Wednesday, August 01, 2007
|
|
An Inappropriate Meeting with the President?
|
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
6:24 PM
|
Listeners to my radio show today know by now that I met with the President of the United States in the Oval Office this morning, together with nine of my colleagues from conservative talk radio. Though specific quotations from Mr. Bush remain "off the record," I can officially reveal that he seemed energized, optimistic, focused, articulate, comfortable and totally in command. Anyone who doubts that this chief executive enjoys the Presidency and its demands has never seen him in the White House. As the President unequivocally declared (and as I think I'm permitted to quote): "I like the atmosphere in the Oval Office."
Meanwhile, some callers to my radio show sharply questioned the propriety of the White House meeting -- suggesting that it represented some illegitimate effort to mani[ulate the press. In less than a year, I've received three Presidential invitations and flown to Washington each time for the chance to see Mr. Bush. Can I claim to maintain my objectivity when the chief executive himself has worked to build this sort of comfortable and friendly relationship?
And when, precisely, did I ever claim objectivity?
I have never aspired to the role of neutral observer when it comes to political issues or personalities. I'm a commentator, a controversialist, not a reporter who feigns Olympian detachment.
There is nothing unique, by the way, in President Bush cultivating and privileging journalists (in this case talk show hosts) who tend to support him.
As long ago as the Kennedy administration, JFK extended all sorts of privileges and opportunities to his two favorite columnists-- the Alsop brothers, Stuart and Joe. They regularly received White House scoops, background briefings, unparalleled access to the President. Did this amount to some sort of un-American manipulation? Of course not. Everyone knew that the Alsops amounted to semi-official administration spokespeople and defenders.
These relationships don't pose a problem because they're not the President's only connection with the press. Like President Kennedy, President Bush holds regular press conferences where he fields questions from all comers (even David Gregory and-- groan-- Helen Thomas, who's called him the worst President in history).
It's no more surprising or inappropriate that Mr. Bush would limit his special White House invtiations to ideological soul mates, than it is that top Democrats would grant regular interviews to "Air America" but refuse all invitations to answer questions on the Michael Medved Show (or any other conservative program).
Since the purpose of this morning's meeting involved the President's desire to put out a clear, strong message about the War on Terror, it makes all the sense in the world that he would count on broadcasters who support the message he means to send.
As it happens, I'm proud -- not embarrassed in any way -- to try (in any small way) to help our embatttled chief executive in this essential endeavor, which will help to determine the sort of security and prosperity that we pass on to our children.
|
|
|
the communication went between Laura Ingraham went, regarding his absolute stupid "OPEN BORDER" agenda?......Now that both Ingraham and Michelle Malkin have had to "GROW TESTICLES" that have been missing in the male journalist, the world waits to see how our "Fearless Leader" intends to once again shove the 10% Mexican Population down our throats in the name of LIBERATION!......Tax Payers are of course still trying to figure out why Mexico's citizens are still trying to leave such a rich country?(WWW.GLOBALFIREPOWER.COM) |
|
"It's no more surprising or inappropriate that Mr. Bush would limit his special White House invtiations to ideological soul mates, than it is that top Democrats would grant regular interviews to "Air America" but refuse all invitations to answer questions on the Michael Medved Show (or any other conservative program)."
That's a terrible analogy, Michael. Top Democrats granting regular interviews to Air America while refusing to go on your show is equivalent to you having top Republicans on your show (and NOT taking calls from your listeners while the guest is on, I might add) who refuse to go on Air America, which you do on almost a weekly basis.
The analogy you're looking for would be something like Al Franken meeting Bill Clinton in the Oval Office and the next day Franken advocating the bombing of Koslovo on his show. Something which never occurred - and yes, I'm aware that Franken didn't have a show while Clinton was in office. But I'm also quite certain that there aren't liberal talk show hosts who are little more than PR flaks for the Democratic party. Most liberal talk show hosts put their ideologies BEFORE their party, and they try to put the party's feet to the fire.
