After the firestorm that erupted Saturday over the Associated Press's classless story on the death of former White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, I was hoping that the possibly-chastened wire service could get through its coverage of his funeral without getting in any gratuitous digs.
In that horrid Saturday story (blogged at NewsBusters and BizzyBlog), the AP's Douglass K. Daniel, with the assistance of longtime Bush basher Jennifer Loven, felt it necessary, within hours of Snow's passing, to characterize him as "not always (having) a command of the facts," questioning reporters' motives "as if he were starring in a TV show broadcast live from the West Wing," and turning his briefings into "personality-driven media event(s) short on facts and long on confrontation." In a further descent into tastelessness, they felt it necessary to tell us what Snow's salary at the White House was -- something I don't believe I have ever seen written in a story on anyone else's death. (11:00 a.m. update: See this comment below for an exception.)
Covering Snow's funeral Thursday, AP reporter Ben Feller stayed classy almost to the end. But then he apparently couldn't help himself, and followed the execrable example of his Saturday predecessors in his story's third-last paragraph.
Feller apparently felt compelled to note the attendance of the former Bush press secretary who has written an alleged "tell-all" book. Having done that, he left out the names of other Bush press secretaries present, and speculated on something he admitted he knows nothing about.
First, the appropriate coverage:
- President Bush's eulogy (White House link here) -- very nicely done, including some powerful praise of their father directed at Snow's grieving children.
- Comments by Snow's younger brother Steven -- well-done again, with anecdotes about their childhood in Greater Cincinnati.
- A memorable Snow quote ( "Live boldly. Live a whole life"), followed by a segment from Rev. David M. O'Connell's sermon ("Tony Snow did not need a long life for us to measure. It was, rather, we who needed his life to be longer").
But then in Paragraph 21, the journalistic wheels came off, as Feller tumbled into the land of tabloid trash (bold is mine):
Scott McClellan, Snow's predecessor as press secretary and the author of a scathing tell-all about the Bush White House, attended. He did not appear to cross paths with Bush. Other press secretaries from Bush's tenure and the Bill Clinton White House attended too.
So of the three Bush press secretaries who attended (both Ari Fleischer and Dana Perino must have been there, or Feller could not have written "press secretaries"), the AP reporter only deemed McClellan worthy of mention -- apparently, we must conclude, because McClellan is the only one of the lot who has had critical things to say about the President.
By omitting Fleischer's name, Feller also was able to conveniently avoid the need to mention that the President's first press secretary has essentially shredded the key claims McClellan made in his liberal-published, possibly George Soros-funded "tell-all" book.
"He (McClellan) did not appear to cross paths with Bush?" Feller admits that has no idea what, if anything, happened -- and still felt it necessary to tell us that he has no idea what, if anything, happened. This is "news"? Does anyone besides the Bush-deranged give a rip, Ben? I believe that even the National Enquirer would have left "Fighting Celebrity 1 and Fighting Celebrity 2 attend party; not known if they crossed paths" on the cutting room floor.
Feller's inability to stay classy is reflective of an organization that ought to consider renaming itself the Arrogant Punks. It seems as if the self-described "Essential Global News Network" can't get through any story about the current administration -- regardless of the setting -- without committing journalistic vandalism.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Come on Tom
July 18, 2008 - 05:07 ET by shawn228"Scott McClellan, Snow's predecessor as press secretary and the author
of a scathing tell-all about the Bush White House, attended. He did not
appear to cross paths with Bush. Other press secretaries from Bush's
tenure and the Bill Clinton White House attended too"
Whats the big deal. It is was a very nice article like you said, but Scott McClellan was there and it would have been interesting if he and Bush crossed paths and there was nothing wrong with letting us know the background.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
The names of the other
July 18, 2008 - 06:40 ET by motherbeltThe names of the other former press secretaries weren't even mentioned...they were all lumped together. Only McClellan was singled out.
What the H does McClellan's "background" and his "scathing tell-all" have to do with Tony Snow's funeral??????
