
Has Ruth Marcus ever done anything in her life other than be a journalist? As far as I can tell from googling about she’s just another ignorant shit like Megan McArdle who went straight from college into journalism and who has never held anything that could even be remotely described as a real job.
I love how Marcus talks about how if she wanted more money she’d practice law instead of being a journalist. Newsflash Ruthie, practicing law is a lot harder than being a journalist. I ran into a buddy of mine who’s a lawyer a few weeks ago and remarked upon how he’d lost a few pounds and was looking really good. I asked if he was working out and he said "no, I’ve been in trial for the last few weeks and am just stressing it off". If you practice law there’s an objective standard of performance, that is to say the number of cases you’ve won versus the number of cases you’ve lost, there is nothing equivalent in journalism.
We need to start calling these useless shits on how useless they are. David Brooks is a Canadian with a history degree who has never done anything except work for various magazines and promote his qualifications as a cultural commentator. Max Boot, despite his bellicosity, never spent a single day serving in uniform. MoDo is another hack as is Mark Steyn. Someone needs to force these people to answer the question as to why anyone with two brain cells to rub together should listen to anything they say based upon their complete lack of any experience outside of the world of journalism.
ThymeZone
Wow, pre-bashing your critics before they even speak. Pretty confident stuff there. Poor Doug.
My comment is that pushing back is one thing, but style, method, time, place and focus are what count. Just throwing a cat up in the air and watching the dogs bark at it is not what I call "pushing back."
Pushing back would be to make an effective and particular argument that there is a real alternative to what the "shithead" is saying. This is another example of where I go with the Obama example, and reject the snark and contentious back and forth of the past, the kind that the right’s noise machine invented and cultivated precisely because it serves their purpose (not the least of reasons why it’s not useful to engage in it).
Arguing over, say, whether coverage of past events (Clinton’s sex scandals or Bush’s forays into extraconstitutional practices) was of a certain nature, or not, or should be the model for the future, seems to me to be a waste of time. I like the idea of just stating what the new paradigm will be, and then doing that, walking the walk. Obama style. It’s a statement, the past is over, it’s now time to move forward.
Again (today) I say, Obama is talking over the heads of the hyenas, and people are listening. I don’t think he needs the hyenas to bark every time there is a disturbance in the Force, I think he just needs our support and approval when he goes ahead despite the disturbance.
By barking every time a moran makes a noise, we become focussed on the morans. Focus on the smart people. That’s "pushing back" that will actually accomplish something.
Barking at the morans just draws attention to the morans, which they want, and distracts from the smart people, which is, if you get my drift, not so smart.
If we were out to stop car theft, would we better spend our time watching movies of stupid car thieves and howling, or by securing our cars and lighting the parking lots and then opening up recreation centers and job training centers for people in the car thief demographics?