THE MEDIACRACY

WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS MUZZLE CRITICISM OF BUSH AT THEIR DINNER

ATTYWOOD - Look, we realize that the White House Correspondents
Association dinner is a "fun" event, and it would be nice, in theory, to
free it from the shackles of the supposed adversarial relationship
between the press corps and the president it covers.

But sometimes, life and art imitate each other just a little too
closely. When we saw earlier this week that the WHCA had chosen Rich
Little -- who we used to watch imitate Richard Nixon and Bob Hope on
Johnny Carson in the early 1970s, if we were allowed to stay up that
late -- to follow last year's ruckus over in-your-face funny Stephen
Colbert as the main entertainer, we were willing to let it go.

But then we read this. The cowardice of these people -- who sat there on
mute for months while the president made plans to start a war under
false pretenses -- is astounding. Little now says he has an
understanding not to bash Bush or mention the war:

"Little said organizers of the event made it clear they don't want a
repeat of last year's controversial appearance by Stephen Colbert, whose
searing satire of President Bush and the White House press corps fell
flat and apparently touched too many nerves.
"'They got a lot of letters,' Little said Tuesday. "'I won't even
mention the word Iraq.'

Little, who hasn't been to the White House since he was a favorite of
the Reagan administration, said he'll stick with his usual schtick --
the impersonations of the past six presidents.

"They don't want anyone knocking the president. He's really over the
coals right now, and he's worried about his legacy," added Little, a
longtime Las Vegas resident.

OK, free speech means you also have a right not to say anything or
criticize anybody. But for the White House press corps to instruct
Little not to "knock" the president smacks of a kind of censorship, from
the very people that we've placed in the front line trenches of free
speech.

America desperately needs a press corps that's more eager to offend the
White House, not less eager.

http://www.attytood.com/2007/01/dont_mention_the_war.html

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

BRITISH AND U.S. OFFICIALS TREATED DIFFERENTLY BY THE MEDIA

BOB GILES, NIEMEN FOUNDATION, CBS - Not long ago, I was with a group of
journalists looking at videotapes of a BBC reporter interviewing British
Prime Minister Tony Blair. The reporter was clearly well informed and
was aggressively pressing Blair when the prime minister's answers seemed
less than forthcoming. It was wonderful journalistic combat and highly
informative for the audience.

BBC reporters routinely have opportunities to sit down with the prime
minister for a face-to-face interview. The broadcasts, which can be seen
and the transcripts reviewed online, come off as lively exchanges
highlighted by sharp questions, occasional interjections by the reporter
and relentless probing for clarity in the prime minister's responses.

These interviews represent a striking contrast with the U.S. television,
where there is an absence of spirited inquiry. Public officials are
treated with courtesy, which is appropriate, but on balance are accorded
far too many opportunities to respond to reporters' queries without
challenge. When the reporter fails to probe more deeply, he or she
becomes simply an electronic stenographer providing the elected official
or official spokesperson a video platform for getting out the message. .
.

Television's great advantage is that it can take the viewer along for
the interview. The audience can look into the eyes of the news source as
he or she responds to the reporter's queries. It is what sets TV news
apart from print and radio news reporting. In an era when elected
officials try to manipulate the news and spin it to their advantage,
when they are able to speak anonymously or have hired spokespersons
speak for them, this special role of television reporting as visual
surrogate for the public is critical. The public knows that reporters
who can be seen asking strong questions is one antidote to
misinformation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/01/12/publiceye/entry2355659.shtml

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||