PressEthic

You can't trust the media. Liars. Biased. Fair? Accurate? Not at all. Who's telling people this? It's one of two entities: the media itself (listen to us! not the other guy!) and those trying to spin the media. I can only fight one battle at a time, so let's just talk about the White House for a minute.

Sharing her husband's work with the unsubscribing masses, Wonkette has republished Chris Lehmann's article in CQ about the latest infringement this administration has made on history.

In an October 31 White House press briefing, Scott McClellan flippantly responded to a question (or more pointedly, an accusation) from a member of the press corps. In the video, you'll clearly hear McClellan say "that's accurate" in response to the following:

Whether there's a question of legality, we know for a fact that there was involvement. We know that Karl Rove, based on what he and his lawyer have said, did have a conversation about somebody who Patrick Fitzgerald said was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. We know that Scooter Libby also had conversations.

The White House transcript, however, says "I don't think that's accurate."

Go ahead. Listen, and let me know if you think there's a snowball's chance in a Guantanamo Bay prison camp that he said "I don't think that's accurate."

It's bad enough to have stenographer enter false statements into the White House transcripts, but to go the extra mile and request that CQ do the same, well that's just insane.

What I really love is that Dana Perino was apparently surprised that they'd decided to do a story on it. I'm used to the dizzying amount of spin that comes from the Press Room podium. That's just how it works. Reporters ask questions, and McClellan, in turn, accuses them of trying to "politicize" the legal process.

You just can't change history, though. That's a step too far. It drives me nuts that people are constantly sick of the Media-with-a-capital-M telling them lies, damn lies. What they're really sick of is trying to distinguish between the blitz of spin/con-artists and advertisers and real honest to goodness news.

How is any journalist-- or citizen-- who is not in the press room supposed to depend on the veracity of "official" sources when they're being tailored to someone's personal preference of history? How far does this kind of behavior reach?