Washington File

Henry:

When will people start recognizing George W. for what he has become - A Dictator!

During the past seven years, despite his position, he has not really been the president, but has been one of the most successful PR men in American history, while the real president - the man who ran the show - has been the sly and inveterate liar, Dick Cheney.

During the various crises did you notice how comprehensive Bush's statements to the press were? And the times when Cheney dropped off the scene - he thought he wasn't needed - Bush's press conferences were made up of gobble-de-gook. He couldn't think of anything to say, because he had not been coached, and policy had not been explained to him.

Never in the history of the United States has a vice president had as much input as Cheney, or attended as many White House meetings. JFK wanted no input from Johnson; FDR did not want to hear from Truman; and so on. The vice president has always been just the man waiting for the president to die, and was the president of Congress while he waited.

And now, as Bush's term ends, and to counter logic and intelligence, Bush has resorted to the tactics of a dictator.

Bob Vollum

I'm sorry to be rather negative, but how is Henry Champs personal blog about all that is bad about the Bush White House news? The man has been on a steady trajectory towards blatant bias for some time now. OK! Henry, we get it. You do not like George W. Great. Now please, go find some news to report on. America is a big, dynamic country with a million stories. Surely you can find one other.

Dear Mr. Champ,

You're from Canada. I think most Canadians speak freely and truthfully.

So, why are you, let alone the rest of the "media," putting up with King Geroge the "W"? He is the ultimate "Village Idiot," is he not? Both as a journalist and Canadian Citizen, why do you put up with the garbage that King George the "W" shoves down the open mouths of the American "Corporate Owned" journalists? Why does anyone stand up at a, so-called, news conference and peg King George for what he really is? Are all of you really that weak minded and not true journalists, or do you just love the money more than being honest journalists?

Either way, it doesn't matter. The damage has been done, and more and more people will needlessly die because of King George the W.

Special Note: There is no "last word" on the internet. This is what happens when you live in a time spawned by the "Great Communicator." Also, having savoured all the Roman emperors from start to finish, I highly recommend the current occupant. Dubya is truly a moveable feast.

Heaven knows, I'm no fan of the "media"; however, some historical thought might help. Not so many decades ago, there were only newspapers. Radio arrived, meaning two players competing for the same pool of real news. TV, internet, blogs, free papers etc and you see the problem. There simply are too many fishermen chasing too few fish. Unless and until, the media starts fitting into its pants again, look for all these traits to continue and likely amplify. And the more splintered they may be, the more easy for anyone inclined to dodge them to do so.

Hey Jer, mr Black has shown his utter contempt
for Canada many time and I(as well as many
other Canadians) hope he rots in, uh, some
country club they call a prison(oh well, it's
something I guess). As for the infallable
finger of blame, I don't know where that comes
from as we screw up with the best of them.

As I read the comments, I feel that no one is stepping up to write the truth.
Every one pulls in their direction and in the end all that remains is a torn topic....a north American tradition. The Love/Hate north American posture seems typical in this case. Love/Hate, Black/White, Left/Right, "it's my way or no way"....I've come to believe that there's content in between. The truth is in the grey.

Truth, in my opinion, is that there are too many lies and no one to keep them in check. Were all too busy improving our lives with in the system and have lost the powers of empowerment. They (our grand chosen leaders) do what they want and with the help of CNN, the propaganda machine, right or wrong, we are puppeteered to feel what they want. I read some graffiti on a wall in my barrio the other day..."There is no peace with out truth". THEY will weaving lies to get their way in the name of democracy and there's nothing an army of journalists can do about it.
The front line is you and me. If it stinks, it's rotten.
**love cbc

Politicians seem to have no problems whatsoever using the media to get their message out during elections: they live to create photo ops by kissing babies and pressing the flesh. That makes sense, after all, as the country to travel and the crowds scattered are so vast, using the media to impress voters makes a ton of sense. Too bad that after these bumpkins get themselves elected they choose to ignore the very electorate they once went crawling to on hands and knees. Our media is only too happy to oblige because they are made up of corporate entities concerned primarily with profit, as every good capitalist organization ought to be, and these entities are only too happy to pander to the demogs in order to lock up market share (viewership, readership, listenership) as much as humanly possible.

It isn't about ideas or dialogue or even hard news anymore - it hasn't been for a very long time. Now it's about sales and ad space. There is a voracious appetite out there for pap and nonsense to fill in the blanks between the ads that pay the freight so stories will continue to be molded to fit those spaces. Public broadcasters such as CBC and PBS edit content to a different criteria perhaps, but edit they do nonetheless so they, too, can get those Paris Hilton stories in there. Numbers are numbers, and the media outlet with the best numbers, wins.