And yeah, I bet it would have been a real HOOT if he and Bush had crossed paths!
If they had, do you think a description of that would have been appropriate in this story?
Something tells me you would.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
s228
July 18, 2008 - 07:11 ET by Tom BlumerCome on shawn228, you're really not that dense.
Why name McClellan and not Fleischer or Perino except to make sure McClellan's presence is further highlighted?
And, as noted, Feller doesn't know if they crossed paths (they "appeared" not to). That's an attempt to justify bringing up McClellan that really proves there was no justification to do so.
And would Feller have done anything with McClellan had he not written the "tell-all" book? You know the answer.
The time to bring up McClellan beyond mentioning his presence, along with Fleischer's and Perino, was NOT Tony Snow's funeral.
Feller was writing a piece of history, mostly handled it responsibly, but botched it badly at the end. AP writers can't stop being Bush-deranged moonbats, even at someone's funeral. Like I said, they're a pathetic band of arrogant punks.
Added at 7:30 -- This is so duh-obvious it shouldn't have to be stated: Funeral coverage should be about the deceased. What does Scotty McClellan's book directly have to do with the deceased? Twenty years from now, people will read Snow's obit and wonder why McClellan v. Bush appeared in it. Hopefully, they'll also wonder what kind of jerk would include something like that.
Great comment Tom - especially your 7:30 addition
July 18, 2008 - 08:01 ET by Dee Bunkit's obvious to most of us. Some people will never get it.
Tom
July 18, 2008 - 10:36 ET by shawn228He said McClellan wrote a scathing tell all book and that and Bush did not cross paths. He did not say he agreed with the books assessments either.
Look, I realize there is media bias, but this was not one of those cases
It was a well written and respectful article all the way through. Your just wanting to see something that is not there.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
s228, you ARE a piece of work
July 18, 2008 - 10:45 ET by Tom BlumerLook, I realize there is media bias, but this was not one of those cases.
What part of "scathing, tell-all" don't you understand?
I'll take that as a compliment Tom
July 18, 2008 - 10:49 ET by shawn228The book was not exactly a nice book full of compliments for this former boss did it? I believe he said his former boss exaggerated the evidence of going to war and pretty much trying to cover up the Valerie Plame story
Sounds pretty scathing to me
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
D**n
July 18, 2008 - 10:59 ET by Tom BlumerBeep-Beep, BDS alert .....
Additionally, bringing McClellan up (and not mentioning the other presssecs) distracted from what the story was about (remember?) .... Tony Snow's funeral.
There was no (professional) reason to do that. The reason it was brought up was to get a gratuitous BDS dig in.
Please, you are sooooo out of arguments.
No BDS here Tom
July 18, 2008 - 11:06 ET by shawn228McClellan wrote a scathing tell all book, and the person that was the object of his scathing happenned to be at the same funeral, and the fact that he is President of the United States also makes it interesting.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
makes it interesting ....
July 18, 2008 - 11:11 ET by Tom Blumer.... only to someone with BDS.
QED.
See ya.
Well I guess you are piece of work as well Tom
July 18, 2008 - 11:17 ET by shawn228I have BDS, because I don't believe one small paragraph amounted to Bush bashing? You have a nice day Tom.:-)
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
I repeat shawn...what the
July 18, 2008 - 11:09 ET by motherbeltI repeat what I asked you at first, shawn...what the Big H did McClellan's book have to do with Tony Snow's funeral?????
When you have an answer to that, let me know.
And don't come back with "background" B as in B, S as in S....did Feller provide "background" on anyone else who attended, and whether they "crossed paths" with anyone else?
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Well Motherbelt
July 18, 2008 - 11:14 ET by shawn228McClelland's book did not have anything to do with Tony Snows funeral, but since McClelland was at the funeral, this makes his book relevant in the topic.
I believe this was the first time The President and his former press secretary were at the same place and time and it was worthy of mentioning. One small paragraph from very nice article does not sound like BDS to me.
