If you’ve seen yesterday’s White House press briefing, you know that this wasn’t the usual give-and-take between Scott McClellan and the press corps. The reporters seemed … what’s the word … angry. There’s been ample speculation about what finally prompted change from these guys, especially since they were so disinterested in the Plame scandal last week, but I think Garance Franke-Ruta gets it about right.
If there is one thing that reporters hate, it’s being played for patsies. McClellan has publicly humiliated some of the most prominent reporters in the country by persistently feeding them information that has now been revealed to be false, and I’m pretty darn sure that they are not going to grant him any favors and extend him the benefit of the doubt in the future.
It’s true that reporters were more or less disgusted yesterday, and the difference seems to be that they now believe they’ve been lied to. Not spun, not distracted by trivia, but intentionally deceived by the White House about an important story.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. Bush and his gang have been lying, a lot, about so many things for nearly five years that it’s hard to believe the press corps is just now getting upset. But it’s important to note the distinction for reporters between the White House lying to the country and the White House lying to them. The prior they find problematic; the latter they find personally offensive.
Consider some of the comments from frequently-timid reporters yesterday:
* “[T]his is ridiculous. The notion that you’re going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You’ve got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?”
* “Well, you’re in a bad spot here, Scott, because after the investigation began, after the criminal investigation was underway, you said — October 10th, 2003, “I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby, as I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this.” From that podium. That’s after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?”
* “You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson’s wife. So don’t you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn’t he?”
* “Scott, I think you’re barrage today in part because we — it is now clear that 21 months ago, you were up at this podium saying something that we now know to be demonstratively false. Now, are you concerned that in not setting the record straight today that this could undermine the credibility of the other things you say from the podium?”
These aren’t the questions we’ve grown accustomed to hearing from this press corps. One gets the impression that they’re a little pissed.
There’s another factor that should be considered. I wonder if there’s a sense among some of these journalists that the Plame scandal has been bigger than they realized. When it comes to appreciating the significance of stories the past few years, the news industry has not only made mistakes, they’ve later come to realize their misjudgment.
Looking back, for example, at the White House’s pre-invasion rhetoric about Iraq, most reporters seem to agree that they were wrong in not showing more skepticism. Looking back at the Downing Street Memos, some outlets have already acknowledged that they failed to take the story seriously enough. And now, two years after the Plame scandal first broke, I think there may be a growing realization that perhaps the national media dropped the ball on this story as well — and it’s time to play catch-up.
Regardless of the motivation, the press corps is now engaged, to put it mildly.
McClellan: John, I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response. Go ahead, Dave.
Q: We are going to keep asking them.
I sure hope so.