WH Reporters Challenge Scottie, in view of the Newsweek controversy

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000922215

snip...exerpts from the news conf:

Here are the relevant portions of today's exchanges. The first followed McClellan's statement that he wanted Newsweek to write something further:

Q With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not telling them. I'm saying that we would encourage them to help --

Q You're pressuring them.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm saying that we would encourage them --

Q It's not pressure?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, this report caused serious damage to the image of the United States abroad. And Newsweek has said that they got it wrong. I think Newsweek recognizes the responsibility they have. We appreciate the step that they took by retracting the story. Now we would encourage them to move forward and do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done by this report. And that's all I'm saying. But, no, you're absolutely right, it's not my position to get into telling people what they can and cannot report.

***
Q: In context of the Newsweek situation, I think we hear the caution you're giving us about reporting things based on a single anonymous source. What, then, are we supposed to do with information that this White House gives us under the conditions that it comes from a single anonymous source?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to.

Q: Frequent briefings by senior administration officials in which the ground rules are we can only identify them as a single anonymous source.

MR. McCLELLAN: Ken, I know that there is an issue when it comes to the media in terms of the use of anonymous sources, but the issue is not related to background briefings. But I do believe that we should work to move away from those kind of background briefings. ...

But there is a credibility problem in the media regarding the use of anonymous sources, but it's because of fabricated stories, and it's because of situations like this one over the weekend. It's not because of the background briefings that you may be referring to.

Q: What prevents this administration from just saying from this point forward, you will identify who it is that's talking to us?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, in terms of background briefings, if that's what you're asking about, which I assume it is, let me point out that what I'm talking about there are officials who are helping to provide context to on-the-record comments made by people like the President or the Secretary of State or others. ... And as I said, one of the concerns is that some media organizations have used anonymous sources that are hiding behind that anonymity in order to generate negative attacks.

Q: But to our readers, viewers and listeners, I think it's all the same.

MR. McCLELLAN: And then you have a situation -- you have a situation where we found out later that quotes were attributed to people that they didn't make. Or you have a situation where you now learn that a single source was used for verifying this allegation -- and that source, himself, said he could not personally verify the accuracy of the report. ...

Q: With all due respect, though, it sounds like you're saying your single anonymous sources are OK and everyone else's aren't.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I think you may have missed what I said. I think that we should move away from the use of -- the long-used practice of the background briefings, and we've taken steps to do that. ...

Q We also have incidents, like most recently with the energy speech, where it was before the president made his comments, it was all we had -- and we had to make the decision of whether to report this from anonymous sources who, frankly, in that case, we didn't even know who they were.

MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of that one, I mean, that was simply done because the president was making the announcement the next day. But, anyway, we've taken steps to address that matter.

more at http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000922215

or was it "Highball"?

If none of these names, then Newsweek is still more competent than the White House, State Department, CIA, and Pentagon put together.

I won't believe it until I see it.

Stick around GD for 3 days, and at some point you'll see Tweety (Matthews) rise to the level of Defender of Truth Justice and the American way and then fall back in the DU Pit o' Scum Journalists in the span of one half hour.

and this exchange just points out that the wh has been feeding the news to them all along with these so called "background briefings" and they have been printing it as fact without further research.

the american media has failed us.

but I'm still far from confident of "The WH Press"'s ability to grow a spine at this point.

I'd be happy to be wrong here.

Now if you had said that they're getting "Back-BONED", I'd agree with you.

If Scotty got REALLY pissed at the questioning, he would have threatened their precious "access"...

......
Q: With all due respect, though, it sounds like you're saying your single anonymous sources are OK and everyone else's aren't.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm not saying that at all. In fact, I think you may have missed what I said. I think that we should move away from the use of -- the long-used practice of the background briefings, and we've taken steps to do that. ..........

"Q It's not pressure?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, this report caused serious damage to the image of the United States abroad. And Newsweek has said that they got it wrong. I think Newsweek recognizes the responsibility they have. We appreciate the step that they took by retracting the story. Now we would encourage them to move forward and do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done by this report. And that's all I'm saying. But, no, you're absolutely right, it's not my position to get into telling people what they can and cannot report....

Q Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is; is that what you're saying here?

MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth, let me finish my sentence. Our military --

Q You've already said what you're -- I know what -- how it ends.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm coming to your question, and you're not letting me have a chance to respond. But our military goes out of their way to handle the Koran with care and respect. There are policies and practices that are in place. This report was wrong. Newsweek, itself, stated that it was wrong. And so now I think it's incumbent and -- incumbent upon Newsweek to do their part to help repair the damage. And they can do that through ways that they see best, but one way that would be good would be to point out what the policies and practices are in that part of the world, because it's in that region where this report has been exploited and used to cause lasting damage to the image of the United States of America. It has had serious consequences. And so that's all I'm saying, is that we would encourage them to take steps to help repair the damage. And I think that they recognize the importance of doing that. That's all I'm saying.

Q As far as the Newsweek article is concerned, first, how and where the story came from? And do you think somebody can investigate if it really happened at the base, and who told Newsweek? Because somebody wrote a story.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think Newsweek has talked about it. They took it -- "
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3mi1.htm

Maybe everyone should mail the dissenting White House reporters, get them to finally report real news and real news stories. Maybe somebody just accidently manufactured his last lie.

Where's Jeff Gannon? He was the prize reporter for the White House! Now they need a quick replacement, to slander the New York Times, Newsweek, and all the other "evil" media. :crazy:

Just kidding! I truly hope this serves as a wake up call. Going after Dan Rather is one thing, going after a print buddy is another.

Too little too late...

Where were they when the *real* war was being
talked about?

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

the bit about anonymous sources is interesting, but it's kind of inside baseball. What about the glaring hypocrisy of the innumerable inaccuracies of the bush administration? Even if this newsweek story isn't accurate (and I'm not convinced of that), newsweek's negligence/malfeasance pales in comparison to the administration's.

Not a peep.

That's another great example of Scotty's galling hypocrisy, though :eyes: ... anyway, if the downing street memo didn't wake the press up, nothing will. From time to time for the last several years I've thought the press may be growing teeth, but it is always a false alarm.

I on the other hand have a pervasive sense of
being *underwhelmed* by everything I see.

My expectations are almost non-existent.

Like CHALABI?

Or like the FABRICATED STORIES from BUSH and CHENEY?

THOSE kinds of FABRICATED STORIES PROLBLEMS, Scotty???

Expect a resignation soon.

Time to "spend more time with your family" buddy!

Just a reminder as to who actually wrote the article...while the rightwingnuttery is busy praising ISIKOFF, the man who wrote the article, while trashing Newsweek for DARING TO BELIEVE ISIKOFF's article and having the treasonous nerve to publish ISIKOFF'S article.

HOW DARE NEWSWEEK TO HAVE BELIEVED AND PUBLISHED WONDERFUL EXCELLENT TREMENDOUS REPORTER ISIKOFF'S ARTICLE!

Rightwingnuts; stupidest most hypocritical MFers on the planet.

drop their subscription to Newsweek-she keep saying and calling it maninstream media and basically repeated Scotty's talk (sorry but I forget her name).

and never again read any of ISIKOFF's articles no matter what media outlet publishes ISIKOFF's articles.

Right?

Yeah right. And pigs fly.

The hooplah about that totally worthless Ann Coulter fluff piece
at Time Magazine.

These morans live for Tit-for-tat due to the fact they haven't
got an original cell in their bodies.

It's just a big ol' TeeVee sporting event to them.

No one points out that PARTS of a story can have flaws...while core truths of the story remain. The WH is still getting away with claiming that THE ARTICLE was wrong...rather than specifics within it. As a consequence, people get to drown the whole truth instead of making a correction.

And of course...we get to go to war on Single Anonymous Sources...we just can't print about what happens after the war that way.

God I hate what's happened to this country. It makes me very very sad.

I've heard it said about these guys... "They lie in such a way even
the opposite isn't true."

I think that's entirely correct.

Now just WTF is THAT supposed to mean?

"You broke it, now the President (and Lord Rove) want you to FIX it!"

What, cook up some propaganda and spread it around? Fuck it. They have CNN and FAUX for that kind of work....

You can take away benefits for the poor, piss away an economic surplus, lie to get us into a war that has killed thousands of Americans.

You can lie about weapons of mass destruction, publicly "out" a CIA agent protecting our country against terrorism, plant male prostitutes in your press corps to pitch you softballs, and torture foreign prisoners.

You can underfund education, assault the environment, and let your corporate buddies rob hardworking Americans blind with impunity.

You can assail minority and gay rights, strip away the constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion, speedy trial by jury, due process, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, equal liberties under the law, and the right of every American citizen over 18 years old to vote.

You can anally sodomize our grandmother with a broomstick whilst kicking our puppy and pissing in our corn flakes.

But do not tell us what to print.*

*Except for all those other times you told us what to print.