By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, March 26, 2001; Page C01

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer hasn't been shy about telling reporters when he thinks their stories are wrong. And some of them say he's playing word games to discredit stories that are right.

Earlier this month, CBS's David Martin reported that the Bush administration had developed a plan to pull 80 percent of American troops out of Bosnia -- and was sending it to NATO allies for their expected approval.

Fleischer dismissed the story as "erroneous," saying U.S. officials were just "consulting with our allies."

"That was a totally disingenuous attempt to knock down a story they knew was accurate," Martin says. "They based it on trying to make some semantic distinction between plans and proposals. The fact is there is a plan, and it's exactly the plan I described."

Fleischer begs to differ: "The National Security Council advised me that story was erroneous, that we're not discussing such plans. . . . I view it as my duty to share with reporters whether a story is worth chasing. I won't hesitate if something is wrong to alert the rest of the press corps to be careful before they go there."

Such fencing is becoming more common. On one side is a tightly disciplined White House that would prefer no story be written until the president makes the official announcement. On the other are competitive reporters trying to sniff out news of drafts, plans and proposals being hashed out behind the scenes.

On March 12, The Washington Post reported that "the Bush administration will delay action on parts of its plan to channel more government money to religious charities," quoting Don Eberly of the office of faith-based initiatives as saying: "We're postponing."

Two days later, President Bush said that "reports about our charitable choice legislation not going full steam ahead are just simply not true." But that day the Senate, with the White House's agreement, decided to postpone the financial aid plan for several months to a year.

Fleischer, employing a bit of creativity, still insists the boss was right: "How can you call something a postponement when we never set a starting date? The president submitted it to the Hill, but we never set a deadline."

Another White House official says Dana Milbank, co-author of the Post story, acknowledged he may have misinterpreted or overemphasized Eberly's comments. But Milbank stands by the story, saying, "All I was doing was writing what he told me, which 48 hours later turned out to be absolutely true."

On March 15, the Los Angeles Times reported that a top energy executive had called one of the president's closest aides and asked that a line from his address to Congress -- calling for the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions -- be removed. The line was taken out, the paper said; Bush soon reversed his campaign pledge on restricting the pollutant.

At a briefing, Fleischer said yes when asked whether the story was "erroneous."

"I know that was not a matter that was discussed with the president in the preparation of his speech," Fleischer told reporters. But, he acknowledged, "I don't know who calls our speechwriters." Fleischer explains that he checked with top staffers and was told no such a sentence was in the speech.

Doyle McManus, the paper's Washington bureau chief, says he's still checking on the report. Fleischer, he says, "is doing what every good spokesman does -- knocking down the part of the story that's knockable."

The pattern began even before Bush took office. On Jan. 2, The Post reported that the incoming administration had decided there was "insurmountable" Hill opposition to private school vouchers and would offer such a plan only as "a symbolic gesture to satisfy conservatives." Fleischer called the report "very puzzling and incorrect." But when a Senate committee took vouchers out of the education bill this month, the White House made no public protest.

Fleischer's denial on the Bosnia story suggests why some reporters say he's retreating behind semantics. When pressed by reporters, he said: "To say that we have a plan to draw down the troops to that level is not accurate. But we may have a proposal, which we would take to NATO, consult with them, and then see it done, as things usually are, when we go to NATO."

"You have to parse what he's saying," says CBS correspondent Bill Plante. "People have finally woken up to 'it depends on what the meaning of is is.' Nothing is ever final until the president signs off on it for the last time, and you can keep that process suspended in midair for weeks, months, whatever you like."

Fleischer, who denies using semantic "gobbledygook," says: "Few things are as sensitive as answering a reporter's question as to whether another reporter's story is wrong. A press secretary has to find that balance to wave other reporters on or off so they use their time wisely in chasing something down."

Footnote: The White House has also started critiquing photography. First, its chief photographer called a New York Times photo editor to complain about the color reproduction on a picture of Bush, which gave his blue shirt a purplish hue. "The president's got serious business, he wasn't at a disco," the stunned editor was told.

A Fleischer aide, Gordon Johndroe, called Post photo editor Michel duCille last week to complain that a Page 1 picture of Bush cupping his hand to his ear was misleading. "It didn't really capture what the moment was," says Johndroe, explaining that the president was straining to hear a reporter's question, but the picture made him look evasive.

"It struck me as odd that the president's press office was calling to complain about a picture," duCille says.

-- Stop the truth (distort@lie.com), March 27, 2001

Answers

You don't understand. It's perfectly okay to lie as long as it's not about blowjobs.

