‘We’re gonna do it over and over and over again.’ In honor of this weekend's White House Correspondents Association dinner, a time capsule view of the DC press.
Great article once again. I've always been puzzled by the `questions' that the WPC always seems to ask!! Rarely inquisitive nor informative.
I caught the tail end of I.F. Stone's great career. For the most part I don't believe that he paid much attention to the high end talkers whose primary job was to obfuscate and confuse and all issues. He sought ought people lower in the food chain who actually knew what was going on and were willing to talk about it. A fantastic investigative reporter!!
The press never asks important questions about the effects of the amount of immigration to the US, like...
1. What effect does admitting over a million immigrants annually--a majority low- or non-skilled laborers have on employment and wages of low- and no-skilled Americans? (For answers, see: Back of the Hiring Line: A 200-Year History of Immigration Surges, Employer Bias, and Depression of Black Wealth, by Roy Beck. $9 from Amazon.
2. What does admission of over a million immigrants annually have on the environmental sustainability of the United States? On greenhouse emissions? On global warming? On traffic? On housing prices? On Sprawl? On ecosystem services?
3. What effect does mass immigration have on the way Americans vote? (Trump's signature issue was immigration.)
Yeah, it would be nice if journalists looked more at the effects of policy on Americans and American life.
Thanks. I expect that you and I would disagree on some of the merits and tradeoffs of the issue. (I have read, and took seriously, the Roy Beck book — glad you mentioned it. And, as mentioned before, my experience in other countries convinces me that being a nation-of-nations is the one central advantage the US has in the world.)
But these are all exactly the issues to discuss. As opposed just to the short-term politics of it. And I entirely agree that they need much more sustained attention than they get.
Glad you read the book! And it was good to read what you had to say about the need to cover how policies affect peoples' lives as opposed to the politics. I was actually complaining about that when I was in high school.
Yes, I read "This Town" and you're right. (I liked "Our Towns" better).
Well, yeah your not recognizing a cabinet secretary was a thing, but it wasn't as bad as when Ronald Reagan didn't recognize his own HUD Secretary, Samuel Pierce and turned to him at a US Conf of Mayors gathering, saying "Hello Mr. Mayor."
I am reminded of Russell Baker being assigned to the White House, being bored to tears, and saying all he did was sit and "listen to older reporters breathe."
Given the reference to 1972, that brings to mind The Boys on the Bus, and really, has ANYTHING about those useless slugs changed?
Thanks very much. For what it is worth, as "bonus material":
— Russell Baker was one of the great writers in 20th century America. His memoir 'Growing Up' deserves to be in every American culture / American History and Lit class.
— Tim Crouse was a friend of mine on the college paper, just before he wrote the brilliant Boys on the Bus. I think that all that has changed since then is technology.
Mr. Fallows, I knew there were extra reasons for loving you and your work, and that's one of them. My writing idols are Russell Baker and Red Smith. And I have yet to assign Growing Up for a variety of reasons, but someday I intend to do so!
This is brilliant Jim. There was a West Wing episode where a noted reporter comes to the WH from some dangerous assignment overseas. He gets a scoop about something potentially embarrassing said by a staffer but in the end says he’s not writing it because it’s not real news and talked about how he wasn’t there for that. It came to mind reading your piece.
Also, someone just posted something on Twitter that they had been at an event in DC and encountered a person they didn’t know was a nightly news figure. They asked what the person did and he was outraged not to have been recognized. I’d like less media stars and more solid reporters.
Dan, thank you. I missed that latter Twitter exchange, which sounds like part of the canon of "This Town."
Several administrations ago, I was at an event with a person who turns out to have been a Cabinet secretary. I asked this person, "Have we met before?" I think the person was not amused. (Ie, that I recognized the person on sight but didn't immediately think, A CABINET MEMBER!!)
White House reporters are like firefighters, much of the time metaphorically lifting weights and cooking meals and polishing equipment and posing for calendar pinups, while waiting for the bell to ring so they can perform a vital public service. When there are fewer fires, ordinary folks may resent the firefighters' pay, prestige, and lifestyle, but that only lasts until the next fire.
I do understand your point. I agree that some portion of the White House press serves the grim but inescapable "body watch" function of being there ... just in case. It's a legitimate and important duty, as you point out.
But I think the theme of both the Kurtz and Tani articles (to the extent he was offering critique, which I can't really tell) was that, even beyond this "firefighter on duty" function, there was a palpable sense among WH reporters that they should be part of a featured cast in TV dramas each night. The loss of that featured role seems to be what they were lamenting, in each case.
Great article once again. I've always been puzzled by the `questions' that the WPC always seems to ask!! Rarely inquisitive nor informative.
