By the way, why does the site feature a list of articles by WM contributors that hasn't been updated since May?

Hmmm... Why is it that the plane is only smelly when *Reynolds* is on it?

You have one campaign whose VP candidate refuses to do any interviews or press conferences, and as a journalist your complaint is with the smell of someone's plane? You, Mr. Reynolds, need another job. Maybe at the cosmetics counter because you are not fit to be a reporter.

People actually get paid to write this kind of tripe?

Yeah, I think he was drunk and / or very tired when he wrote this. It's pretty pathetic to read. I cringed the way I cringed when Friedman said "suck on this" in the Charlie Rose show. Dude needs to take a look deep inside.

This is a horrifically real threat.

Half the problem in the 2000 Campaign was that there was a real 'party town' (down to reporters sleeping with each other) on the Bush plane, and not with the Gore campaign.

The media fell right into the trap of portraying Bush as the 'friendly guy' and Gore as the arrogant, remote and vain. They drank that line hook line and sinker.

What of course became obvious was that Bush is a master of 'working the room' (endless tales of Bush meeting people and recalling intimate personal details-- he is extremely well briefed) but that when it came to real questions about real policies, Bush cannot explain or answer on the fly (see his recent comments on the financial crisis).

When Bush became president, the press got a very nasty surprise that 'their guy' had been playing them. But it really took 5 years before they accepted that.

There is this residual feel out in electoral land that McCain, too, is an 'ordinary guy' who displays candour and openness with the press. But note the similar lack of depth to Bush.

*all* political campaigns stage manage their press planes.

This is all dangerous because the press gets grumpy on these planes, and that grumpiness is transmitted into their reportage.

Ask Albert Gore.

So, it is now the candidate's responsibility to accommodate reporters schedules and make nice to them so they don't report the 'facts' in a way that reflects negatively on the subject candidate. As I peruse the headlines in the CSM ('Chi....Sh..' Media), I read the bias leaning toward the "right" and find, if I bother to read the story, that the headline does not accurately represent the actual theme of the story. I only read CNN online to see what lies they are spreading, then read TWM/PA to get a more accurate reading. Yes, I know this is also biased, but I can trust most of what I read as being factual and balanced.
I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation.
peace,
st john

I suspect there are security related reasons why the Obama camp doesn't print schedules, etc.

McCain/Palin events and rallies are becoming little more than "rivivalesque" anyway. So why not throw leaflets at reporters!?

Hurry, somebody get this crybaby a dozen doughnuts with sprinkles on top please...

But Reynolds actually published this, for all the world to see.

More to the point - his editor actually let him publish it without saying "um, Dean, this makes you look like a whiny ass. We're not putting this up - write something that doesn't make you sound like you're a petulant 15 year old."

Which means one of two things - either his editor agrees with the sentiment in the piece and thinks its "newsworthy", or his editor wanted the rest of the world get a glimpse of the petulant, whiny crap that he/she has to put up with as editor for Dean Reynolds.

I'm still important! Look at me! Look at me! I matter, right? Don't I matter!?

Wha! Mommy!

The intertubes stole my ball and Sen. Obama won't get it back for me!

Dean, can you use "elitism" in a sentence?

Dean Reynolds must be getting fat and lazy. Over my lifetime, reporters didn't complain or whine: they went out, hit the streets, and followed the story wherever it led, and no matter what obsticles they faced.

Reynolds doesn't sound up to the job with his self-absorbed lament. Maybe FOX NOISE CHANNEL has a special place for Mr. Reynolds! -Kevo

P.S. Reynolds would probably complain if the Chinese restaurant he was dining at only offered menus with traditional Chinese dishes, especially if he was in the mood for a cheeseburger at the time!

I suspect that the Obama campaign has decided that it's more important to be on the local news where his campaign stops than it is to be on the national news. Part of that 50-state strategy, don't'cha know?

I also think that part of this whine is the dawning realization by the national press that people don't really listen to them anymore. They should have gotten the clue in 2006 where they were shocked by the Democrats taking over Congress.

