LIVE THREAD: White House Correspondents Dinner

http://www.freerepublic.com ^ | April 26, 2003

[Howlin]

Live Thread for CSPAN coverage of the White House Correspondents Dinner tonight, featuring George W. Bush and Ray Charles!

C-SPAN LINKS

[Howlin]

We'll have to see; I know Ray Charles is going to perform.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

He's an idiot; making it sound like it is the journalists RIGHT to be in the West Wing. And he supports Helen Thomas?? OMG

[hole_n_one]

[sheikdetailfeather]

Look at President Bush's face! Gore? NOW NOW!!!!!

[ohioWfan]

Sort of like sitting in on a session of Congress, eh?

[MeekOneGOP]

Tag line:

The War is not over for me until my hubby and son's boots hit U.S. soil.

Next time you correspond with them, tell them that THIS FReeper sends his BIG THANKS ! :O)

[dts32041]

You mean they let them in this year, the 1st time?

[Mo1]

Did I miss it?

[Trace21230]

I'm just wondering if there is anyone on earth more repulsive than Helen Thomas. (besides Reno)

[Inspectorette]

Is this guy ever gonna shut up?

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Carl Cannon doesn't seem too bad
Incoming White House Correspondent's President


It would be unimaginable for a writer like Walsh to point out the truth about the farm chores debacle. A 1998 article by Carl Cannon in the Weekly Standard helps to show us why.

Cannon wrote in February 1998, as White House adviser Sidney Blumenthal was becoming a controversial public figure. Blumenthal's high profile in the Lewinsky matter was earning him considerable press attention, little of it favorable. Cannon's profile of Blumenthal was much more balanced than many other critiques that appeared at the time. He describes Blumenthal as "a cerebral Brandeis graduate" who has "written four well-received books, a play, and hundreds of high-toned political pieces for influential publications." While criticizing some of Blumenthal's past work, he points to specific work by Blumenthal that was prescient and enlightening. He quotes a string of White House officials on the strengths that Blumenthal brought to the White House. In our view, Cannon actually deserves high marks for avoiding the standard demonizing portraits of the time.

But what is so objectionable about Sidney Blumenthal? Cannon takes us there right off the bat. In his opening paragraph, he describes Blumenthal's appearance on Nightline in December 1993 to comment on the "Troopergate" stories in the Los Angeles Times and the American Spectator. Blumenthal "denounced the reports," Cannon relates, and then we get to the heart of the problem:

CANNON: It was a curious posture for a journalist: leaping to defend the White House by taking pot shots at fellow reporters.
But why exactly would that be odd? Why would it be odd for a reporter to "take pot shots" at fellow reporters if he thought those reporters were wrong? In every other academic sector, it would be the absolute norm for, let us say, Biologist A to criticize Biologist B. Indeed, that's the way biology advances. Just take a look at biology journals.

But in the world of the press corps, process stands on its ear—it's bad taste to criticize other journalists. The Blumenthal case is complicated somewhat by the nature of Blumenthal's pre-White House career; Cannon complains that Blumenthal's long-standing friendship with Hillary Clinton "gave [him] influence inside the White House even before he went to work there in August 1997." Cannon describes a 1993 incident, in which Blumenthal advised Mrs. Clinton to prepare a critique of Susan Schmidt's Whitewater reporting in the Washington Post. The White House should present the critique to Schmidt's editor, and then release it publicly, Blumenthal said. The idea was rejected within the White House, but Cannon quotes Susan Schmidt on the concept:

CANNON: Susan Schmidt, who has produced scoops on the Whitewater beat since 1993, says of Blumenthal, "I've never heard of anyone who purports to be a journalist giving the White House advice on how to undermine the credibility of other news organizations."
And indeed, we're quite sure that she hasn't. Is it wrong that a working journalist should advise politicians? We're not quite clear what is wrong with that if the writer's editors know about his connections (in his article, Cannon says the New Yorker felt Blumenthal's White House ties would be helpful to his work). And indeed, there were apparent problems with Schmidt's Whitewater reporting, problems that Gene Lyons discussed in Fools for Scandal (see tomorrow's DAILY HOWLER). Why shouldn't journalists and politicians feel free to discuss apparent flaws with journalists' work?

But at any rate, it is quite clear that a hidden rule says journalists don't critique other journalists. It explains why no one ever said a word about the remarkable farm chores flap; it explains why nothing is ever said about even the most egregious press misconduct. It also explains the gruesome work one routinely meets in the national press. There is no penalty for press misconduct. The results—predictable, given human nature—are in plain view every day.

[Howlin]

LOL!

[Publius6961]

Darn.
Not on the schedule for the west coast feed on Dish Network.

[eddie willers]

Sort of like sitting in on a session of Congress, eh?

More like root canal.

[AGreatPer]

"Al Gore is sitting in his trailer"

Get out of Cheyne's trailer just doesn't sound right.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Maybe they stuck her there to hide her behind the flowers. But it does look like she bathed. So thats nice.

[Miss Marple]

Keep the comments and pictures coing...my husband is insisting on watching that stupid "Helen of Troy" series and I have NO TV!!!

[mikrofon]

I hopee those poor flowers are artificial....

[Howlin]

No, it's barely started and has been boring so far!

[NeoCaveman]

I'm just wondering if there is anyone on earth more repulsive than Helen Thomas. (besides Reno)

As repulsive as Reno is, Helen Thomas is more so IMHO