My question to Henry or any journalist willing to look, is this. The Breeden Report clearly states that Richard Perle profited by some $4 million US during the Holinger frauds as the co-coordinator of the Board of Directors. Apparently no crimes were committed. Is this the same Richard Perle who met with the President of the US on the morning of Sept. 12, 2001 at 6am, two hours before the CIA director had access to the President? Is the Jim Thompson of the Audit committee the same Gov. Jim Thompson from the 9/11 commission? Some readers may be curious about this angle of the story Henry.

cbilodeau,

it is indeed the same Richard Perle, who has been a longtime advisor to President Bush, both paid and unpaid..Perle, however well rewarded, is not a subject of any Hollinger-related investigation at this time.

and Jim Thompson of the audit committee and Gov. Jim Thompson of the 9/11 commission are one and the same......h

"Keeping Quiet While Being Critisized" seems to be exactly what Americans do, if George W. Bush is any indication.

If the man doesn't like talking to journalists he needs to have a good reason, if he can't stand in front of a crowd and explain and defend his decisions than what kind of leader is he? A leader who hides in his fortress and rarely takes any time to communicate with his people is the kind of leader I wouldn't want running my country.

Will, "You never learn when you are talking" so true. But at the risk of a) making Henry's blog about me and b) again getting in the last word. Eman says Canada has the right to point it's "infallible finger" at the US and we should just shut up about it. Sorry but Canadians are not infallible and criticism is not always valid. Besides Eman offered no criticism that I saw. I merely wondered about Canadian reaction to Fitzgerald tossing Conrad Black into the slammer. It seems that he is not a real Canadian though.

Jerry, true american, gotta get the last word
in even when you are wrong. i agree with Eman, shut up and listen to the criticism
cuz we all know when you listen you are learning, when you are yapping, your not.

Eman, well said, However "keeping quiet when being criticized" sounds more like a Canadian thing. We like to defend ourselved down south.

I may not agree with Bush's regime, but I do know he should have a justified reason as to why he doesn't enjoy speaking with journalists.

As a victim of extreme bullying myself all the way up until University, I have to say the treatment of Bush's every slip-up in speech (it has been brought to light that he is very likely dislexic) or misquoted statement is overly harsh.

Posted everywhere, including on t-shirts and blogs and whathaveyou, as well as being compared to look like a monkey, would you, if in the same position, enjoy speaking to journalists, knowing that was what awaited even one mistake?

Didn't think so.

I'm not saying Bush is a saint, nor do I agree with the war in Iraq; I'm saying the constate negative treatment of his very mannerisms is needless and cruel. That's all.

To Jerry in Seattle - I doubt Henry's blog will include discussion of Conrad Black considering his blog is titled the "Washington File" and he is a Washington correspondent. In addition, Mr. Black's case was in Chicago.
In spite of Mr. Black's nationality at birth, he is anything but Canadian. As I understand it, he's held passports for both Britain and the US, seemingly giving up his Canadian citizenship without a second thought. And then when he thought he may be tried more favourably in Canada, he tried to weasel his way back, only to be turned away. I have very serious doubts that Canadians are in any way miffed by the recent verdict.
I presume, though, that you were (in)directly telling Henry and our collective Canadian National pride to take a hike. Or perhaps hoping it would be too busy crying foul play to point it's infallible fingers anymore. We do, however, have a much better glass house from which to throw our stones. Consdiering how much of the world the United States insists on controlling, the very least your country can do is keep quiet when it is being criticized.

Henry, I know you love picking American scabs but now that Canada has a dirtball of it's very own, freshly convicted and all, I wonder if this will be the subject of your "blog". I wonder too if the hero who put Scooter Libby in jail (theoretically) is still a hero after doing likewise to Conrad "the thief" Black. Lots of Canadian nationalism reflected in your readers feedback. I am sure they are loaded and ready to shoot. (at the judge)

I don't have a solution unfortunately. However it's become abundantly clear that expecting the public to take the initiative to look for the truth is a complete failure. The right-wing/monied classes have exploited this massively (and others have too though I would submit to a lesser degree). Putting any single entity in charge of deciding what gets printed/broadcast is dangerous, but given a lazy public it's hard to say what should be done.

The current method has resulted in hundreds of thousands being killed in Iraq (locals + military) and other problems going untouched (climate problems, etc.). Doing nothing makes us complicit in the crimes in a way but a solution that is effective and non-coercive escapes me at the present time.

Leadership is of course what is lacking, but expecting it from the paid-off politicians of either stripe is another dead-end. They are now merely fronts for whichever group is funding them, some just hide that a bit better than others.

The press in some cases tries to educate and inform and in other cases doesn't try at all (Fox being the obvious example). Unfortunately the masses that need to be educated don't or won't listen. They have 30 second attention spans and are simply interested in bread and circuses and that's what they're given.

I'd be willing to guess this is what Rome was like during the decline. The interesting argument would be is George more like Calligula, or Commodus, or Nero, ...