I realize, Michael, that you like to toe the line between calling yourself a "journalist" and actually accepting any of the responsibility that goes along with being a journalist, but I think that your need to pen an article on this subject is a pretty good indication that deep in the back of your mind you realize that you have given up a certain degree of integrity by meeting with the president behind closed doors.
|
|
|
Dumbya met with some partisan political hacks, keeping the bubble intact. Will wonders never cease? |
|
...talking about his invitation(s) to go to the White House for Rose Garden Teas with a whole slew of other LIBERAL ADVOCATES that were at that time on the airwaves (Clinton years). So, Chris, don't think that this is a first for any president.
BTW, Rush is to be gone tomorrow (Thursday) to a "high level" meeting. Mr. Medved, Was today's meeting the first of several?
TBC :>)
|
|
|
you seem pretty good at creating a straw man. Michael specifically stated that he is not objective on his program. Liberals might put their ideology before the party but they also put their ideology before our great nation and its wellbeing. |
|
|
If 380,000 anchorbabies (instant citizens to those who are low paid or paid by underground economy and via the anchorbaby from social security funds and foodstamps)were born last year and if the number of illegals in the country has grown from 3 million to 20 million in 20 years and most of these people have no interest in coming out of the shadows then how many anchorbabies do we have within 20 years to dilute our vote and demand more social services. With voters like this do we even need a public debate for the North American Community? 20 years is less time than the European Union took to form. Good job Bush, without a debate even. Cheney and Condee as CFR members did you write a rebuttal position for the North American Community? Didn't recall seeing any. Yes with the amnesty it would have happenned sooner like by 2010 but just keep on diverting resources from the border and prosecuting border agents, we'll will get there. |
|
ed shultz regularly asks conservative politicians to come on his show but none will do it.
there is a difference though, in being a commentator and controversialist and a propaganda megaphone.
how can anyone now believe in your credibility when you start spouting what you claim are facts?
as you say it has been done before by both democrats and republicans but i still believe in the old axiom that 2 wrongs don't make a right.
but then conservatives have proven over and over again during the past 2 years that they don't really live by the values they preach so i shouldn't be surprised at your sell out.
|
|
The Black Cherokee and lokietek1,
I don't doubt that liberal pundits have been invited to the white house. In fact, Al Franken describes going to a family retreat and playing football on the white house lawn with Al Gore in his book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot". But there is a huge difference between going to a social event and having the president solicit a talk show host to put a specifically public face on his agenda. And Medved being honest about not being objective does not justify the disservice he does to his listeners by allowing the president to "count on" Medved to "support the message he [the President] means to send." Objective or not, Medved has an obligation to tell the truth to his audience, not to tell them what the White House wants him to say for political reasons. This idea that the ends, in this case giving a positive face on the war in Iraq, does not justify the means of abusing the relationship between a talk show host and his/her listeners. If Michael wants to call himself a journalist, then he should act like one.
By the way, if the president wants to get his message out, he can do so himself via his weekly radio address. In fact, if Medved simply wanted to replay that address, I'd have no problem with it. Just don't regurgitate ideas that are coming directly out of the white house. |
|
"This idea that the ends, in this case giving a positive face on the war in Iraq, does not justify the means of abusing the relationship between a talk show host and his/her listeners."
Sorry, this should be "This idea that the ends, in this case giving a positive face on the war in Iraq, justifies the means, abusing the relationship between a talk show host and his/her listeners, is simply wrong." |
|
Just curious, but was the line at the end where you mention, "security and prosperity" a sneaky way of riling up the SPP nuts who have become such big fans of the show?
I don't get to listen every single day, but I've heard plenty of times where callers get to ask questions to important guests. About criticizing Bush though, the only thing I've really ever heard Michael do that on is with the massive foreign aid stuff the President seems to go for. |
|
Chris has got it right on. Meetings like this compromise Michael's objectivity. It's great that he acknowledges it but it's a problem that millions of listeners tune in to hear fair and balanced reporting and get packaged spin from the White House.
Michael writes: "Anyone who doubts that this chief executive enjoys the Presidency and its demands has never seen him in the White House."
I wouldn't doubt that Bush “enjoys the Presidency?” Wouldn’t you enjoy getting your friends out of jail (e.g. Scooter) and hooking college buddies up with sick jobs (e.g. Brownie)?