Some folks can dish it out but cannot take it
Whether or not McClellan
July 18, 2008 - 07:33 ET by HelenSWhether or not McClellan and Bush met during the service, I can guarantee you one thing (based on my observation of the man): President George W. Bush has more class than to sink to confrontation at any event but especially at a funeral for a friend.
He also knows what scum and pin-heads are out there and ever since his first election when he waited with patience and dignity on his ranch for the interminable counting to be over, he is presidential and does not stoop to such petty or childish confrontations that you, Shawn, and Dougie Daniel apparently feel is the inevitable outcome of a meeting between them.
No doubt McClellan would be all fidgety and anxious (suffering from the illusion that it's all about him) but I'm sure President Bush knew exactly why he was there, who he was there for, and probably didn't even notice McClellan. Dang, another blow to the old ego.
Very well said Helen
July 18, 2008 - 07:58 ET by Dee Bunkyour take is the most likely scenario.
You said it before I could
July 18, 2008 - 09:39 ET by pbanks7You said it before I could and more elequently too. Thanks.
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe, then confirming it with a poll.
To be fair
July 18, 2008 - 07:23 ET by sarcasmoMr. Snow disclosed the salary in a 2006 interview, so it wasn't exactly a secret.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Sarc, that's not the point
July 18, 2008 - 08:00 ET by Tom BlumerWhen have you EVER seen salary mentioned in a story written upon someone dying?
Analogy: When Cardinal pitcher John Hancock died in a traffic accident, was his salary disclosed? Answer: No.
The Cards' Darrell Kile? No.
Jesse Helms? No.
Howard Metzenbaum? No. (amount of money involved in a near-scandal mentioned, as well as making $1 per tax return filed when much younger, a not-unusual "up from bootstraps" anecdote that is perfectly appropriate)
Paul Wellstone? No.
Ron Brown? No.
Vince Foster? Figures -- Well, there's a first; the money-obsessed NY Times reported in the second-last paragraph of its original Foster death story that "While at the Rose firm, Mr. Foster represented the interests of the powerful Stephens investment firm. He reported on his financial disclosure statement that he earned $295,000 from the law firm last year." Gawd, who bleeping cares?
But as with Snow, where the agenda was to make sure the reader knew that someone who left his position to make more money was making what most people would think of as a lot of money (I believe Snow used that reason to shield us from the fact that the situation was heading downhill, and to shield himself from a pity party), the Times at that point wanted to plant the possibility in the reader's head that Foster might have been done in or hounded by evil corporate types.
Mr. Blumer is spot on
July 18, 2008 - 07:30 ET by ConservativeRexMr. Blumer is spot on describing this AP report. It is factual that Liberals love to dance on the graves of recently deceased Conservatives.
Feller's reporting comes across as catty. He might as well be gigging people on what they are wearing at the funeral. It does boil down to time and place. It is apparent to everyone but the left that there are things still scared to some folks, funerals for instance. If you are reporting on a funeral, just do that. Keep your opinions to yourself.
By the way, I think the term "journalistic vandalism" is perfect to describe this reporting. Well done!
May I suggest a revision?
July 18, 2008 - 08:01 ET by AmericanEnergistScott McClellan, the weasel who was Snow's predecessor as press secretary (and unfit to hold his jockstrap) and the author of a sell-out book, which may have been better run in the National Enquirer as a column, about the Bush White House, attended. He did not ppear to cross paths with Bush, not having the onions to show his opportunist face.
www.ArmchairEnergist...
Maybe this
July 18, 2008 - 08:12 ET by txco"Scott McClellan, who timed his truth telling to the release date of his new book."
Can truth telling be turned on and off like that?????
Evil is as Evil Does!
July 18, 2008 - 08:09 ET by ChasvsWhy are we even a little suprised at this?
Liberals are the MOST EVIL people in the world! Even the islamofacist have a more rational basis for their evil.