Good comments John, I can't say I disagree with you but but what's the solution? You have to admit there's a danger in letting the media, the government, or anyone else for that fact, dictate what we should read and how a story should be spun. You said it yourself, there are still many people who think it was Iraq that perpetrated 9/11 instead of the true culprits; the Saudis under the banner of Al Quaeda. That was one media spin, but the opposite view was also well reported just not everyone picked up on it.

The only solution I can see is to educate people to dig further into a subject than what is immediately presented. Usually with a bit of work, one can quickly start to see flaws in the story.

Kind of like wondering how the USofA could land on the moon and come back to Earth in 1969 with a computer as powerful as what we have in a small calculator or a wrist watch these days, and pioneering rocket technology, yet in 2007, with the incredible technological advances we've made since then, they are trying to figure out how to go back and are struggling to find a solution. What's up with that?

Rich Charles: Regarding the press being responsible for dividing the U.S. nation (????).

I don't see how the press could be held responsible for this. The nation is divided because half of them blindly follow Bush's ideologies, while the other half reads the fact and the fiction, and then draws their own conclusion. The only logical and sensible conclusion when it's all assessed is that the Iraq war (and by extension, much of the "war" on terror) is a fabrication created to inflate the profits of corporate America, especially big oil. It is a sad fact that war is good for the economy. Notwithstanding the ballooning amounts paid by the government to wage these wars, the corporations themselves are making billions upon billions of dollars.

I suspect that Bush's cronies knew far in advance that the Iraq invasion would open a can of worms that would likely take decades to close. I don't necessarily include Bush himself in this theory because, quite simply, I don't think he's intelligent enough to have that kind of foresight. Many years after these men are no longer in power, they will still reap the fiscal benefits of these wars, with absolutely no thought to the dead and maimed that they will have left behind.

But back to the press... The nation is divided because of the Bush administration and their policies. It's simple. Half agree and half don't.

The press followed the government rhetoric for a long time after 9/11 and are just now beginning to come to their senses. The citizens had already realized that they were being lead by the nose by that time. I suspect the press was merely following the growing sentiment of the people, not vice versa.

Alden21: You've suggested that it's necessary to give both sides, no matter what the story, equal time. I submit that is what you have now. The right-wing BS machine is spewing constantly and people are NOT figuring out the difference. Without the press pointing out that they're full of hot air and turning the spout off or at least down, the 90% of the public that does not read critically takes what is said at face value and accepts it as gospel. For example, most in the US still think Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Yes I understand what you mean in theoretical terms. Given an informed and critical audience presenting both sides and letting the chips fall where they may is correct. However, you do not have an informed and critical audience. Most people don't go past the Paris Hilton articles, let alone be bothered to read far and wide and compare the facts.

Putting the screening in the hands of the press is dangerous I agree. But clearly leaving it to the mass public to screen the wheat from the chaff has failed miserably.

George: You got it under control up there?
Steve: Yup.

Sad as this reporter puts it,George Bush doesn't like the press.Well folks,the press has succeeded in dividing this country in two.Now we even post on these sites arguing for our political beliefs.Well,I am one American who believes we are still"One Nation,Under God""Indivisible".Too bad these media cronies don't want that.They wouldn't have a story if we all stick together,like we did on the Immigration Bill.Grow up,stick together.Let's make it "One Nation,Under God"again! and quit supporting these divisionists!!

I think Henry Champ is still a fine reporter. A rare commodity these days.

I much prefer this "old war horse of a correspondent" to the young darlings of the new CBC. When they visit university campuses, they actually charge admission fees to the students for their bon mots. By all means, Henry, tell us all about the architecture of your new work station. "Marshall McLuhan, Thou art mighty still!"

I would not call those people journalists anymore, in the USA or in Canada. The main press (TV or Paper) is so controlled that you can see bias and lies through it. What a shame! At least in the internet I can have much more choice to find what really is happening around the world if I stay away from the main press. Bush doesn't like the media. It must be contagious since Harper has the same problem. It can be difficult to be a dictator in a democracy.

Isn't it about time that the CBC put this war horse of a correspondent out to pasture?

John posted: "balanced reporting does not mean that both sides get equal time. The way they're doing it now, Adolf Hitler or Stalin would get equal time to say why they're not such bad fellows after all. Not all sides are equal in some things; some stories only have one side."

Sorry John, but you're completely wrong. There is never ever only one side to any story. That's what the protagonists want you to believe. Perspectives on all sides must be published truthfully and completely so that intelligent people can come to informed conclusions. After all, what is considered evil to one person may not be to another. If it's cut and dry, then the proper conclusion will be easily arrived at. To deny one or more sides of a story because of the perception that one side is inherantly evil, breeds bias and becomes propaganda. What you are proposing is the absolute worst kind of journalism.

