George Bush as Media Relations Visionary?

Normally, I regard the Sunday morning gasbag shows as a cynical balance between politics-based mud wrestling and shameless BS -- useful mostly as an indication of how the government and media will spin the latest world-shaking crisis.

But something caught my ear during Sunday's Meet the Press -- I know, this is the second item in as many weeks culled from Russert's weekly pean to institutional political power -- and it came from one of my favorite pundit/journalists, the Los Angeles Times' Ron Brownstein.

What if, he suggested, Bush's adversarial, often-bare-knuckled relationship with the media wasn't just the result of his peculiar, my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing? What if it becomes the standard for press relations in a media-drenched 21st century, where Big Media is too-often its own constituency?

It dovetails with speculation I've seen from smart folks such as NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen, who have long maintained that Bush officials' disdain for media outlets which are not pointedly partisan is not a myopia born of zealotry, but a deliberate strategy of de-fanging independent reporters by removing their access and demonizing their reportage. Rather than accept media's own vision of itself as the public's surrogate, the Bush administration has often treated them like just another interest group with its own agenda -- restricting information and pursuing unauthorized leaks to an extent not seen in recently preceding administrations.

In this light, the roster of Pulitzer winners might be seen as a rallying cry for the journalism industry -- media's way of encouraging its best practitioners to keep chipping at the gray wall of silence Bush has tried to erect around the details of his most controversial public policies.

No wonder conservatives such as William Bennett have been arguing that this year's crop of winners be thrown in the hoosegow; at a time of war, good journalists often believe there is no more important time for government leaders to be honest with the public, while said leaders often feel there is no more important time to keep important secrets close.

Should a CIA employee lose her job because she revealed classified information while helping inform the American people of the agency's secret prisons for suspected terrorists? Should the family of deceased columnist Jack Anderson be allowed to keep classified material he may have obtained illegally because it could reveal his anonymous sources (and ripping it from his family's still grieving hands just seems plain icky)?

We can hope the next president values the press' role as public surrogate more than this one. But I'm inclined to agree with Ron here; regardless of who takes the Oval next, the precedent for leveraging public suspicion against the institution charged with keeping the citizenry informaed has been set. And the growing animosity may be one genie which will never pop back into the bottle.

It's the 11th Hour of a Digital Revolution: Do You Know Where Your Network Neutrality Is?

Yes, it sounds like a buzzword born in some hellish IT training session. But it has enormous implications for your activity online.

What if you found Friendster responded faster and more reliably to your commands than MySpace, despite the fact that you enjoy MySpace's features more? Or if AOL reacted better than gmail, even though gmail costs you nothing?

This is the nightmare scenario of the widespread expiration of network neutrality -- in which companies controlling large segments of the computer infrastructure handling Internet traffic pass each message along with equal efficiency. Verizon executive John Thorne, for example, griped about search engine Google's "free lunch" riding over fiber optic lines they have paid to build out.

The Verizons of the world say Google and Yahoo and MySpace shouldn't get a free ride on telecommunications pathways they have spent billions constructing. Opponents say such neutrality is necessary to ensure the continued free and unfettered operation of the Internet (they might also note telecom companies have reaped millions in free right-of-way grants from local governments so they can run their fiber optic lines throughout the world)

If neutrality goes away, telecommunications companies such as Verizon could theoretically prioritize the traffic related to companies which either pay for the priviledge or are connected some other way, perhaps by ownership. Despite stories in the Wall Street Journal and Washinton Post months ago, I'm embarassed to admit I didn't realize the depth of this issue until I got an email recently from a reader advocating the stridently pro-neutrality Web site, SaveTheInternet. Here's a report making the case for the other side.

What's frightening me: Congress is already involved, taking testimony and considering legislation. And some concerned with the free operation of the Internet warn the seeming solution -- a law ensuring net neutrality in America-- could be worse than the cure, encouraging lawmakers to monkey with one of the least-regulated mass mediums in the country.

Where do you stand?

Comments

[Anonymous]

Has it ever occurred to you that the Bush admin ignores the press because the press has become little more than a liberal interest group?It's a lot like the NAACP. Why should Bush address a bunch of mutts who will bash him no matter what he does?The NAACP will bash Bush despite stats that show more money being spent on minority interests and minority success growing by leaps and bounds. The MSM will put a negative spin on any news no matter how good it is. Why bother?

[Eric Deggans]

The only thing that occurrs to me is that your reponse seems a little intense, and perhaps needlessly insulting. sme of our most accomplished pulbic leaders, black andwhite, have been NAACP members or sympathetic to the group's goals. Calling them "a bunch of mutts" just seems wildly overstated and unfair.If you are a committed conservative, I think you need to ask yourself what george bush has done to meet your political goals. Has he reduced government spending? No. Has he brought fiscal discipline to big government? No. Has he kept government from poking its nose into your telephone conversations or email? No. has he banned gay marriage or even put much efforts into the constitutional amendment he touted so highly uring his campaign? No.Has he reduced entitlements such as Social Security and welfare? no.I find it amusing that conservatives criticize balc people for reflexively supporting the democrats, anf then turn around and support a president who has fulfilled almost nothing of the agenda they elected him to enact -- despite the fact that conservatives control both houses of congress and now run the Supreme Court.Perhaps its not just black people who should rethink the consequences of supporting a political party which clais to represent their interests.