I caught the tail end of I.F. Stone's great career. For the most part I don't believe that he paid much attention to the high end talkers whose primary job was to obfuscate and confuse and all issues. He sought ought people lower in the food chain who actually knew what was going on and were willing to talk about it. A fantastic investigative reporter!!
Like! Thanks for the great article!
Thank you.
The press never asks important questions about the effects of the amount of immigration to the US, like...
1. What effect does admitting over a million immigrants annually--a majority low- or non-skilled laborers have on employment and wages of low- and no-skilled Americans? (For answers, see: Back of the Hiring Line: A 200-Year History of Immigration Surges, Employer Bias, and Depression of Black Wealth, by Roy Beck. $9 from Amazon.
2. What does admission of over a million immigrants annually have on the environmental sustainability of the United States? On greenhouse emissions? On global warming? On traffic? On housing prices? On Sprawl? On ecosystem services?
3. What effect does mass immigration have on the way Americans vote? (Trump's signature issue was immigration.)
Yeah, it would be nice if journalists looked more at the effects of policy on Americans and American life.
Thanks. I expect that you and I would disagree on some of the merits and tradeoffs of the issue. (I have read, and took seriously, the Roy Beck book — glad you mentioned it. And, as mentioned before, my experience in other countries convinces me that being a nation-of-nations is the one central advantage the US has in the world.)
But these are all exactly the issues to discuss. As opposed just to the short-term politics of it. And I entirely agree that they need much more sustained attention than they get.
Glad you read the book! And it was good to read what you had to say about the need to cover how policies affect peoples' lives as opposed to the politics. I was actually complaining about that when I was in high school.
Yes, I read "This Town" and you're right. (I liked "Our Towns" better).
Well, yeah your not recognizing a cabinet secretary was a thing, but it wasn't as bad as when Ronald Reagan didn't recognize his own HUD Secretary, Samuel Pierce and turned to him at a US Conf of Mayors gathering, saying "Hello Mr. Mayor."
I am reminded of Russell Baker being assigned to the White House, being bored to tears, and saying all he did was sit and "listen to older reporters breathe."
Given the reference to 1972, that brings to mind The Boys on the Bus, and really, has ANYTHING about those useless slugs changed?
A brilliant piece, Mr. Fallows. Thanks.
Thanks very much. For what it is worth, as "bonus material":
— Russell Baker was one of the great writers in 20th century America. His memoir 'Growing Up' deserves to be in every American culture / American History and Lit class.
— Tim Crouse was a friend of mine on the college paper, just before he wrote the brilliant Boys on the Bus. I think that all that has changed since then is technology.
Mr. Fallows, I knew there were extra reasons for loving you and your work, and that's one of them. My writing idols are Russell Baker and Red Smith. And I have yet to assign Growing Up for a variety of reasons, but someday I intend to do so!
This is brilliant Jim. There was a West Wing episode where a noted reporter comes to the WH from some dangerous assignment overseas. He gets a scoop about something potentially embarrassing said by a staffer but in the end says he’s not writing it because it’s not real news and talked about how he wasn’t there for that. It came to mind reading your piece.
Also, someone just posted something on Twitter that they had been at an event in DC and encountered a person they didn’t know was a nightly news figure. They asked what the person did and he was outraged not to have been recognized. I’d like less media stars and more solid reporters.
Hope the media folks read this and reflect.
Dan, thank you. I missed that latter Twitter exchange, which sounds like part of the canon of "This Town."
Several administrations ago, I was at an event with a person who turns out to have been a Cabinet secretary. I asked this person, "Have we met before?" I think the person was not amused. (Ie, that I recognized the person on sight but didn't immediately think, A CABINET MEMBER!!)
White House reporters are like firefighters, much of the time metaphorically lifting weights and cooking meals and polishing equipment and posing for calendar pinups, while waiting for the bell to ring so they can perform a vital public service. When there are fewer fires, ordinary folks may resent the firefighters' pay, prestige, and lifestyle, but that only lasts until the next fire.
I do understand your point. I agree that some portion of the White House press serves the grim but inescapable "body watch" function of being there ... just in case. It's a legitimate and important duty, as you point out.
But I think the theme of both the Kurtz and Tani articles (to the extent he was offering critique, which I can't really tell) was that, even beyond this "firefighter on duty" function, there was a palpable sense among WH reporters that they should be part of a featured cast in TV dramas each night. The loss of that featured role seems to be what they were lamenting, in each case.
yeah but . . . JIm's point is that in between "fires" WH reporters should use their downtime to get out and do what reporters are paid to do: Report!
Thank you for the historical context. It's so depressing that the "journalists" don't see the importance of their work for the public good. Sigh.
Thank you. The startling thing for me, on seeing the Politico piece, was the "gonna do it over and over and over again" aspect. Thanks for reading.
I love that title!
Tom, thank you! (And one of the advantages you have over me is having actually studied the German philosophers in college and graduate school.)