-- (how@it.works), March 27, 2001.

So here we have a journalist, who considers a certain tension between the administration and journalists, and decides in favor of -- drum roll please -- the journalists! What *stunning* objectivity. And how about all the times reporters wrote of administration plans that did NOT pan out? In the interests of painting a balanced and informative picture, Kurts presents, uh, *none* of these cases. Uh huh.

Administrative decisions require a certain amount of consensus. However solid they may or may not be, they retain options and flexibility until they are finally, formally announced and signed off on. The press jumping the gun on these decisions has the effect of tying the administration's hands, forcing them to commit to one or another course of action too early, either denying what they probably (but not *definitely*) plan anyway and looking dishonest, or admitting to a tentative plan and getting locked in before all the bets are placed.

This tension has been going on since Gutenburg invented the printing press. Certainly we don't want to muzzle the press in any way. But we also want the press to *report* policy, and not influence it. The only change I can see here is that when the administration is of the press' dominant party, you don't see such articles, in much the same way that when Clinton was nailed to his blowjob, the feminists remained completely silent. But the tension will always be there anyway.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 27, 2001.

Flint, why oh why were exagerations and lies the repugs made about the things Clinton did, such as stripping AirForce One allowed to go to such extremes, yet every little detail about Bush has to be "approved" by his people? Seems the propaganda machines are running full tilt. Will you admit the hypocracy?

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), March 27, 2001.

Flint: "So here we have a journalist, who considers a certain tension between the administration and journalists, and decides in favor of -- drum roll please -- the journalists! What *stunning* objectivity."

I believe this is called the ad hominem fallacy.

Even if it were certain that it is in the interest of a journalist to make this characterization, the existance of that interest does not make the characterization either objectively true or untrue. In fact, your exact same argument could be made with absolutely equal force in regard to the Bush Administration's characterization of the journalist's news stories, since they also have an identifiable interest and their actions are in alignment with their interest.

So, not only is your argument a logical fallacy, but even if it had validity, since it applies with equal force in all directions it still results in a logical nullity.

No doubt you will explain why I am mistaken in this conclusion.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 27, 2001.

Nipper:

Glad to. I conclude this because being a journalist is Kurtz's job. While he may have no vested interest in seeing things from the journalist's point of view, what option does he realistically have? I tried very hard to say that these two groups (journalists and the administration) have different goals, because they have different purposes and different situations. Neither goal is bad, both are completely natural and understandable.

I also pointed out (and you conveniently ignored) that journalists trying to "scoop" one another routinely print predictions that don't pan out as described, and that Kurtz mentions NONE of these. Furthermore, the administration has given plenty of information to the press that turns out be correct, and Kurtz ignores this too. Instead, he cherry-picks instances where the press published plans that turned out to be essentially correct, but which were denied or equivocated around by the administration because the administration was not yet ready to fully marry into these plans, and wanted to retain the ability to back out gracefully.

But is it really "Orwellian control tactics" to try to avoid publicizing half-baked or tentative ideas still being batted around? Come on now! This is a wonderful thing for a journalist to discover and beat the competition to the punch, so from Kurtz's viewpoint as a journalist they are doing their jobs and getting static which he resents. He is NOT objective, and cannot be. I think he really is expressing a resentment against the administration that he was ideologically required to stifle for 8 years. Because this administration certainly isn't doing anything new or different in that respect.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 27, 2001.

Cherri:

Sorry, I didn't see your comment. I believe the hypocrisy you are complaining about exists entirely in your imagination. EVERY administration in our history has tried its level *damndest* to manage public opinion, to "leak" information favorable to it, and stifle leaks unfavorable, to "time" announcements of things that make them look good when they'll get maximum prime time, and "time" admissions of failure (when they have no choice but to make them) so that the news gets old before most of the audience is tuned in.

Other tricks include orchestrating events or announcements to trump the other party's claims (and drown them out), doing big unpopular things in secrecy while hyping trivia as a distraction, and so on and on and on. Government PR is an art form with a long history.

And you yourself (yes, YOU! Take a bow) are inadvertant witness to this success. When your guys win the PR battle, you swallow this as normal reporting. When THEY (the enemy) win this battle, it's all lies and distortions and YOU know better, because the guys on your side are telling you so.

By buying into the one-sidedness of a very equal battle, without being able to see the give and take from both sides, you are the PR agent's dream -- one of those people they can fool ALL of the time.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 27, 2001.

The chemtrails are increasing under President (non-elected) Bush, while at the same time our freedoms are being stripped away. Military vehicle sighting on civilian freeways are also becoming more commonplace.