It's only understandable that the president should "like the atmosphere in the Oval Office" when he gets some of the most influential voices on talk radio to blindly follow his every move, and then takes time away from being president to chill with them.
Tell me why I'm wrong at my post on this:
http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post/zachmarks/C27G |
|
Michael's attire.
Thank goodness you've been shamed into buying a suit for next time. |
|
This is a little weird, especially since I've been quite critical of Michael lately -- and was personally chastised for it; thanks Michael, I appreciate the response -- but let's try to clear this up once and for all: Michael Medved doesn't claim to be anything other than a conservative commentator. He doesn't say "I'm an objective journalist". Like all of us on this forum he expresses opinions and uses facts to back them up (both here and on his radio show); and, like all of us, his opinions are open to dismissal and ridicule, and his facts are open to be questioned and disproved.
He isn't a reporter -- he's an editorializer. Should everything he says be automatically disregarded, or classified as Republican propaganda, simply because he accepted an invitation from the President? I don't think so. OTOH, it is something to be aware of. Will he take any positions in the future that are diametrically opposed to those of the White House? If he does he might not be invited back!
I think that Michael has too much personal integrity for that; politically, he happens to be pretty far to the right, as is the President. And that's why liberals, and moderate conservatives like myself, will continue to be at odds with him on some issues; not because the President told him what to say, but because Michael honestly holds the same beliefs. |
|
kingsXrulz,
You write, "Michael Medved doesn't claim to be anything other than a conservative commentator. He doesn't say "I'm an objective journalist"".
This isn't exactly true. He has called himself a journalist on many occasions, including in this article. Yes, he admits his biases, but the issue is not objectivity. No member of the press is completely unbiased, even reporters within the mainstream media. In my opinion, reporters shouldn't be unbiased, because to be so is to be little more than an automaton, and there are already too many of those both in print journalism and on TV.
However, reporters, editorialists, and commentators should be professional. And in my opinion part of that professionalism lies in the relationship between the journalist and his/her audience, and the fact that the audience should be able to count on the journalist to always tell the truth, no matter how biased the journalist's opinion on that truth might be. But when Michael goes behind closed doors with a private meeting with the president, which is INTENDED to result in the president's message "getting out", his audience's ability to trust him wanes and he loses a degree of integrity.
The president has many vehicles for getting his message out. He has a spokesperson in Tony Snow, he has a weekly radio address to the nation, and he can call a press conference any time he chooses. There is transparency in each of these because the public knows that what they are hearing is coming from the White House directly, so the public can make a better informed decision on whether they believe the message or not. But when that message is filtered through a favorite radio talk show host, for example, the line between who's voice is really speaking becomes very blurred. |
|
It's true that Medved has defined himself as "partisan" , meaning that he puts party ahead of country.
Conservative talk radio in America is a unique phenomenon, it is not possible to make apt analogies. Cons. propagandists have a larger audience than any other group of commentators and have much more influence. That they, and the president exploit this influence just plain stinks to high heaven, but it is classic Rove/Bush.
Further, Chris is right - While Medved defends the ick factor of this issue and claims to be partisan, which is hi right, he also wants to defend many of his positions by acting as if they were actually true or having merit. You can't have it both ways.
From now on, listeners will never know what is coming from Medved and what is coming from Bush/Rove through Medved's voicebox. |
|
I read this morning that another conservative talk show person who was at the same white house meeting has written since then that "liberals are holding prayer groups for an American loss in Iraq".
Is this also fresh from the mouth of George Bush? who will ever know? |
|
I agree with most of what you said, but what good is personal integrity if it can be compromised so easily in order to keep listeners listening and get invitations to the white house?
Michael self-describes his role as a controversialist and a partisan. It's an odd boast. As for exchanging kisses with George Bush, and then pushing his agenda (good OR bad for the country) over the air, one can only wonder why, when credibility is of such value to most people, it is so easily trashed in this case.
