Okay, so no one on the NBC's Today show gets to laugh at the stupidity of the White House's hackneyed staging act. The rest of us can laugh at both of them.

You need to start watching the Daily Show.

This shouldn't shock anyone...

Kosinski's Official NBC Bio says she has a Love for the Theatre

That's it. I don't want her to be President of the United States either.

Ed, I agree that it's funny, a la Reagan and "the bombing begins in 5 minutes..." My problem is with media outlets putting on a display of righteous indignation over it. As I recall, it was the lead story on the NBC Nightly News.

Eric Seymour wrote:

Ed, I agree that it's funny, a la Reagan and "the bombing begins in 5 minutes..." My problem is with media outlets putting on a display of righteous indignation over it. As I recall, it was the lead story on the NBC Nightly News.

Oh, it's not funny in that sense. It's funny in the "how freaking pathetic" sense. Reagan was actually joking when he said that; this "conversation" was a perfect example of propaganda in action. This is funny because we got to watch the powerful make fools of themselves on national television, and that's always funny. That's a totally different type of funny. It goes back to Mencken's famous statement that the great charm of democracy is that it's the only truly amusing form of government ever intented.

this "conversation" was a perfect example of propaganda in action.

See, I completely disagree with that assertion, at least if by "propaganda" you mean something that is manipulative.

The "prepping" of the soldiers in the teleconference is a completely reasonable thing to do if you think about it without a preconceived opinion of President Bush or his administration. These soldiers are very good at their jobs, but their jobs descriptions do not include public speaking. It's easy to imagine how one of them might have frozen up when faced with an unanticipated question from the most powerful man in the free world.

All of the people pointing at this seem to be assuming that the soldiers were told how to answer, which is completely untrue. (That would be about as unnecessary as a stockbroker coaching a CEO to paint his company in a positive light, anyway.)

If the White House promoted the teleconference as a completely impromptu exchange, then that was dishonest, but I can't believe the media is so naive that they'd believe it. Their reaction was just as put-on as Kosinski's canoe ride.

So, in the end, what is funny is that a gaffe was made and something that was not meant to be broadcast went out over the satellite feed. Just like Regan's "bomb" comment, which was supposed to be a sound test. (And which, incidentally, sent the left at the time into a tizzy.)

Eric Seymour wrote:

The "prepping" of the soldiers in the teleconference is a completely reasonable thing to do if you think about it without a preconceived opinion of President Bush or his administration. These soldiers are very good at their jobs, but their jobs descriptions do not include public speaking. It's easy to imagine how one of them might have frozen up when faced with an unanticipated question from the most powerful man in the free world.

But they actually had the answers scripted out, what questions were going to be asked and what their answers would be. That's not a "conversation", it's a dramatic reading. And this is from the same administration that has agencies putting out fake news videos, complete with anchorman and field reporter, and paying pundits to push their ideas (which is illegal, I might add), and held dozens of "town hall meetings" full of handpicked supporters asking prescripted questions. Why do they have to stack every public speaking opportunity that the President has with pre-scripted questions and answers? Because if they don't, he sounds like an imbecile. And that, I would suggest, is the real problem.

If the White House promoted the teleconference as a completely impromptu exchange, then that was dishonest, but I can't believe the media is so naive that they'd believe it.

It was billed as a "conversation"; it was not a conversation. And I agree that no one in their right mind should have believed it wasn't well scripted in advance, especially given the history of fake town hall meetings and paid-for propaganda pieces. But that doesn't mean it's right, and it certainly doesn't mean that it's meaningful to actually catch them doing it. Regardless of partisan considerations, does it not bother you at all that the most powerful man in the world has to be treated this way to avoid sounding like an idiot?

Spot on, Ed.

Did no one else see "Wag the Dog?" It's only a heartbeat and a dragging TV season away.....

Not to mention that two of the "participants" were plants in that they have been popping up as "soldier on the street" quote sources for the past two years.

But they actually had the answers scripted out

This is news to me. Could you provide a source for that?

And this is from the same administration that has agencies putting out fake news videos, complete with anchorman and field reporter

This is also something I've not heard before. Could you be more specific as to what you're talking about, and provide a source?

As for Bush "sounding like an idiot," yes, I do find his lack of public speaking skill irritating and at times embarassing (even given the fact that being the President means every verbal gaffe is going to carry the weight of many good speeches). However, I'm not so shallow and/or cynical to believe that means he actually *is* an idiot. (I'm not saying you are, but there are lots of people who are.)

BARBER: So here's what you to be prepared for, Captain Kennedy, is that the president is going to ask some questions. He may ask all six of them, he may ask three of them. He might have such a great time talking to you, he might come up with some new questions. So what we want to be prepared for is to not stutter. So if there's a question that the president comes up with that we haven't drilled through today, then I'm expecting the microphone to go right back to you, Captain Kennedy, and you to handle

6 questions given to the soldiers in advance. Each question assigned to a specific soldier to answer, with specific questions going to a soldier (e.g., Lt. Gregg Murphy speaking on training up Iraqi forces) who had previously commented on the same questions at other times.

ME: But they actually had the answers scripted out

Eric: This is news to me. Could you provide a source for that?

