Sparks in the Briefing Room and Why the MSM Still Doesn’t Get It.
It would be really difficult to find an MSM writer more hostile to the Bush Administration than Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post. Today, in his column today, he blends that hostility with a raft of “how dare they” quotes and comments that shows us exactly why the American public believes the MSM has so little credibility.
In light of the “flushed Koran” story and Newsweek’s role in the death of well over a dozen people last week, Froomkin takes to task…the White House. He decides, with the help of a few crusty journalists, that the President is telling the media what to write. Apparently he’s lost the distinction between telling them and suggesting to them.
McClellan said that Newsweek should make further amends for its mistake “by talking about the way they got this wrong, and pointing out what the policies and practices of the United States military are when it comes to the handling of the Holy Koran.”
To which ABC News’ Terry Moran replied: “With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it’s appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?”
“Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is; is that what you’re saying here?” asked New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller.
Obviously, from his quote, McClellan isn’t telling Newsweek what to do, nor is he suggesting that the media write a puff piece on the military (though I must admit, if Elizabeth Bumiller even so much as attempted a military puff piece, her head would explode from the effort).
Let me ask you a couple of question here, then I’ll get back to my point.
Did you know that the military had a policy on how its members should handle the Koran? If so, do you know what that policy is?
Well, such a policy does exist. It is, in fact, two years old and was written about a year after the first detaines arrived at Guantanamo Bay. Here’s a little bit of how the Koran must be handled.
More than two years ago, the Pentagon issued detailed rules for handling the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, requiring U.S. personnel to ensure that the holy book is not placed in “offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet, or dirty/wet areas.”
The three-page memorandum, dated Jan. 19, 2003, says that only Muslim chaplains and Muslim interpreters can handle the holy book, and only after putting on clean gloves in full view of detainees.
The detailed rules require U.S. Muslim personnel to use both hands when touching the Koran to signal “respect and reverence,” and specify that the right hand be the primary one used to manipulate any part of the book “due to cultural associations with the left hand.” The Koran should be treated like a “fragile piece of delicate art,” it says.
Is there a similar policy for handling any other “holy book”, you may ask? Well, no.
The Pentagon does not have a similar policy regarding any other major religious book and takes “extra precautions” on the Muslim holy book, officials said.
Now, back to my point. I’m willing to bet that at some point in the past two years you heard a report that our people at Guantanamo Bay has been putting Korans into toilets. I’m also willing to bet that until this week you had no idea that the military had an explicit and extremely reverential policy on how the Koran has to be handled.
McClellan’s point is simply this. Would it be have been such a terrible thing if at any point in the past two years the MSM had told us that this policy even existed? Surely the same reporters who seem to have no trouble at all finding anonymous sources to tell us all sorts of bad stuff about our military could have found someone to pass them a copy of this policy, or at least to confirm that it existed. Surely, in the past two years, Ms. Bumiller could have asked one of her contacts at the Pentagon, “Hey, do you guys have a policy on how you handle the Koran?”. McClellan’s suggestion, I think, rankled the Press corps so badly because the implication that lay under it is that those folks will dig and dig and dig to find things with which to embarass this administration and tear down the image of our country, but won’t make the most basic attempts to find something that will make us look better.
Do you think that if a lot of Muslims knew what our official policy is toward their holy book and that our policy is unique to the Koran, it might help offset some of the rumor and innuendo our enemies are using as propaganda against us?
McClellan’s point, stripped of its nicety, is this: the MSM bends over backwards to report the bad things our country does, no matter how inconsequential the accusation or how flimsy the sourse, and in doing so, hands our enemies perfect propaganda pieces regularly. On the other hand, when it comes to good news, or stories about how far we go or how hard we work to help Muslims, they can’t be bothered quite so much.
The reason people like Bumiller, Moran, and Froomkin sputter with outrage over things like what McClellan said is because it hits far too close to home and tells them something they do not at all want to hear: that the American people think their credibility is down the toilet.
Of course, for Froomkin, the story isn’t Newsweek, it is, now and always, the lying President.
Not explicitly stated in the briefing room, but the buzz of the blogosphere, is what some consider the ironic nature of McClellan’s position, given that the Bush White House has made considerably bigger and vastly more consequential mistakes than Newsweek ever has — but hasn’t exactly jumped to make amends itself.
So long as reporters hide behind this particular canard, their credibility is going to continue to plummet and the American people will care less and less about the near-sacred protection the MSM enjoys.
For related thoughts, please read The Anchoress, as her conversation with her journalist friend continues, and gets more testy and she finds herself losing almost all patience with the White House Press Corps. She actually cusses – which is a Loch-Ness Monster Sighting-level event.
No related posts.
Category: Oh, THAT liberal media.


















[...] mendment, and Why Isn’t Anyone Else Asking this Question?
After I finished this post about the “flushed Koran” story, a thought occurred to me. One aspect of the stor [...]
<!– spamk : Failed Discussion tab checks. –>
<!– spamk : KARMA: -4 –>
<!– spamk : Treatment: purgatory –>
The generation of MSM reporters, so used to trashing Americans, simply believe that nasty means intelligent; that bias is "cute"; that excoriating others is "courageous". They are so busy with their desire to be "looked up to", they keep jockying their positions to confirm they are "respected" and "looked up to"….which naturally means they look down on the rest of us. Their behavior is not intelligent; it is cowardly. What courage does it take to excoriate the President's representative? What courage does it take to be sympathetic to "insurgents" (read: murderers)? That cowardice is what makes them so similar to those who kill innocents. As is their disrespect for Americans and America's history. That cowardly disrespect is what has average Americans so pissed off. For average Americans, the damage is permanent. We've had forty years of America-bashing by our own reporters in their misguided effort to polish their own careers. Blogs like the "Shack" are successful because Americans are so permanently and deeply disappointed by the disrespect heaped on them by an industry (media is business) they once trusted.
Maybe Later, Someday Vader…
Real World – *does end-of-school dance* Hehe! Matt’s summer vacation officially starts today! – Remember me telling you about my injured heel last week? Well, it’s better, but really nasty looking. Gone is the pain and in it’s place is…