Monday, October 17, 2005

Scott McClellan is a big ole meanie baby.

Politics: I have long thought he was a weak link in the media operation of the White House, but you read this and the press corp is just offended he is not being a punching bag for them anymore.

When CBS correspondent John Roberts asked about the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers at a White House briefing last week, he expected a boilerplate answer. Instead, press secretary Scott McClellan lectured the reporter: "Let's talk about the way you're approaching things . . . I would encourage you -- I know you don't necessarily want to do this -- but to look at her qualifications and record." Moments later, Roberts accused McClellan of "attacking me." Roberts said in an interview that President Bush's spokesman "has adopted this siege mentality in which the best way to deflect the question is to attack the questioner. I'm not quite sure who he's playing to -- maybe the segment of the Republican Party that believes we're a bunch of liberals who have our own agenda."
As the White House has been forced onto the defensive in recent weeks -- over Hurricane Katrina, the CIA leak investigation, the Iraq war and the Miers nomination -- the daily sparring between McClellan and the press corps has turned increasingly testy. While there has been an element of theater in these sessions since live television coverage began in 1995 -- clips are now routinely posted on the Internet -- McClellan's rebuttals have lately become more personal. "There's been an attempt to put reporters on the spot and question the motivation of reporters," said David Gregory, NBC's White House correspondent. "It is irritating, and I for one think it's an attempt by the White House to change the focus from what is a legitimate question to what the talking point is. It's an effort to cast the media as out for red meat." At the same briefing Thursday at which McClellan challenged Roberts, he lit into Hearst columnist Helen Thomas when she asked about Iraq. After Thomas, who has repeatedly criticized Bush over the war, disputed McClellan's answer by saying that "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11," McClellan said: "I'm sure you're opposed to the broader war on terrorism." Despite these clashes, many reporters say they like McClellan personally. The morning after their dust-up, Roberts assumed a mock boxing stance upon seeing McClellan. "I don't take it as a personal affront that someone who's an advocate is going to try to present things in the best light," said CNN correspondent Bob Franken. But, he said, "many of us thought Scott had crossed a line by characterizing the motives of the reporters . . . We are foils, because we're riffraff in the eyes of the public, the ink-stained wretches."
At Thursday's briefing, Roberts drew a rebuke for saying that some conservatives had suggested Miers might withdraw her nomination, and asking whether she had the "tenacity" to "withstand all this fire." VandeHei asked McClellan whether he was denying that White House officials had touted Miers's faith and evangelical church membership to conservative activists. "You're putting words in my mouth," McClellan said. VandeHei said later that he was "offended" by the response and that McClellan was engaging in "distortion." McClellan, maintaining that such exchanges are not personal, said some journalists view themselves as above reproach. "My criticisms are extremely mild in comparison to the tone of some of the questions fired in my direction," he said.
Of course the media is out for red meat and the soundbites they can use on broadcasts and I don't have a problem with that. But to whine like this because McClellan is finally hitting back at the reporters who think they are above everyone else proves they are thin skinned. If you want to be treated with respect, start behaving with respect.

Copyright Narbosa 1998-2006
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by