Damn! Newsweek was caught in a...

[The Ressurrected One]

...Rovian plot! Oh, the madness.

Arianna Huffington has a blogger, self-described "business futurist" Steve Brant (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/steven-g-brant/newsweek-and-highly-plac_1066.html), with this insight:


Newsweek getting "caught" like this has Karl Rove's stink all over it. Am I the only one who sees this pattern at work? ...one that is destroying the credibility of the press? Not that the press hasn't made its own mistakes (thanks NY Times/Jason Blair)...but when it comes to "big news" stories where The White House gets to shout "How dare you!" because sources turn out to be shady (even though the facts of the story are never refuted)...

Come on, folks...who's going to benefit most from living in a country where when CBS or Newsweek says the people in power have done something bad those people can do their best Ronald Reagan imitation and say "There they go again."

The solution? Full disclosure of all sources when it comes to stories like this? I'm not sure.

But what I AM sure about it that any mainstream press organization that publicizes ANYTHING bad about this administration had better make sure they've got their source on tape and fingerprinted...not just for their own protection, but for the protection of America!

We need a press that the people trust! Therefore, we need a press that avoids the traps being set for them by (in my humble opinion) Rove & Co.
We saw the same comment from Terry McAuliffe during the Rather CBS memo scandal. What's fascinating about the "We stepped into a Rovian trap!" rhetoric is how disempowering it is to those who disagree with Rove and the Bush administration. The message it conveys is that no matter how hard Bush opponents try, no matter how much they think they've finally caught the administration red handed, that all-powerful, all-knowing Rove finds some way to spring a trap and win the final battle. Rove's agents are everywhere, they're ingenious, they can trick or influence or manipulate anyone on the left...

In fact, considering who benefits from all this Rove-is-behind-it-all talk and the left's obsession with uncovering vast conspiracies and secret plots, it almost sounds like something that would be done by... Karl Rove.

It's a Rovian plot to get us to talk about Rovian plots!

[Mark in Austin]

It's not a final battle Rove wins, rather one of a series of smaller skirmishes that when added up provide the appearance of massive unreliability and untrustworthyness in the press, especially to those who tend to blindly accept what their leaders tell them.

It's actually quite similar to the strategy Newt Gingrich first used to topple Jim Wright years ago...



ps - It's no different that how tort "reform" was able to be passed and I personally think something similar is being set up for public schools as well.

[NeoConIV]

It's actually quite similar to the strategy Newt Gingrich first used to topple Jim Wright years ago...


Hmm, can you refresh my memory a bit?

[Mark in Austin]

There's a great book on it... I'll try to get the title and author - its been out for about 6 or 7 years I believe. Anyway, the gist of it went as follows:

Newt as a freshman in the House spent an inordinate amount of time travelling. He visited many, many small towns making sure to stop at the paper to give an interview. Most times it was a pretty rare if not first time event for the papers, and they ate it up. He would usually put somewhere in his interview that he couldn't believe how the big media outlets were missing it, but Wright was dirty as the came, and he was getting away with it. Nothing substantiated, just a focused comment. The article would then be published and would usually mention something about a swirl of controversy around Wright; or reports of unethical behavior, etc.

After a couple months he would the make a tour of meduim market cities, give interviews, but this time ask the editor or reporter if they were on the Jim Wright story yet. When they would say no, Newt would act surprised and give them clippings of some of the "better" small town stories. These became the primary source material for the meduim market stories. He then repeated the process with large markets until you had major publications starting stories with phrases like: "Speaker Wright, admist a swirling cloud of suspicions of unethical behavior, spoke today on..."

It was a genious move - but a move that in part precipitated the movement of a new generation of Republicans who compromised far less, and raised the rancor level in the house to its current level (prior to that House members worked across the aisle far more often and had genuine working relationships and friendships across the aisle as well). Got Wright kicked out for nothing more than some of his friends/supporters buying extra copies of a book he published to bring him some extra revenue, as he was not independently wealthy or formally a lawyer. He was a lifelong public servant who had a pretty limited budget.

[SPARKY]

In a totally unrelated comment I hope the Wright amendment is repealed soon.

[NeoConIV]

Ok, I think I'm following. So if I understand, Rove ordered an anonymous government official to misinform a Newsweek reporter, with the plan that Newsweek would unwittingly report this and then Rove's expectations would be fully realized when the middle east furor erupts and then Newsweek falls on its sword?