-- Beware of the bushes (be@very.afraid), March 27, 2001.

"He is NOT objective, and cannot be."

Right. But he could still be objectively correct, regardless. Subjectivity does not preclude correctness. Neither does ignorance. I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10. What number am I thinking of?

You see my point yet?

You seem to think it is sufficient to point out that someone has an interest or a subjective point of view to establish that their report, or their argument, cannot be the truth. I dispute that.

For example, if it so happens that the truth is in my favor, then the truth aligns foresquare with my interest and and I'd be a fool not to make use of that fact. And I'd be a double-dipped fool to deviate very far from the truth, since being caught in a lie would negate all the advantage I would gain from having the truth on my side.

Your approach is effectively an ad hominem fallacy, however much you believe in it and find comfort in it. Crying "bias" and "subjectivity" is not the same as presenting evidence that shows where the truth lies.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 27, 2001.

Nipper:

Am I that inarticulate, or are you just trying as hard as you can to misread what I write?

You are absolutely right. One can be correct despite any amount of bias, just as a stopped clock is right twice a day. Being biased does not necessarily mean being wrong.

This is why I'm trying, now for the *third* time, to explain that what we have is a case of competing interests here. Kurtz is presenting his side of this case, just as a lawyer would. He's not lying, he is arguing a case using information both accurate and carefully selected to support his case. How many times do I have to point out what he OMITS before you recognize that Kurtz is not presenting the whole picture?

It's in any administration's interests to manage the news as well as they can. It's in the interests of the press to jump the gun as early as possible, even at the price of a reduced rate of accuracy. These interests compete. The administration regards the press as a poorly behaved tool, and the press regards the administration as essentially amoral and requiring close monitoring. Both are correct.

I am *not* saying that Kurtz is "wrong" here, I'm saying he's presenting a brief for one side, taking advantage of the fact that no editorial on the facing page is presenting the other side. On another thread, I called such positions "Ivins facts", and you wanted an example. Here you have one. Kurtz presents half the story, giving his own side, and implying that it's the whole picture by not mentioning that there's any more involved here.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 27, 2001.

Flint, And you yourself (yes, YOU! Take a bow) are inadvertant witness to this success. When your guys win the PR battle, you swallow this as normal reporting. When THEY (the enemy) win this battle, it's all lies and distortions and YOU know better, because the guys on your side are telling you so.

By buying into the one-sidedness of a very equal battle, without being able to see the give and take from both sides, you are the PR agent's dream -- one of those people they can fool ALL of the time.

I see where you consider me in that vein. What you do not understand is that my views are not carved in stone. I am willing to listen and evaluate views and information contrary to what I believe. I believe having a closed mind is the biggest barrier to true knowledge.

I think I have been nieve in believing that entities were honest and straitforward. In the past 5-6 years I have discovered the depth of corruption, lies and hypocracy that exists in almost every area of public life.

Yelling at me and insulting me does nothing to change my views on anything. A logical, reasoned discussion with explainations and points I may not have considered has the ability to get throught to me so I can evaluate and reason, and yes, even change my views on a subject.

Too many people tend to give "sound bite" replies, hostile, personal insults cause brick walls to be erected, preventing even logical convincing information from getting through. Insults close open minds.You, and others, have placed me in a box with all these preconcieved ideas about what I think and believe.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), April 01, 2001.

Cherri:

Consider it retaliation for entertainment purposes. Face it, you do not present a balanced picture, nor do you make any effort to put grains of salt on the propaganda you present. What kind of careful explanation do you expect from people you have carefully and often called hypocrites, repugs and liars?

From my perspective, you have two propensities. First, you tend to be shocked, *shocked!*, that people act in their own self interests, and sometimes behave unethically to get their own way. Second, you tend to reserve your astonishment for the behavior alleged toward those you dislike, regardless of the source.

Look, like Stephen Poole, I must often hold my nose to vote for the "least worst" candidate. I consider GW Bush a poor choice, and I voted for him ONLY because Gore was a WORSE choice. I disagree with many of his initiatives (which could all stand *drastic* improvements), but support them because I consider the dem's counterproposals even more dangerous. This is how politics works.

But what you do is cherry-pick what you think are just terrible atrocities, *always* by the "repugs", *always* as reported by people who are WAY committed liberals. This is what "toeing the party line" is all about. You would get dismissed less often if it ever seemed to cross your mind that "the enemy" isn't doing all these terrible (tm) things just because they are stupid, mean, awful people. They are invariably trading one value against another. You write as though you cannot IMAGINE a story having more than one side.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 01, 2001.