Liberals have it so good in this Country, yet they feel the need to destroy anything that casts their positions in anyting other than a shiny light!
Barak Obama is a Marxist Liberal. There is NOTHING worse!
Sorry, Tom. I'm just not
July 18, 2008 - 09:00 ET by clarkfkSorry, Tom. I'm just not getting your point here. It would appear to me that Feller was just pointing out that someone who may not have gotten along with the Prez showed up, put aside petty BS, and paid respects.
I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill here. Please don't tell me that NewsBusters is going to start inventing contention like the liberal media does...
Oh, please
July 18, 2008 - 09:16 ET by Tom BlumerIt would appear to me that Feller was just pointing out that someone who may not have gotten along with the Prez showed up, put aside petty BS, and paid respects.
That is such a desperate CYA argument.
Again:
- No mention of the other presssec's names. Because .....?
- Amateurish note that "they didn't appear to cross paths." Beneath the level of tabloid gossip.
- By far most important -- The funeral was about TONY SNOW, not Scott McCellan or George Bush, except to the extent that they attended and/or spoke. It had nothing to do with Bush v. McClellan.
Sorry, this is anything but inconsequential. It is so telling. The AP won't let go of its BDS, even in covering a funeral of a wonderful, exemplary man.
ICYMI, see my 7:11 comment and 7:30 addition to it above.
Sorry, Tom. I'm just not getting your point here.
Oh, you get it. You just don't like it.
no... really... I just
July 19, 2008 - 00:23 ET by clarkfkno... really... I just don't get it.
I take from your tone that you perhaps think I'm some type of liberal? Go back and read some of my comments on previous posts over the last year.
Perhaps I'm clueless. But I fail to see exactly how this could be causing such an outrage. There are far too many issues the dems and liberal media are generating, to be nitpicking over - literally - a few sentences which could be interpreted in different ways.
No mention of other names? Can't count for that one. I don't disagree.
Amateurish note? Fine, you can have that one too. Again, I don't disagree.
The funeral was about TONY SNOW? Which is why I would now point to the bulk of the funeral story and your own article title: "...holds on for 20 graphs..."
So, 20 paragraphs of pertinent information and two or three sidebar sentences is a rally for an outcry?
Now that I've ranted on and on (and probably no one will read this anyway), I have to ask: is *this* a "desperate CYA argument", Mr. Blumer?
Sorry Tom
July 18, 2008 - 09:11 ET by CaringwhiteguyYou're pushing the envelope here. Save your powder for all the other really preposterous stuff AP does each day.
It seems most commenters ....
July 18, 2008 - 09:21 ET by Tom Blumer.... beg to differ.
OK Tom
July 18, 2008 - 09:41 ET by CaringwhiteguyOK, majority rules. Remind us of that November 5th.
Tom: I believe that the
July 18, 2008 - 11:25 ET by stratmanTom:
I believe that the authors of the Snow article you quoted actually were complementing/recognizing Snow's knowledge base. From the original article (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hlLqJdEpQFE1IsewIi1OAFbFHN1AD91SA36O0):
The operative words are "if not" which are used, somewhat clumsily in this case, to link the previous compliments of "quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster's good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook" to "always a command of the facts." See http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/ifnot.html for more info on "if not" usage.
The authors may have been trying to be sly and used "if" to mean "even though", but I sincerely doubt it given the compliments that preceded the clause in question. Besides, given the unartful composition of this sentence, do you think they are capable of such stealthy ingenuity? (My own dig at these two numbskull's for their low brow, tabloid-style inclusion of McClellan's non-event with Bush into an article about a funeral.)
I would agree that the authors used weaker grammar to convey the intelligence of Snow. I am sure they wouldn't have been so indirect and clumsy if the subject was a Liberal.
Please include the word "if" in your quote "not always (having) a command of the facts," as the context is changed completely without the word "if".
Thank you.
RRAM Tough!
you're wrong
July 18, 2008 - 13:03 ET by cheesegraterStratman said: "the context is changed completely without the word "if".