Last point: Have YOU EVER, EVER, heard Medved say ANYTHING critical of Bush? This is not only not about objectivity, it's about propaganda.
|
|
I'm glad that you spoke with the President, and are trying to get his message out. I must say though that it saddens me, that both you and the President find it beneath yourself, and the office of the President to engage treasonous vermin, who desire the destruction of our country. Fine, I will acknowledge that President Bush is not the eloquent speaker, that many Americans desire him to be. He humbly acknowledges this flaw, he acknowledges that he has made mistakes, and for that I admire this man. I can't imagine how he has tolerated or withstood the absolute brutal, unwarranted and endless attacks from the left wing vermin, who think that Islamic terrorist were born from this President. What a joke. The fact that the lefties think that Billy Boy, and Al "Warm my globe with your mouth" Gore, buried their heads in the sand, and ran from every important foreign policy decision that needed to be made, and these guys are their hero's. I wish that the President and talk show host like yourself would hand back the comments with the same crude and loathsome venom that the unAmerican Unpatriotic traitors on the left constantly hand to this President.
Roy |
|
|
Perhaps you could straighten up and take things a little more seriously. |
|
|
Lame is more accurate. They all sounded alike from Glenn Beck, to Laura, to Rush. I am a huge fan of these guys. However, they did kind of sound like they were all given drivlle and not much to sell. Almost embarassed as they talked. Sean Hannity even said he felt ill after the meeting. I feel he tried to sell it but was the most honest by saying that he felt ill or nautious. Mark Levin was the most sold with his pathetic sell and black and white view of the war. War good, liberal bad. All in all I am taking a break from all these shows for a little. Nothing rang true except for Seans nausea. What they all said they could say all sounded to similar and forced. I am not a sheeple. |
|
|
Whether the source of an opinion is Medved or the White House doesn't matter to me; I'm interested in debating the issue, not the issuer. But, I maintain that Medved's personal political philosophy is quite similar to that of the President. He isn't so much a vehicle for the administration's views as he is a true believer in them . . . which, in regards to some topics, is scarier than him being just a simple mouthpiece. |
|
I think you are partly right, but that it's more complicated. Exaggeratioan and ommission are also a forms of distortion, as are various debate 101 tricks that Medved knows well and often uses on disagreeing callers.
I'm not doubting his basic politics, but his previous career in show business wasn't all for nothing. |
|
|
The source of an opinion should be the truth. It should be empirical reality, not a personal philosophy. Personal philosophies are what allowed this administration to ignore the evidence before them and invade a country that did nothing to us, that had nothing to do with 911, and that had even been downgraded on the CIA's terror watch list. It's this same philosophy that allows Medved to tell his audience weekly that the surge is working, that "everything will be fine in Iraq if only those darn obstructionist Democrats and liberals would just let the president do his job". |
|
There are biased opinions and unbiased opinions. Michael has never claimed (to the best of my knowledge) that his opinions are unbiased, nor is he obligated to strive for objectivity when he speaks or writes a column -- not by law, not by FCC regulation, not by general consensus, not by some journalistic code of ethics. He is not a reporter or an anchorman; he does Op-Ed. There is a free-speech aspect to this: he has every right to be wrong, and to broadcast his wrongness across the country. As we have every right -- including a forum that he reads -- to tell him how wrong he sometimes is.
In the context of politically-biased talk radio and partisan internet blogs, the reasons why someone expresses a particular opinion do matter somewhat, but nowhere near as much as does the opinion itself. Just look at this forum, and all the others like it across the internet. You have Michael Medved, who is a known quantity (surely nobody is seriously suggesting that Michael has hidden his political leanings up to now), and then there are all of us, anonymously expressing our opinions about what Michael -- and each other -- have said. For anyone who cares to know where I'm coming from, I've identified myself as a moderate conservative, registered to vote as an independent; but, basically, I don't know you and you don't know me . . . and it doesn't matter. We debate what each other says, not who each other is (for the most part). |
|
The more biased an opinion is, the more it becomes an expression of personal philosophy; in my subjective opinion, the further to the left OR right you are, the less pragmatic you are going to be, and more prone to tout philosophy as truth. People with extreme views have little interest in dealing with the world as it is; their goal is to make over the world to suit their vision. Fundamentalists on the far right fit into this chategory.
The point is, with Medved you know what you are getting; this trip to the White House shouldn't change anything. In the blog, Michael indicates that he and Bush are "ideological soul mates". He isn't doing the President's bidding for the sake of being a good Republican during tough times (although, from the President's perspective this is a fortuitous benefit) . . . he honestly believes in the same things that Bush does.