Have you seen the videotape of the woman from the Pentagon speaking to the soldiers before it went on the air? All of the questions were given to them before hand, they knew in what order they would be asked, they had their answers scripted out in advance, and it was orchestrated right down to telling them individually to "take a deep breath" before handing the mic to the other soldier. If this isn't prescripted, what possibly could qualify?

ME: And this is from the same administration that has agencies putting out fake news videos, complete with anchorman and field reporter

Eric: This is also something I've not heard before. Could you be more specific as to what you're talking about, and provide a source?

I'm talking about Federal agencies sending out prepackaged news reports to local news programs, touting new policies and programs and the agency's successes. As has been reported very widely, including this article in the Washington Post:

Shortly before last year's Super Bowl, local news stations across the country aired a story by Mike Morris describing plans for a new White House ad campaign on the dangers of drug abuse.

What viewers did not know was that Morris is not a journalist and his "report" was produced by the government, actions that constituted illegal "covert propaganda," according to an investigation by the Government Accountability Office.

In the second ruling of its kind, the investigative arm of Congress this week scolded the Bush administration for distributing phony prepackaged news reports that include a "suggested live intro" for anchors to read, interviews with Washington officials and a closing that mimics a typical broadcast news sign off.

Although television stations knew the materials were produced by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, there was nothing in the two-minute, prepackaged reports that would indicate to viewers that they came from the government or that Morris, a former journalist, was working under contract for the government.

"You think you are getting a news story, but what you are getting is a paid announcement," said Susan A. Poling, managing associate general counsel at the GAO. "What is objectionable about these is the fact the viewer has no idea their tax dollars are being used to write and produce this video segment."

In May, the GAO concluded that the Department of Health and Human Services violated two federal laws with similar fake news reports touting the administration's new Medicare drug benefit. When that opinion was released, officials at the drug control office decided to stop the practice, spokesman Thomas A. Riley said.

And this is in addition to having paid out large sums of money to political pundits like Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher to advocate government programs. This is wrong, no matter how you slice it.

Have you seen the videotape of the woman from the Pentagon speaking to the soldiers before it went on the air? All of the questions were given to them before hand, they knew in what order they would be asked, they had their answers scripted out in advance

If by "answers scripted out in advance," you mean who would answer which questions, then yes. But I've seen nothing to indicate the actual answers themselves were written up beforehand by the White House.

I'm talking about Federal agencies sending out prepackaged news reports to local news programs

That is the first time I've heard of that. Perhaps the news broke while I was on vacation, I dunno. I agree that it's wrong. (I'm skeptical that it was orchestrated as a political strategy, but however it came about, it's wrong because it's clearly deceptive.)

Eric Seymour wrote:

That is the first time I've heard of that. Perhaps the news broke while I was on vacation, I dunno. I agree that it's wrong. (I'm skeptical that it was orchestrated as a political strategy, but however it came about, it's wrong because it's clearly deceptive.)

You have multiple executive agencies making up fake news reports (the WaPo article only detailed two of them, but there were more), and multiple executive agencies paying pundits under the table to write favorable stories, but you're skeptical that it was orchestrated as a political strategy? How many does it take before it's no longer a coincidence? And you wonder why I think you rationalize away in a partisan manner the sins of "your side". If this was the Clinton administration, you would almost certainly not be so charitable. And that, again, is where we differ. I'd be hammering both sides for it.

I'm skeptical of anything that is being used as a cudgel against a politician or a party (or, for that matter, a pundit). Granted, I was not so skeptical during the Clinton administration, but I was only 15 when Clinton got into office, and my political outlook has changed since then. This is why I can't stand Ann Coulter, and why I didn't take up with the Swift Vets during last year's election.

I would have to see the spots for myself to determine whether they were intended to boost President Bush, or just put on by the bureaucrats to promote themselves. It certainly doesn't require a coordinated political strategy for one federal agency to copycat the actions of another.

Of course, there is the infamous "This is Karen Ryan reporting" dodge. Let's listen in on Jay Rosen at PressThink:

The General Accounting Office, an arm of Congress, began looking at the use of taxpayer money for something akin to propaganda (which is against the law, unless Congress says it's okay) and this is how Ryan became news. The Times account (March 15) said:

The government also prepared scripts that can be used by news anchors introducing what the administration describes as a made-for-television "story package."

In one script, the administration suggests that anchors use this language: "In December, President Bush signed into law the first-ever prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare. Since then, there have been a lot of questions about how the law will help older Americans and people with disabilities. Reporter Karen Ryan helps sort through the details."

The "reporter" then explains the benefits of the new law.

Which is helpful in understanding what the ploy was all about: verisimilitude, making it seem like real news. Campaign Desk jumped on the story, under the reasoning that the "releases" were in fact campaign ads disguised as news. Therefore the Karen Ryan story was an episode in the battle for the White House.

And this was nonresponsive:

But I've seen nothing to indicate the actual answers themselves were written up beforehand by the White House.

As I explained earlier, at least two of the questions were assigned to specific soldiers who had already answered the same question previously (in Murphy's case, several times), so the Administration was very much using scripted answers. It is a dodge to say that "scripted" answers means a piece of paper in hand. The questions as well as the answers were known in advance.