[The Ressurrected One]

"There's a great book on it... I'll try to get the title and author - its been out for about 6 or 7 years I believe. Anyway, the gist of it went as follows:"

"Newt as a freshman in the House spent an inordinate amount of time travelling. He visited many, many small towns making sure to stop at the paper to give an interview. Most times it was a pretty rare if not first time event for the papers, and they ate it up. He would usually put somewhere in his interview that he couldn't believe how the big media outlets were missing it, but Wright was dirty as the came,..."
Wright was as dirty as they came.


"...and he was getting away with it. Nothing substantiated, just a focused comment. The article would then be published and would usually mention something about a swirl of controversy around Wright; or reports of unethical behavior, etc."
So, the papers didn't bother to corroborate or follow up? Just took the word of a junior Congressman? Well, that would explain the current state of the legacy media right there, wouldn't it?


"After a couple months he would the make a tour of meduim market cities, give interviews, but this time ask the editor or reporter if they were on the Jim Wright story yet. When they would say no, Newt would act surprised and give them clippings of some of the "better" small town stories. These became the primary source material for the meduim market stories."
I see...the medium market news outlets didn't happen to see the small market stories were in the context of an interview with -- voila' -- Newt Gingrich, who happened to be sitting in front of them? Wow!

"He then repeated the process with large markets until you had major publications starting stories with phrases like: "Speaker Wright, admist a swirling cloud of suspicions of unethical behavior, spoke today on..."
Do you happen to recall what happened to Jim Wright? Wasn't he actually shamed "admist [sic] a swirling cloud of [actual] unethical behavior?"


"It was a genious move..."
Hell, truthtelling isn't genius; it comes pretty easy to honest people.

"... - but a move that in part precipitated the movement of a new generation of Republicans who compromised far less, and raised the rancor level in the house to its current level (prior to that House members worked across the aisle far more often and had genuine working relationships and friendships across the aisle as well)."
Yeah, nice try...Democrats have raised the rancor on their own, quite well, thank you very much.

"Got Wright kicked out for nothing more than some of his friends/supporters buying extra copies of a book he published to bring him some extra revenue, as he was not independently wealthy or formally a lawyer."
Well, it was a bit more than that. He was requiring the purchase of blocks of his book by those who hired him for speaking engagements...and, this was in addition to his speaking fee.


He was a lifelong public servant who had a pretty limited budget.
Jim Wright was a slimeball.

[The Ressurrected One]

Ok, I think I'm following. So if I understand, Rove ordered an anonymous government official to misinform a Newsweek reporter, with the plan that Newsweek would unwittingly report this and then Rove's expectations would be fully realized when the middle east furor erupts and then Newsweek falls on its sword?
Brilliant! I say we make Karl Rove King of the World!

[Bandit2981]

Rove did bug his own office, remember?

[NeoConIV]

So what's your take Bandit? Rove?

[The Ressurrected One]

Rove did bug his own office, remember?
And?

[Bandit2981]

i dont have a particular take on Newsweek yet, although if it passed by a couple people at the pentagon and they gave the OK, it seems Newsweek shouldnt shoulder all the blame. i was just giving an example that Rove has done these kinds of things before to take down something he views as a threat

[The Ressurrected One]

"i dont have a particular take on Newsweek yet, although if it passed by a couple people at the pentagon and they gave the OK,..."
So, you want the government reviewing and approving content for news organizations?

"...it seems Newsweek shouldnt shoulder all the blame."
I think Newsweek is entirely responsible for the content of their magazine.

"...i was just giving an example that Rove has done these kinds of things before to take down something he views as a threat"
Really? When was that?

[Bandit2981]

So, you want the government reviewing and approving content for news organizations?

I think Newsweek is entirely responsible for the content of their magazine.

Really? When was that?
1. no, but in this case it was a government official who was the source, so i can understand why they wanted to run it by the pentagon to see if there was anything blatently false with the info given to them
2. newsweek only printed a story based on what a credible source they've used in the past gave to them
3. if you dont know about Rove bugging his own office, go look it up

[The Ressurrected One]

"1. no, but in this case it was a government official who was the source, so i can understand why they wanted to run it by the pentagon to see if there was anything blatently false with the info given to them"
Actually the Pentagon is on record saying they believe the "source" is from Congress not them. And, when they saw the information, they neither confirmed or denied because they didn't know where it came from, since the source was anonymous and there weren't any documents attributed. After checking their documents (after publication) they concluded it was an amalgum of two action reports, one involving a detainee intentionally clogging his toilet with a Koran (where's the Muslim outrage over that?) and one where a detainee filed a complaint over a guard knocking a hanging bag, containing a Koran, onto the ground.