And that should be reason enough to scrutinize all of Michael's opinions closely; not because he might seem to mimic the President's views, but because of what his (Michael's) views are. |
|
There is a big difference between identifying your statements as opinion or identifying them as facts. When Medved states that his opinions are facts, which happens over and over, there is a disconnect going on no matter what he says about his personal politics.
Another, but different tactic I've noticed several times is a response to people who call to argue one of his opinions (or facts) in terms of their personal experience. Medved's response has been to accuse them of lying - which I guess is an attempt to have his opinions, presented as facts, go unchallenged and unquestioned. |
|
|
Kings, instead of arguing on the abstract difference between opinions, philosophy, and the truth, let's just look at what the meeting with the president was supposed to bring about, and some of the results of that in terms of Medved's reaction to the meeting. The purpose of the meeting with President Bush was to get out the president's message on the war, specifically one would assume that the surge is "working". Or, which seems to be the current tactic, that the surge will result in a situation that we "can live with" (a subtle acknowledgement that the war is not winnable, but I digress), such as our ability to maintain an occupying force such as we have in S. Korea. The president has been touting the Korea line for a few weeks, and just "coincidentally" Medved's last posting on his blog mentions the same idea. My problem, and I think a lot of other listeners' (even supporters of Medved) problem with this is that it blurs the distinction between Medved's own opinion, of which he is responsible to defend with facts, and the opinion of the white house. People do not listen to the Michael Medved show to hear the opinions of the white house. They listen to the show to hear opinions of Michael Medved, and when it becomes difficult to distinguish between the two, Medved loses a degree of integrity. Yes, he has every legal right to parrot President Bush. But he doesn't have an ethical right to do so. Political commentators have a moral obligation to write about their own opinions directly, not to be filters for someone else's opinion. And acknowledging bias or a "shared ideology with Bush" does not alleviate his responsibility. |
|
Jo j, nice point. And I agree with you a lot on Medved's tactic of dealing with certain callers, he often accuses them of lying, or if they happen to be pretty well versed in politics (especially if they're from the left), he'll try to peg them out as "seminar callers", which I suppose is conservative talks show Newspeak for someone who is actually well informed.
|
|
So, I'm watching Charlie Rose's interview with Robert Novak today, and in it Novak talks about the last time he visited the White House. He had gone, along with other reporters, at the request of the President. After the meeting Novak wrote a column expressing his true opinions, including some that were critical of -- or counter to -- the President's views.
This was a few years ago and, despite Novak's stature as a respected (by many on the right), senior, conservative columnist, he has not been invited back since. . . .
The same Robert Novak who outed Valerie Plame, allegedly acting as a tool -- he claims it was done unwittingly (i.e. he had no personal agenda) -- of the administration.
Now, does this mean that Novak has more integrity than Medved? Is it proof that Medved is nothing more than a filter for the views of Bush, and that he won't dare voice a critical view, for fear of not being invited back?
Or, is this more proof that unlike the "small-government conservative" Novak, Medved (a reformed liberal Democrat) honestly shares the President's ideology [cut taxes while increasing spending and the size of government -- largest budget deficits in history; way to go, Bushie!]. |
|
Michael hit the nail on the head when he stated that objectivity is not the issue if he meets with Bush. Medved is an advocate and labels himself as such. So there is nothing devious or un-professional in meeting with the president, whom he openly supports. The devious ones are the mainstream reporters and anchors who masquerade as impartial when they are anything but that.
|
|
If objectivity is not the issue, then nothing that Medved brings back to his show can be trusted. I can provide you with an extremely unobjective view of the facts concerning nuclear energy, or the war in Afghanistan, but if I don't feel any constraints to be even slightly objective, and tell you so, then why would you believe anything I say?
If you think about it, what Medved is doing is announcing the fact that he is doing exactly what his listeners expect of him, which is to tell them what they want to hear and not worry too much about the honesty part. It seems they like to have opinion preesented as fact, on a show like Medved's it validates any number of views, whether they are accurate or not.
|
|
|
|