Comments on: Undeniable

By: Matt McIrvin

Matt McIrvin — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:19:16 +0000

That transcript reminds me of those frustration nightmares in which I try unsuccessfully to tie my shoes twenty times in a row.

By: pathos

pathos — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 04:34:04 +0000

The problem is that press secretaries only do this because it works. Check out the AP story: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030930/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak&cid=544&ncid=716 As long as the news outlets continue to headline non-denial denials as actual denials (and this is not political—the do it for everyone), they will get away with it. Don’t reporters screen “All The President’s Men” in journalism school? We all should know the Non-Denial Denial by now. All they need is the AP to headline “White House refuses to categorically deny . . .” and the White Houses will stop doing it.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 04:25:12 +0000

You know, I don’t think the “for practice” idea is so implausible. It’s a good idea for WH Press secretaries to get evasive occasionally when they’ve got nothing to hide, just so evasiveness won’t be a sure sign that they’re guilty as heck.

By: William

William — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 01:38:36 +0000

Wow… I read the transcript of the first press conference, and it seemed that Scott McLellan was simply avoiding answering a direct question directly, you know, for practice. But that second press conference looks much worse. Wow.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 01:19:56 +0000

Okay, I think I get part of it. I think the administration is looking to deflect some blame onto the press for not earlier reporting what they knew to be a crime. In other words, the harder the press pushes on the White House for failing to do something about this, the more the White House can push back. It seems like a very weak defense, really, but I think my detection of preparatory finger-pointing at the press is correct. Also, I think they want to pressure the press into betraying sources, which would be convenient for the WH in many regards.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:57:08 +0000

I’m in the process of reading the transcript of the second press conference. I am more than a little mystified by the repeated “Do you have specific information to bring to our attention?”. Am I dense in not understanding what the subtext of that is? Anyone? In the first press conference I thought I understood it to be a sort of diversionary tactic. But here in the second one, McLellan repeats it so often that it is striking, and makes me feel like there’s a coded message there I’m not getting.