No, it isn't.
You are making a semantical
July 18, 2008 - 14:57 ET by stratmanYou are making a semantical distinction not borne from the content/context/sentence structure of the words that preceded the clause in question. Your supposition appears based on a complete non-sequitarian sentence/content structure.
I presume that the authors are neither brilliant wordsmiths nor "English As A Second Language" drop-outs. The grammar is weak but not grotesquely and covertly manipulated to confer an insult.
I don't believe the authors complemented Snow for the bulk of the sentence only to mock him in a weakly phrased clause in the middle portion of the same sentence. Using the following sentence for denigrating Snow would have made a stronger counterpoint as well as an improvement in grammar. As it happened, the authors saved their venom until three paragraphs later**, spewing contempt over four paragraphs, for which they deserve our criticism. A small distinction, but one of importance contextually.
I guess we will agree to disagree, and that's ok.
** Part of the reason Snow left the White House was because he wanted to make as much money possible before he died in order to support his family for after his death. Obviously that's what the Left considers to be an eevil Republican trait. Shame on these authors for their omissions and blatant propagandizing.
RRAM Tough!
sez you
July 18, 2008 - 17:23 ET by cheesegraterYou said nothing that proved there is a difference in meaning by using or not using if in the statement.
I'll defer ....
July 18, 2008 - 13:11 ET by Tom Blumer.... to Rush on this one. He certainly saw it the same way as I did, and said so at least twice over the weekend on Fox and on his show Monday. So did Powerline, Michelle Malkin, and a host of others.
In the context of your link, I think what AP did is an example of how "if not" is "misused to link words that don’t form a weaker/stronger pair."
Because of that, I don't agree with the need to include the "if" in this post -- and besides, the full para is present in the previous post.
Your mileage may vary.
This is a Clintonesque
July 18, 2008 - 13:59 ET by stratmanThis is a Clintonesque situation: Whatever if/if not is!
Maybe we have dialectical/colloquial differences such that your interpretation is substantially different and no less valid from mine.
Maybe if we had heard them recite this sentence we could agree on their intent. Is the inflection on the word "not" or on the word "always"? Makes a world of difference.
I will agree that neither of these authors are pro-Republican let alone pro-Conservative, and more than likely have no difficulty smarming the Right.
I will, however, respectfully disagree with Rush and you on this one point until further information about their intent. If the authors had used "but" or "though" instead of "if", then I would be in complete harmony with you and Rush. There would have been no if's and's or or but's about it!
Grammatically, though, I just don't see the insult in that sentence when taken in its entirety, unless it is, in my opinion, their weakly phrased acknowledgement of Snow's intellect - "... command of the facts".
I look forward to your future posts. Great work!
RRAM Tough!
stratman - you have to read the whole article
July 18, 2008 - 15:02 ET by Dee BunkIt's not their only reference to his facts - there was this also
"Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation."
I read the entire article
July 18, 2008 - 16:07 ET by stratmanI read the entire article before my first post. :-)
Your quote appears to give support to Rush, Tom and Cheesegrater's opinions.
This is where semantics come into play again. One can be in "command of facts" while at the same time "short on facts". The difference is to what degree one chooses to express their factual knowledge. I didn't read into that quote that the author meant Snow did not have the facts at hand, instead that Snow avoided giving out facts by staging an obfuscating and egotistical drama in lieu of a briefing. (What whiney schmuck's those "critics" be.)
From what I saw of Snow's press briefings, he commanded the room and kept close to the vest details and observations he felt necessary, using humor and redirection to move the conversation onwards. He also displayed a remarkable wealth of knowledge on issues when compelled to express data. McClellan, on the other hand, han a propensity to have an "I've gotta poop" look of exasperation when he avoided answering a question. Tony rarely appeared to be lost on a topic and would flat out tell you when he didn't know (not that he wasn't without guile and just didn't care to say anything!).
