Posted by Damozel | Here's the question. Would you rather have the federal agency that is principally charged with emergency management be run by:
(1) People who think it's okay to get the agency's message out by staging a news conference at which its own employees pretend to be reporters and ask only questions the agency is prepared to answer? or
(2) People who who are so naive that they don't think it really matters to the public whether reporters are asking the questions at an event billed as a "press" conference so long as the information they want you to have gets out?
Following the revelations in the press concerning the staged FEMA news conference, its second in command, Deputy Administrator Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson Jr., has apologized for four paragraphs on its behalf. "We are reviewing our press procedures and will make the changes necessary to ensure that all of our communications are straight forward and transparent." (The Washington Post)
But of course the problem isn't the lack of transparency or straightforwardness, but the fact that the participants in the conference (including FEMA's Deputy Administrator) straightforwardly and transparently assumed that a staged press conference would---from the public's standpoint--- be just as good as a real one. The problem is that either it didn't occur to the organizer and participants that this conduct crosses the line or that it possibly did occur to them, but they went on and crossed it anyway. I still don't know which it was.
If they intentionally misrepresented the facts in the hope that no one would notice, it was not an "error in judgment" (implying misfeasance), but straight up malfeasance.
There's a party of me that just can't believe that they thought that not only would it be a good thing for the DHS and the White House but that no one would notice. Or, as Ed Morissey says at Captain's Quarters:
Who comes up with ideas like this?...The most mind-boggling aspect of this event is that someone in FEMA actually opened their mouth and proposed staging a fake news conference -- and everyone else went along with it. Everyone, from Admiral Johnson to the plants in the audience, who took part in this phony presser did so with full knowledge of their fakery.
And every one of them should get canned for it. The American public shouldn't have its officials lie to them, especially by pretending to take real questions from real reporters. People who listened to that press conference did so not from some arcane, wonkish interest in policy, but because lives are on the line in Southern California. Over 1600 houses have burnt to the ground. People have died, and many more have risked their lives to save the rest. This is life and death, and FEMA offered us a stage play. (FEMA's Death Wish; emphasis in bold added)
Amen.
The White House and the Department of Homeland Security ain't happy about it. It ain't the manipulation, but the misrepresentation of the context that is upsetting them. Politicians (in both parties) and bureaucrats unabashedly attempt to manipulate public opinion---that's why the White House has a press secretary---but trying to put a favorable spin on events and flat-out misrepresenting the facts in a context where you are certain to be caught are two different things.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said, "[I]t is not a practice that we would employ here at the White House." I'm sure that's so. People would notice. She continued: "We certainly don't condone it. We didn't know about it beforehand. . . . They, I'm sure, will not do it again." (The Washington Post) Certainly staging a press conference in order to manipulate public opinion lacked finesse.
Department of Homeland Security spokesman (FEMA is part of DHS) Russ Knocke thinks a staged press briefing is "totally unacceptable."(The Washington Post) He'd have you know that it's an "isolated incident" and that reprimands are "very probable." Only probable?
And Bennie Thompson (D-Miss), the House Homeland Security Committee Chairman, thinks that the attempt "to manipulate the press and the public will only tarnish [FEMA's] current success." (The Washington Post)
The Gun Toting Liberal, like my colleague D Cupples, finds the "shock horror" reaction in the White House hard to swallow:
While the Bush Administration may be pretending to be “horrified” that such a manipulation of the MSM could occur, this incident underscores the importance of a REAL “Press”, staying constantly on the heels of the government, challenging “Big Brother” every step of the way; something mainly found almost exclusively in the blogosphere today.
I particularly liked the part toward the end of the video where Admiral Johnson praised the leadership of “Kah-lee-fone-ya” and blasted the leadership of Louisiana during Katrina, citing that to be the primary reason FEMA has acted so “flawlessly” during the California wildfire disaster. Yeah, that’s some real “Fair And Balanced” reporting you’ve got going on there, Mr. Johnson…(FEMA Scorned By Bush Administration For Faking Press Conference (Video))
But--again--- did FEMA initially intend to misrepresent the facts? White House Press Secretary Perino called the staged conference an "error in judgment." But of course, an outright lie is not an error in judgment. It's an intentional decision to misrepresent facts. First Read) FEMA's Deputy Administrator (who gave the "press" "briefing") also called the staged news conference an "error in judgment." (The Washington Post)
First Read offers a bit of insight on this score.
Apparently, the FEMA briefing was called with little lead-time and reporters didn't get there fast enough. Instead of acknowledging that reporters were not there they apparently pretended and even used the typical practice of calling a "last question." (First Read)
Is it possible that this was just the sheerest of sheer naivete? You want to have a press conference; you call a press conference; the press doesn't make it; and so what you do instead of defer it is to get your own employees to play the part of reporters so you can do it anyway?
I'm sorry, but that's just sad. What would you do if you called a press conference and the reporters didn't get their "fast enough"? Would you (a) wait till they arrived; or (b) go on and hold a "press conference" anyway, getting your own people to role play reporters who---naturally---asked only the questions that you were prepared to answer.
The briefer, FEMA's Deputy Administrator Harvey Johnson, did not indicate that the questions were coming from staff who were in essence playing reporters. Six questions were asked and the phrasing and subject matter were not typical for a news briefing give and take.
Senior administration officials are looking into the matter and suggest the "intentions were good," but acknowledge that was not an appropriate "tactic." (First Read)
I'd actually feel slightly more reassured if it turns out that the fake "newser" had been an intentional if stupid way of presenting information to the public that FEMA wanted the public to have without the bother of having to answer questions they weren't yet prepared to answer. While this would make them look exactly as untrustworthy and slippery as they do, it would at least imply the exercise of some exercise judgment, even if it was the wrong sort of judgment.
But if what happened is that they simply got tired of waiting for the reporters so they went ahead without them on the assumption that it didn't matter who was asking the questions or whether we knew that the "press conference" wasn't.....this shows no judgment. And that's not exactly reassuring when we're talking about the people in the federal government with the primary responsibility for dealing with catastrophes such as Katrina and the California fires.
White House Upset by FEMA's Phony Press Conference [Updated]
Blogger reactions galore at Memeorandum:
- FEMA Official Apologizes for Staged Briefing with Fake Reporters
- FEMA's Death Wish (Captain's Quarters)
- Press Briefing by Dana Perino
- First Read: A Look Behind FEMA's Fake Newser
LINKED
FEMA Official Apologizes for Staged Briefing With Fake Reporters (The Washington Post)
Comments