- (SH) - We are indebted to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and
his man, Sherlock Holmes, for introducing us to the classic clue: The dog
that didn't bark. But we are not indebted to the latter-day Washington
writers who last Monday introduced us, yet again, to their clueless creation:
The press corps that didn't press.
-
- Perhaps you caught the White House press corps in action
(see also: press corps inaction) at President Bush's televised news conference.
If so, you may have found yourself yelling at your television set. Perhaps,
if you are a frustrated liberal, you were yelling at your president out
of force of habit. But if you are just a frustrated citizen, it's likely
you were yelling, or wanting to yell, at the president's pleasant but passive
interrogators.
-
- Journalists who are embedded at the White House often
seem to question the president in ways that appear more self-serving than
democracy-serving. Which is why many real people outside the Beltway tell
me they believe White House reporters ask softball questions just to gain
favor with the president and his senior staff. It's a concept known by
a technical nomenclature: sucking up to sources.
-
- Well, maybe. But having covered presidents for ages,
I've come to think the problem is more basic. Too many White House beat
reporters just don't seem to understand their craft. They aren't using
that which the Good Lord gave them two of - plus that which is in between.
I refer of course to a reporter's two ears and brain.
-
- Ears: Too often, journalists called upon by President
Bush seem not to have been listening to the president's last answer, which
cried for a follow-up or clarification. Instead, they ask a question they'd
scripted in advance, perhaps to look good on TV for their bosses, family
and friends. Never mind if it's on a whole new topic.
-
- Brain: Too often, reporters ask multi-part questions,
which is like giving a politician a freebee. The president answers what
he wants and ignores the rest, confident the next journalist will switch
topics. Even worse: Too often, reporters fail to think through what an
issue is really about, fail to anticipate the president's obvious initial
response - and fail to tightly frame a question to get to the core issue,
pronto.
-
- Consider the controversy about Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld and his callous response to the soldier who asked why troops have
inadequate armor and must scrounge through scrap heaps for metal to protect
themselves. (Of almost 20,000 Humvees in Iraq, less than 6,000 have factory
armor. Of 9,000 military trucks in Iraq, more than 8,000 have no armor.)
-
- The second questioner gently broached the topic: "Several
Republican lawmakers recently have criticized Secretary Rumsfeld. What
does he need to do to rebuild their trust?" Which isn't the key issue
at all. Predictably, Bush defended Rumsfeld for doing a "really fine
job." Also predictably, the next reporter switched to a new topic.
-
- Earwise and brainwise, this was a classic performance
of a non-pressing press corps. The crucial issue isn't whether Bush will
praise Rumsfeld, or whether Rumsfeld will placate fellow Republicans, or
keep his job. Since Rumsfeld is only implementing Bush's policies, the
issue is really about Bush's apparent policy failure to protect our troops.
-
- Americans need to hear their president respond to the
never-asked questions:
-
- Your administration has deployed soldiers in combat with
inadequate armor, leaving many to forage in scrap heaps to protect themselves.
Why did your administration fail to fix this problem long ago? When were
you first informed of this crisis of inadequate armor for U.S. troops?
Did it take this soldier's gutsy question to bring it to your attention
- and if so, why did your generals not tell you long ago? With all of America's
industrial capability, why couldn't you have ordered that our troops have
adequate armor before sending them into harm's way?
-
- Near the end of the press conference, a reporter did
ask another Rumsfeld question - about a comparatively minor flap, his failure
to personally sign condolence letters to families of troops killed in Iraq.
No one asked about the big picture: How many died due to inadequate armor?
-
- Six decades ago, the United States mobilized massively
in three years on orders of another president and built and equipped, almost
from scratch, a mighty force that saved the world. Today, we have a president
who spent billions on a missile defense shield that doesn't work, yet failed
to spend a comparative pittance for armor for troops in combat.
-
- And today, we have a White House press corps that has
failed to press the president by simply asking: Why?
-
- Martin Schram writes political analysis for Scripps Howard
News Service.
|