Every single reporter that went to Baghdad with Bush should be fired....

[kentuck]

by the editors of their papers. This includes Mike Allen of the Washington Post. They forgot that they worked for their editors. They seemed to think they work for George W Bush and the White House. They skirted off to Baghdad without the knowledge or approval of their editors, their actual bosses. What were they thinking? How could they have been deceived in such a way?

The editors must be in a real quandary as to what to do about it? There should be disciplinary actions taken against every reporter that followed the dictates of the White House without the knowledge of their papers. Every single reporter should have said "No, I can not go along with those guidelines. It would be wrong".

It is a disgrace! This is a scandalous event. To pretend that it had to be kept secret for "security purposes" is simply rationalizing an immense mistake in judgement. How could they have been so naive to allow themselves to be deceived in such a way? Folks, this is nothing less than a scandal. If the editors of this nation's papers permit this to pass without some punishment for these guilty reporters, we are in much more dire straits than anyone has imagined.

(edited thread title for clarification)

[Wonk]

1. No, just many of them, not all of them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=765260#766125

on edit: Thanks for the clarification, kentuck. I'll leave the above comment as is anyway.

Some of the reporters involved in *'s most recent photo-op may have been afraid of missing out and getting fired if they didn't go along with it. Just a thought...

[baby_bear]

2. I have been wondering about this, kentuck

Have you read anything regarding the editors/publishers feelings about this? I have not. I was thinking about how difficult it would be to just take off for 40 or so hours and not tell one's boss, especially when it's in the "line of duty." I wonder how it would even work out for employees' comp, if something untoward had happened. Really, who took the liability here?

amazing
s_m

[kentuck]

4. There was a long article in the NYTimes today...

Some of the editors are still trying to figure out the boundaries of this story. Some thought there was "intentional deception" in the way the event was planned and staged. I don't think we have heard the end of it. They are trying to put it into perspective. It is so arrogant and daring that they are having a difficult time rationalizing just what happened. It is our job to help them rationalize it. It is a friggin' scandal! It's a disgrace the way the reporters followed the dictates of the White House and went on such a jaunt without the knowledge of their editors and papers.

[VolcanoJen]

10. hey kentuck, do you have a link to that NYTimes article?

Can't find the one you're referring to, and it sounds good...

[kentuck]

11. It was on page 14 of the International section...

I think they may have tomorrows paper up online by now.

[madrchsod]

3. not filing a international

flight plan? is that why the british pilot saw air force one out his window? wasn`t he told airforce one was in his airspace sounds like a violation of international flight rules.

[kentuck]

5. But there is a bigger picture here....

Although not filing a flight plan would be a serious violation, it would only be a diversion from the seriousness of what has happened here.

[Robin Hood]

6. I think that it was just a FOX reporter.

Surprise!!!

[kentuck]

7. Or so they say....

But are they to be believed?

[drfemoe]

8. would it matter

if they were just assigned press corps for the admin Thanksgiving, whatever that might be?

[dsc]

9. In fairness to the reporters

their job is to cover Bush. If he kept the details secret from them and forbid them from telling the bosses they were damned either way.

[kentuck]

12. Their job is to "cover" Bush...

Not to "cover for" Bush. It's the same difference between chicken salad and chicken shit.

[Shakespeare]

13. no, dsc is right...

Speaking as a former reporter, they were absolutely justified in going along without first contacting their editors.

[kentuck]

15. I disagree...

Respecting your former position, but what other scenario of this magnitude can you think of to justify "going along" with the White House over their editors, without cloaking it in a "false security" blanket?

[Shakespeare]

17. When you cover a beat....

...you don't generally check with your editor every single time you cover something on that beat. You just do it--there's a degree of trust and autonomy that are built up when one covers a regular beat.

:shrug:

I think criticism of the white house is certainly valid over this blatant political stunt, but I don't agree that reporters covering it should be punished in any way.

[kentuck]

18. This not covering a police beat in a small town....

This is the White House. They must be held accountable and we must know when the Air Force One is in the air and where it is going. We can not have it flying independently around the world with reporters covering for whatever or wherever they wish to do or go. The press' job is to report what is going on. By the way, how was Bush going to Baghdad any more dangerous than Hillary Clinton going to Baghdad? And her trip was advertised in advance by every media outlet. There really wasn't a lot of difference. One might say that he is the "pResident' and that would be a bigger loss. That could be disputed on both counts. Whatever, this is not like a beat on a small newspaper.

on edit:

By the way, wha would have happened if one of the reporters had said "no" to the request to maintain silence about the trip? Would he have been charged with endangering national security? Is that the way it would have been spun? Even if Bush did turn around in mid-flight?

[Shakespeare]

19. I think you're confusing reporting the news...

...with what is on the editorial page. It is NOT up to the reporter to hold the white house accountable--it's up to the reporter to cover the story, and to do so in as honest a way as possible. It is also not the reporter's job to make a judgment on the safety of Bush's trip versus the safety of Hillary Clinton's trip. And it's certainly arguable from a national security standpoint whether every single movement of air force one is something that should be minutely monitored. This brings up issues of right to know/need to know/want to know, and I just don't think the advance notice of this trip falls under right-to-know constraints.

I have no idea what would have happened if one of the reporters said no, because it didn't happen. My guess is the plane would have been turned around, and Bush would've stopped instead at one of the European bases in either Ramstein (sp?) or Aviano, and then claimed that that was his destination all along. But that's just a guess, and a guess is the best any of us can manage since this is just conjecture.

edited for typo

[kentuck]

20. I agree with this:

"It is also not the reporter's job to make a judgment on the safety of Bush's trip versus the safety of Hillary Clinton's trip."