[Anonymous]

I think mutts is a pretty tame description. It doesn't come close to the things naacp leaders have called Bush. I think the the naacp is a group of racist scumbags.There are plenty of things I don't like about what Bush has done, and plenty I do like. What's certain is that he beats any socialist tax and spend democrat. Of course this isn't about Bush. It's about the blatant hatred of Bush that's apparent in the left wing MSM.

[formerly mr anonymous]

....Rather than accept media's own vision of itself as the public's surrogate, the Bush administration has often treated them like just another interest group with its own agenda....i think you've got that exactly right, but i'm not so sure the bushies are wrong.who appointed the for-profit media as a public surrogate? not the public. most in the media don't give a rat's ass about the public whom many journos regard as simple idiots. dare i say, you too? why else is the media so impenetrable? it doesn't work for the public. in many cases, it works for stockholders, advertisers and customers, not everyone.so for patisan government to regard the media as just another interest group is not too farfetched, particularly as the media morphs into the blogosphere.

[Eric Deggans]

Well, the U.S. constitution and America's founding fathers outlined the importance of a free press to democracy by making its guarantee the first amendment to the constitution. Indeed, James Madison's original language read: "''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable." The idea being American government would not create licenses or other prior restraint for the press.The founding fathers linked press freedom to the people's voice. And whether you believe it or not, there are loads of journalists, editors and publishers who have dedicated their careers to this notion -- risking lawsuits, prosecution from the government, retaliation from law enforcement or criminals and much more to bring the community crucial information.I find it disheartening that some consumers are so cynical about what journalsts do. And of course there are arrogant, mediocre or misguided reporters and news outlets. But I assure you, reporters aren't risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Sudan and in hurricanes and along America's border with Mexico on the off chance they might win a Pulitzer.They're doing it because they want to serve as the people's eyes and ears, stoking democracy by keeping the free world informed...

[formerly mr anonymous]

....They're doing it because they want to serve as the people's eyes and ears, stoking democracy by keeping the free world informed...if you believe that, then you must also believe politicians are in to 'help people'....haha....the truth is that everyone needs a job, and journalism is the job some have found. they get paid for it. that doesnt make them more noble than the garbageman. lets be real. if you werent getting paid, wd you still be so interested in 'keeping the free world informed'? my point is that the media is just as mercenary as any other job or interest group.

[Eric Deggans]

Do people ask whether cops or firefighters would be doing their jobs if they weren't paid?The fact is, I do a lot of work for free. I lead a local chapter of the national association of black journalists which organizes an annual awards contest for journalists covering issues affecting people of color and we give out thousands in scholarships every year. All of the work I do for them in volunteer.As somebody who has been a journalist for more than 15 years, I can tell you, there are lots of people in this business who are doing it because they believe in the basic virtues of a free press -- its watchdog function in society and its ability to serve as a voice of the community.Just because i have to earn a living doesn't mean I don't believe in the social value of the work I do everyday...

[Khan of the Wastelands]

It says alot I think about the character of the first poster that he must turn immedietly from a conversation about the media and blast off into the stratosphere with an off-topic conversation about race.I think alot of this hatred towards others stems from a frustration people have about lack of control over their own lives.The hard right has control over every branch of government in this country right now and yet you have people like Mr Anon here acting as if some how the NAACP is keeping him from achieving his goals in life.Some how everything would be great in this country if Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would just shut up and smile. Oh and if the main stream media would just ignore the two and just keep reporting on how great things are.Eric hits it right on the head I think. Bush has accomplished nothing of what he promised when he first ran for president, despite having a majority in Congress and a friendly SCOTUS.I think in large part this is the reason we are hearing so much about illegal immigrants being such a supposed threat.Republicans need to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING to deflect attention from the piss poor job they've done running this country, be it fund-raising/lobbyist scandals/corruption, Katrina-gate, Iraq, the price of fuel, to name just a few.

[Anonymous]

Blah blah blah... Lets really change the subject.What the hell was the front page story about loretta cameron???Loretta always dreamed of a big house where her kids could hang their Christmas stockings? Did anyone ever explain that people WORK to pay for those things?And loretta is a stay at home mom?? Are you serious? A stay at home mom raises kids while her husband works. Loretta is an unemployed welfare queen.But I guess we should feel sorry for this woman who sits on her ass all day sponging off the taxpayers, and still can't supervise her kids well enough to keep them from burning down somebody elses house.

[Anonymous]

So a large group of blacks prowls Las Vegas beating and robbing only white people, and the SPT doesn't see fit to mention it...No stories anywhere with breathless reporters wondering if these could be hate crimes...Yup, I sure do take you super-noble journalists seriously.

[Khan of the Wastelands]

Define "Large"