PressEthic

An article in Editor & Publisher today recounts this morning's press conference with Press Secretary Tony Snow, where reporters were able to ask Snow about the rising death count of U.S. troops in Iraq and the general controversy over various aspects of the war.

In a time when the White House is getting more and aggressive in countering what reporters are asserting about Bush and his reasons for the Iraqi war, it is nice to see a journalist finally put the White House on the spot.

As reported in the article, the reporter at the press conference asked Snow [in the context of speaking about the war in Iraq, the abilities of the Iraqi government, and the safety of U.S. troops]:

"Sorry. Just the simple question: Are we winning?"

This article is an example of how the best journalists extract the truth from cagey government officials --not through bias or false reporting, but by asking the simple, straightforward questions that the American public wants to know. Snow dodged the question with another question, asking how one even can define 'winning'? [Sidenote to Snow: it's simple. "Winning: (adj.) victorious, bringing victory. To win: (v.) to beat any and every opponent or enemy in a competition or fight."] It is not Snow's response that illuminated the truth, but rather his inability to provide one. We need journalists that ask the tough questions that the public wants to know. It is not through journalists' interpretations in articles that we learn whether or not we are "winning" in Iraq or countless other questions, but their questions that matter - it is the responses to those questions that we want to hear.

The next reporter at the conference followed in similar form, asking the Press Secretary about the fact that Bush has said that when Iraqis [the government and police force] 'stand up, we will stand down."

Editor & Publisher sums the verbal 'sparring' that ensued:

"Later, another reporter, speaking almost as directly, asked why the president had claimed for three years that the U.S. would 'stand down' as the Iraqis 'stood up' – but despite alleged Iraqi efforts to rise, the U.S. has not been able to withdraw at all. A lengthy exchange followed, with the reporter noting, 'So they are standing up, but we're not standing down. So is that principle no longer operable?' Snow responded, 'It seems to me that we're playing -- this is kind of a fun verbal game.'"

The actual transcript of the exchange is worth reading and is included in the article.

The White House has decided to stand up to the press and their "verbal game[s]." An Associated Press article that criticized Bush's changing position on how to justify continuing the Iraqi war received a strong response from the White House. The article asserted that Bush, at different points in his presidency, has emphasized different reasons for the Iraqi war and the importance of continuing it. The White House responded that those reasons were not just "at one point in time";they asserted Bush has mentioned all those reasons throughout the time we have been at war with Iraq. Editor & Publisher rightly points out,

"In recent weeks, the White House has grown increasingly aggressive in responding directly to what it feels are unfair or allegedly error-strewn articles in the press, with electronic mailings and postings at its Web site. Recently, for example, it responded forcefully to revelations in the Bob Woodward book, 'State of Denial.'

The latest example is a reply to a widely published Associated Press article over the weekend (also posted on E&P Online) that charted the president's changing emphasis on the main reasons we went to war in Iraq, and remain there.

The response follows. The question, however, remains: While it's true that Bush always mentioned multiple reasons for the war, what did he really emphasize at the time?"

Journalists are pushing the White House's buttons, and the fact that they felt the need to strongly respond to a critical article by the AP demonstrates that the AP reporter just might have hit the nail on the head.