But that is what they did. For what other reason would they withhold hte story? And would the world have stopped if Bush had changed his mind about going? Hillary didn't change her mind. What does that insinuate about the courage of either person? A lot, in my opinion.

[forgethell]

26. Nothing "false"

about the security concerns. The White House, and the Secret Service, have a legitimate interest in protecting the physical safety of the President, no matter how he became President. Are you guys saying that President * should act suicidally? Because that is flat out wrong. I may not like him, but I don't want him killed by some Muslim fanatic in Iraq, either.

As for the reporters, they did the right thing, their job. Which is to cover the President. If they had leaked, there would be no story, the President would not, and could not, have gone. I bet their editors were estactic that thier boys (and girls) were chosen. I haven't researched this, but I would also bet that all the complaints are coming from organizations who were not invited. I might be wrong about this. But fired, no.

[tlb]

14. Absurd reaction.

Fire newsmen for not first getting permission to report the news ? Have things really gottten THAT hysterical ?

[kentuck]

16. Absurd definition of the "news"..

They got permission from the White House to NOT report the story. Do you think their editors would have denied them permission to go and do you think they would have told the country about Bush's secret while he was in midair over Baghdad? They were manipulated, pure and simple. It's an absurd reaction to think otherwise. What would have been the story if the plane had been shot down with Bush and the reporters on board and nobody knew hey were even in Baghdad? What kind of conspiracy theory would we hear then?

[Cronus Protagonist]

21. If they hadn't gone along with it, it wouldn't have happened

Boosh would not have taken the "risk" if there were no one to broadcast it to the kitchen tables on thanksgiving. The press is fully complicit.

Click Here To Find NO MICHAEL JACKSON Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[grasswire]

22. well....

...what do you think of the fact that a freeper in the military stationed at the Baghdad airport broke the news of Bush's presence, on FR while Bush was still on the ground there? I'm stunned that this GI hasn't been detained by MPs. He says he heard a commotion in the mess hall and deduced that it was Bush. Ran to his computer, apparently, and notified FR.

[Cronus Protagonist]

23. What does that have to do with reporters being mouthpieces for the admin?

Sounds like an intereasting story, though.

Click Here To Find NO MICHAEL JACKSON Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Rex]

24. People need to wake up and see this soft-porn dictatorship

for what it truly is. No one will be punished for being BFEE lapdogs in such a public display of partisan politics. It goes way beyond just 'business as usual', this IS the new status quo. And when they throw the elections next year, I fully expect every news organization to stand behind the junta 100% as they get a raise in salary.

[chaumont58]

25. If the editors are going to roll over for a scripted 'live' press......

conference, since they allowed their 'reporters' to participate in that farce, what is any different about this trip?
The trip accomplished nothing except beating Hillary Clinton to Bahgdad. The Bushies will get about the same pr mileage out of this trip as they are going to get out of the flight suit. The 'mission accomplished' fiasco is worth more to Dems than Repukes. It will soon be the same for the midnight ride to Baghdad.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Journalism

Well, it's good to see at least one person on this thread understands the profession but most here don't.

The reporters on this trip did their damn jobs. They are pool reporters for the White House. Their job is to fill the roles of ALL reporters when called upon. They got the call and, much like they would for a military action, were given strict instructions. If they violated those instructions, the event would be cancelled and they would be banned from White House coverage forever for putting the president's life in jeopardy.

Reporters have a job -- to cover their beat. That means they do their job and if something happens that involves nation security, they are instructed to use their judgment. They did. End of story.

[kentuck]

28. "..they are instructed to use their judgment"

And their judgement should have told them this was a photo-op and they were going to assist him in it. That is not their "job".

"They got the call and, much like they would for a military action, were given strict instructions." Seemed more like "strict orders" -from the people they are supposed to cover.

I guess we can straighten out the lie about Iraq being such a "secure" country now? We are dealing with a paranoid leadership that fears for their lives because they understand the evil they have done and see enemies everywhere. Code orange!

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. You must be kidding

The president was going to Iraq -- with or without them -- and you want them to stay home? Are you nuts?

Strict orders are standard for "secret" events. If the U.S. had been launching a military attack, the same circumstances apply. If the president is moving in secret, they have no choice but to keep that. Doing otherwise would get them fired and it should.

[thinkingwoman]

30. "That is not their 'job'"

Uh, actually, yes it is.

When I send a reporter out, I don't want the reporter making decisions about coverage WHILE covering the story. Coverage decisions are made by the Editor, AFTER the reporter comes back to the newsroom.

It is up to the Editor/Publisher/Producer to decide what should be printed or aired, and how the editorial page will react to or review the news.

The left has serious, important criticisms of the national media. But criticism will NOT be taken seriously by the media, and provoke the necessary changes, unless it is based on an accurate understanding of the role of the media as a whole, and the role of the media parts.

If I had had a reporter covering Bush during the holiday, I would have expected that reporter to cover Bush--no matter where he went or what he did. Later I would have decided what to air or print.

Personally, I think the biggest story of all this is how the Bush team chose what media outlets would be included, and whether or not Air Force One flying around the world without a flight plan created a problematic international situation. But that's just me.

[kentuck]

31. Why do the editors have a problem with the "intentional deception"?

As reported in yesterday's NYTimes? If the editors are so concerned about the way this trip was handled, I think we do a disservice by simply saying, "they were just doing their "job". It is deeper than that - much deeper.

[bobthedrummer]

32. In my imagination it wasn't difficult to see Goebbels on that trip

he was laughing.