Moreover, in my above remarks, I probably put too much stress on the individual failures of the press corps, particularly WRT their toughness, but I neglected to emphasize that they ultimately are reflections of the institutions they work for; most of them wouldn’t be that weak if their editors weren’t that weak, and the editors likewise reflect the publishers and owners.

I also think it’s fair to say that the broad consolidation of media and the resulting diversity of voices has played a significant role in those publishers’/owners’ behavior — they have more real power to chart the course of our national discourse, and they’re applying it. And that course largely corresponds with what we know of their political views: they’re conservative.

So I would imagine that any correspondent who showed too much moxie and not enough get-along would be shut out and their work made that much more difficult. And if they lost the support of their editors, they wouldn’t have the assignment for long anyway. So they make a lot of compromises to get their jobs done. And guys like McClellan always counted on that.

Well, we’re all human. As I said on another thread the other day, these are prestigious jobs that people work very hard to attain in their careers, and the pressure is tremendous not to blow it. I actually can understand why people make those choices, and I’ve never been privileged to be faced with those kinds of difficulties in the first place, so I can’t honestly say how I’d respond. I’d like to say that I would first keep my integrity, but I can’t say that for a fact. I’m human too.

that eventually had them all behaving like abused spouses.

I agree. Although I see the dysfunctionality with Bush and the “whipped” press corps as more specifically Bush as an addict personality, Jekyll/Hyde, that enthralls a codependent enabler chronically locked in his or her crazymaking orbit with no escape worn down and stuck in ‘reactive’ not ‘proactive’ mode.

Did you know that in the ranks of the recovery organization Alanon, a person who is in both AA and Alanon (called a “double winner”) is no longer allowed to take on a heirarchical role in that organization because the “double winners” … i.e., recovering alcoholics, were still RUNNING THE SHOW even with their “recovering” alononic counterparts. Go figure.

I think the book is a big deal, and a surprise in the sense you mentioned, that a Bush camp follower would actually break ranks to write what he knows.

An interesting theme in the press reaction is that McClellan sounds like a lefty blogger, like someone from FDL, or Orcinus or for that matter PressThink. That’s a brain scrambler for the Washington journalist. To wit, on Hardball:

MIKE ALLEN, POLITICO: The other great power of this book is that it validates, as David [Gregory] said, these criticisms that have come from the liberal and left wing bloggers.

MATTHEWS: Right.

ALLEN: Most especially his point that the White House press corps was too deferential to this administration. David and I have fought back about those charges over the years. Largely because of the work of people like David Gregory it just wasn’t true. But now the left can say, “Even Scott McClellan says you guys were too easy on the Bushies.”

MATTHEWS: Well let’s go right–

DAVID GREGORY: Yeah…

MATTHEWS: Go ahead David.

GREGORY: …I mean this notion that somehow we were, we were too easy on him or in the run up to war, I mean it just doesn’t jibe with the kinds of things he was saying at the time–

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

GREGORY: –or, or, or, you know, it’s the idea that he’s, you know, was on a, a completely different plane during that whole time when you got, you got no sense of it. I think that’s a separate discussion but I don’t think that’s a, that’s a credible charge.

That it doesn’t jibe with what he said at the time is the whole theme of the book. He came to it on reflection. But when you are protecting against just that–deep reflection on your own role in the mess–the sight of someone else doing it sends Gregory into a bit of a brain freeze.

And for that matter, the first quote was also a rhetorical device — that is, I actually do think the revelations are important, but I can’t say that they come in any way as a surprise except that a Bush camp follower would actually break ranks to write what he knows; most of them are True Believers.

Really, the only surprise for me is that so much of the press corps was willing to stand up there day after day and let him do it.

So yes, McClellan’s book is a big deal in fact, but not so much for what it revealed about the White House, which has tended to be the focus of the discussion and really should not be a surprise to anyone. The big deal is how clearly it reveals the press falling down utterly on the job. Which was the point of this post generally.

To God’s and the alternate media’s ears! Thank you.

George Bush came into office under a cloud and will leave a hurricane stricken residue of corrupt prosecutions, corrupted laws and agencies, a bankrupt treasury and a small cohort of followers permanently enriched. He leaves us a “Defense” Department that has its fist in every aspect of government and our daily lives, from our driver’s licenses and moles at vegan dinner meetings to our fingerpints and internet chats. Much of it run by outsourced service providers led by former Defense Department staff in what must be the world’s greatest conflict of interest.

The tragedy is that the corporate media expect the President to lie as much as it does, by omission as well as commission. Telling the truth is news.

Bush came into office with no agenda but to tear down government by surreptitiously privatizing it and, like Nixon, to take out his enemies, both foreign and domestic. As McCain’s camp is monopolized by lobbyists, Bush’s is monopolized by PR hacks, an army of Roves, Zieglers, Fleischers, McClellans. His heads of the EPA and FEMA aren’t exceptions, they’re the rule, a rule carefully enforced by a squadron of Monica Goodlings and overseen by a Vice President who gives Bush his daily dose of self-esteem and his marching orders.

Reporting that isn’t responsible “journalism” as defined by the corporate media. One, they can’t prove it, not without asking embarrassing questions. Two, it would cut off their access and the ready approval of their business mergers, expansions and legal preferences. Those make infinitely more money than broadcasting news, which they regard as a loss leader. Allowing that would be bad for shareholders. American citizens? They rank lower than the granny from Pasadena with one share in Enron.

it was truly all that goopers could hope for–russert changed the topic to mcclellan and not BUSH.