For example, I may know a great deal of facts about a particular illness. When a patient asks questions I don't spew everything I know about that illness. We all package and tailor our presentations based on the audience, their education level and the desired outcome.
A Press Secretary is not required to tell everything despite the rantings of the Press to the contrary, unlike the duty of a physician to explain facts when a patient requests. Lack of such desired information by the Press Corps does not necessarily confer/infer a lack of command of the facts by the Press Secretary. It surely did not in Tony Snow's case.
BTW, the MSM needs to take another long look in the mirror (again) because "confrontation" takes two parties. Like the true Liberals they are, the MSM always blames someone else for their predicament.
RRAM Tough!
stratman - still no matter what way you look at it it's
July 18, 2008 - 16:28 ET by Dee Bunkan insult. He's either purposefully hiding facts or doesn't understand them. It's a dig either way
DB: My Liberal mother
July 18, 2008 - 16:46 ET by stratmanDB:
My Liberal mother thinks it was an insult.
I'm cursed.
That's what I get for reading Zippy The Pinhead! (lol)
(http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/15/zippy-pinhead-mocks-global-warming-alarmism)
RRAM Tough!
It's okay - strat - we are all misguided at times ; )
July 18, 2008 - 16:59 ET by Dee Bunkand we can disagree without joining the FIGHT CLUB here. I don't know if you know about it but there is a gang here that likes to turn little disagreements into long drawn out fights among conservatives here. Watch out for them. They like to mock reasonable people for getting along.
Your mom sounds like a cool liberal : )
Thanks Dee Bunk. I did
July 18, 2008 - 17:47 ET by stratmanThanks Dee Bunk.
I did not take offense to what anyone wrote and I try not to respond to the trolling kind. ;-)
Thank you for the compliment about my mom. She is dear woman who has little interest in politics, which exasperates me on occasion as I enjoy discussing it so much. Interestingly, she distrusts Obama and will not vote for him. I think my "gentle" discussions, armed with data from NewsBusters, have helped illuminated the "messiah" (lowercase on purpose) to be a "false profit", so to speak.
Posters such as yourself and Tom are the reason I relish visiting Newsbusters. We may disagree on occasion but our goals of exposing Liberal bias to promote and protect honest discussion is the same.
RRAM Tough!
I agree stratman Tom and all the NB contributors
July 19, 2008 - 09:41 ET by Dee Bunkare excellent. I think it's great that they take the time to respond to people. I hate when immature people attack them. I've disagreed with Tom before and just about all the NB contributors at one time or another and they have always been respectful.
The people who don't get respect are the ones who don't give it. You disagreed with something but had a non subjective (though still incorrect IMO) argument and were not rude so he wasn't' rude to you and neither was I.
Thanks for showing people how to do it right. I hope you and more people like you comment more.
I've been looking again at
July 18, 2008 - 16:39 ET by stratmanI've been looking again at the quote used in my original post:
For there to be an insult of not knowing facts oftentimes would also mean it to be an insult to those "around the country" and Snow's "White House bosses." And Snow would be popular despite not being smart, which makes little sense in the context of his job. Then again, who suffers fools on a regular basis?
(Trick question! Conservatives suffer foolish Liberals on a daily basis.)
While at first blush this makes perfect sense coming from a Conservative viewpoint about two Liberal writers, I don't believe them intelligent enough, dumb enough and Machiavellian enough to intend to insult Snow in this section of the article.
From what I see, the article takes on a type of "sandwich" approach bosses will use in giving criticism to employees. The beginning and end of the article/discussion, representing the bread of the sandwich, are positive attributes about the subject of the criticism. The meat of the article/discussion, the thing the author/boss most wants to communicate, is the criticism. In providing positives before and after the criticism, the employee retains some sense of self worth and hope, while the boss does not get strangled on the spot. The criticism in the article was separated by several paragraphs from the "command of facts" comment, thus making it more likely part of the bread and less likely part of the meat.
Clear as mud, right?
I think I'm going snowblind looking at this for too long!
RRAM Tough!