It wasn't the Pentagon's responsibility to fact check the story. They responded to the Newsweek story, with a denial on some other part of the story.

"2. newsweek only printed a story based on what a credible source they've used in the past gave to them"
Yeah, go talk to Dan Rather about "credible" sources. They should name the guy if he's so credible. After all, his information has resulted in the deaths of 17 people...you'd think he'd want to set the record straight and tell us where this information originated. At the very least, Newsweek might want to forego the traditional source secrecy to save their own hide.

I don't understand protecting a source that gave you bad information. Are you really going to use them again?

"3. if you dont know about Rove bugging his own office, go look it up"
I don't get the relevance of your assertion. So what if he bugged his own office? I mean, that worked out for Richard Nixon so well, didn't it?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Hey, whatever it takes to keep people from being conservative is ok in my book.

book it.

[Mark in Austin]

Neo - I told you I was typing what I recalled of the gist of the book - didn't claim to be providing the blueprint for the strategy. I'll get the title and author for you. Also, I think you're changing the subject when mid discussion you turn around and blame the media. Forget if you think in this particular case that Newt lied/was disingenious or not. As a general debate strategy, saying "It's not my fault you believed the lie I told you" doesn't make much sense to me. Would it be better to not be as gullible or to be knowledgeable enough on a subject to recognize fact from fiction? Of course. I don't think any of us would say otherwise - the more educated our media, and the electorate become, the better. But I don't think that in any way sanctions or justifies the original deception/lie. For either party or an individual to assume that their fight for political dominance justifies lies or slander whenever they can get away with it, and that somehow the media is at fault for not figuring it out has never sat well with me. (Note my recent criticism of Nbadan for the fake cesna story - I'm not just lining up to take a shot at the right here - everybody should have higher standards when it comes to political debate.)

As far as my description of Jim Wright / what he did - I don't condone what happened - it was a violation of ethics laws. And I have never met him personally. However, I do think the whole incident was turned into a much bigger deal than it really was. (not every ethics violation is of the same degree, the same way jaywalking and DUI, to use an obvious example, are both against the law but have different magnitudes of seriousness, as the difference in fines/consequences reflect.) I would say I'm inclined to think that at least some of the alleged violations Delay has had are really not the big deal some are making them out to be either. This isn't to make a direct comparison between Wright and Delay, just trying to show that I think both parties get too focused on using an unfortunate situation for poitical advantage instead of really establishing the severity of the violation. I'm not a partyline hack simply trying to defend "my guys" and denigrate "your guys".) As far as what Wright actually did, you obviously have a different read on the specifics of the case, and that's fine - plenty of other feel the same as you do. Please know though, that I'm not knee-jerk defending him simply because of his political party. In this case I came to the conclusion I did based on the accounts and recollections of Wright (in general and specifically on the ethics issue) by a close friend that I have known for years and trust implicitly. He (my friend, not Wright) has served as an elected and appointed official in Texas, and was the press secretary for a US Congressman during the time frame in question. He loves his state and his country. I think he's a remarkable patriot who has a passion for public service and dedicates a considerable chunk of time to it still, even though he's now in the private sector. He doesn't wrap himself in the flag, pander to a particular special interest, or chain himself to trees. He believes in reaching across the aisle to find common ground and in the useful and necessary role of compromise in governance. In short, I have found him to be an honest an honorable man, and having no reason to doubt his integrity, I believe what he has told me.

As far as rancor and Democrats there's no denying that in the past few years, they've turned up the rhetoric. However, please note the incident I was referring to happened some 20 years ago, and it is a fact that there was a general attitude shift in the House Republicans at that time as a new, less experienced, generally younger group started to gain numbers, and Gingrich was one of the leaders. As their focus turned more to the defense and promotion of a more unyeilding political idiology (as was their right - I dont' have to agree with a party's strategic decision to recogize that it a legit decision for a party to make), the tone did change in Washington. Call it the difference in style between generations of public servants if you want, but it happened. Clearly, there was a growing segment of the population that had a more strident view of what it meant to be conservative, so it should not come as a surprise that the House started to reflect this trend. I think the best proof of this change of the style, for lack of a better word, is the growth of conservative talk radio over that same time frame.