Corporations do what is in their shareholders' best interests at all times. Media outlets that are run by these enormous media conglomerates are no exception. Since it is now virtually impossible to tell where the Government ends and the corporations begin, it's quite obvious that most news agencies are now being used to promote their mutual agenda.
While I think this set up works for all governments, this is Mr. Bush's only means of survival. Bush wasn't in the public eye too much for the first 8 months of his presidency. His reading skills improved significantly after Sept. 11th and from then on he was the man when it came to reading his prepared speeches. But if you've ever seen him being questioned by the press (or his un-scriped meanderings in general), you'll understand the phenomenal need to keep him hushed up.

Another chronic problem with "journalists" now is the tendency to simply repeat verbatim press releases and call it news. This happens constantly with what might be termed Technology "news" - simply repeating what some company is announcing with zero analysis, but it's also becoming the trend more and more with what ought to be serious news. Simply repeating spin out of whatever government is not reporting - it's propaganda.

Another thing - balanced reporting does not mean that both sides get equal time. The way they're doing it now, Adolf Hitler or Stalin would get equal time to say why they're not such bad fellows after all. Not all sides are equal in some things; some stories only have one side. This seems to have been totally forgotten.

The whole concept of white house press briefings breeds corruption of the journalists. They have to pander to even be allowed to reach this "pinnacle of achievement". Pandering is the opposite of what media should be doing. Better the politicians issue written explanations via a white house web site that all media both Corporate dominated and all the others that are not so dominated can access. Being semi-embedded at the white house or fully embedded in Iraq is corruption at work.

The press "lost it's direction a bit.."!? The U.S. media has been a tool of the plutocracy (the type of government the Americans have had more or less since the Indians were exterminated) going back to the days of the Western expansion in the 19th century. The papers of the day had mostly surreal and absurd justifications the Indian Wars, the Spanish American War, the annexation of Hawaii, the Philippines, Panama, etc. etc. ad nauseum. More recently, popular press coverage of issues like global neoliberal economic policies (they're the antithesis of 'free' trade), Western capital control of government and media, and US foreign policy are all examples of a superficial and obsequious popular press. Why do I have to read in a medical journal (Lancet) the number of dead Iraqis (10x the amount the administration had the US press parrot over the airwaves). I get a more accurate indication of US foreign policy by reading Vladimir Putin's speeches at European security conferences than from the tripe that appears in USA Today. Particularly, in regards to US foreign/security/energy policy, clearly, the emperor has no clothes, but the NY Times, Washington Post, et al are still complimenting the emperor on his garb of pre-emptive defensive aggression (..Saddam is linked to Al Qaida..er..we don't want a mushroom cloud as the next smoking gun..er..he's an antidemocratic thug...). Uhuh. Democracy. Must be the same kind of democracy the US props up in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Colombia, Phillipines,..you get the picture) I have to go now, I see CNN is airing an expose on inaccuracies in Michael Moore's movie 'Sicko', followed by a retired general speaking about the precision of US strikes on rural villag.. - I mean suspected insurgent compounds. First though, a word from our sponsors, ADM and Lockheed Martin.

Well said Joe, especially in regards to corporate influence in American journalism. If we are willing to be sheep there will always be those only to happy to be our shepherds.

I can imagine that most politicians - especially if their policies & motives are suspect - would like to have less rather than more accountibility demanded of them. Part of the accountability process is simply answering questions & explaining positions.

We see this in Canada with our PM's phony claim that the media is biased against him & that therefore coverage should be restricted. Our PM has taken yet another page from the Bush/Rove playbook. Our PM won't even let our elected Con MP's speak to the media or public without his prior approval!

At some point, when there is little or no access & no accountability, the reversion to a dictator is complete.

It was not only American mainstream media that was cowed after 9/11. Canada's journalists were bullied then and continue to tread lightly, submissively, in the face of an American leadership record, suported by our own prime minister, that easily qualifies as crimes against humanity.
If Canadian journalists cannot comment in a courageous and unfettered way lets not tag our American cousins with loss of anything, including predictability.

American journalism has been in a sad state for over 15 years now growing exponentially worse with time. It is only in the past 1-2 years that a glimmer of reasonable coverage has begun to shine through once again but the damage is likely already done to a large degree.

The industry suffers from superficial coverage, self censorship, “entertainment news” passing itself off as something that matters, poor fact checking, extreme corporate influence on content and especially since 9/11, an unwillingness to address the truth of a story for fear of offending. The Bush administration has benefited in huge ways from this eroding of quality and indeed encouraged it where possible. It has however, not been the main reason behind journalistic decline.

While adherence to corporate positions has certainly had a major impact on how news is presented the basic problem is within journalists themselves. The days of true integrity and pride in the job seem to have been replaced with a hazily accepted malaise regarding what should be and what actually is reported. Unless that changes somehow, then the slide will only continue.