The national press has lost the power it had in 2000 and 2004, and this article is just more evidence that they have no clue why that is.

Steve - I'm glad you highlighted this. I thought it was a little bizarre as well. But one thing you left out was how happy Mr. Reynolds was when John McCain changed his schedule to allot extra time for Reynolds to file an "important" story -- or more specifically, about "an important, aggressive speech, lambasting Obama's past associations."

Perhaps he'd like to be on Palin's plane. I understand her press corp has a very restful time - at least not when they aren't put into the "press corral" at events, for their own safety.

Who is Dean Reynolds, anyway? It's been years since I have watched the "news" on television.

Oddly enough, my reasons for not watching television news are similar to Dean Reynolds' whine -- it's not convenient for me, and it smells funny.

AT last sighting Reynolds was seen hopping on all fours, pants down, ass hole spread open, and squeaking 'fuck me, fuck me' as McEvil was gettin' off his plane .........

As someone who makes his living in the press as a day job, I can say it is fairly, but not incredibly, dumb for Reynolds to throw in the personal/CBS corporate whine part of this.

That said, I'll assume Reynolds wrote this only after talking with Obama campaign staff more than once. And, so, the rest of the blog isn't that dumb at all.

And, that said, if the complaint is not limited to Reynolds -- just that he's the only one to speak up -- it's equally stupid of the Obama campaign to not be more accommodating.

Given the way the current occupant of the WH has stiffed the press for nearly than eight years, it's not just stupid, it is a matter for a bit of concern.

Can we have some chees with that whine?? Talk about getting hooked in by JMs supposed better accomodations and scoop. Do your job and talk about the real issues and the crap that JM puts out there. Just plain do your job and quit whinning you don't get the free food, free plane rides, free drinks, free lovey dovey crap.

I have to agree with valuethinker: this is a major problem for the Obama campaign. Yes, Reynolds and his ilk are annoying as hell whiny cry babies, but the central truth is that this is how the reporters who give the people the news (or used to -- declining interest is a problem for CBS but not for other outlets) and if they are pissed off, it shows. This is EXACTLY how John McCain keeps the media as his "base," and why the press allows and encourages the "elitist" and "arrogant" claims against Obama. The Obama campaign is an amazing organization, but it is stupid stuff like this that makes it exponentially harder for him to get elected. Dumb.

Hmm.. Reynolds sounds uppity!

Forgot to add, re the Obama campaign -- flies, honey and vinegar come to mind.

The plane stinks, huh? Cramped?

Don't worry, buddy. I hear that Air Force One is a nice ride. Just wait a few months. Obama will let you travel in STYLE.

I think if anyone over at CBS News wants to get ahead they should take a copy of Reynolds' whine over to their bosses and say something like: "Boy, its too bad Dean doesn't like doing his job that much...maybe I can take over for him covering this epic event in American history so he can sit a spell on McCain's tire swing..."

ReallyFedUP,

Polling suggests otherwise.

John McCain can run for president of the media.

Obama will be President of the US, and no amount of bitchy, manchildren masquerading as journalists will change that.

In fact, all this does is piss in the face of the liberal media myth.

got to agree with reallyfedup. it's basic human relations, people. treat people decently, even reporters, and chances are they'll reciprocate. they'll at least give you the benefit of the doubt. little things like schedules and a some informal access to the candidate can go a long way.

why do I smell a whiny-ass titty baby in Dean Reynolds?

A little googling shows he is the son of Frank Reynolds, the late ABC News anchor.

Graduated from Wabash College (is this any good or 3rd rate?) in 1970 with a bachelor’s degree in liberal arts.

My interpretation is a mediocre journalist, essentially a fool a & fop, got his initial break due to daddy's connections, typical unexamined yet blatent white male privileged ineritable background like Bushies & McCain.

He would not recognize what is important(organized tight ship prioritzed campaign that is winning; versus erratic incompetent but with donuts.) if it waved itself in his face and said hello, who is erratic unorganized incompetent and who is, you know, winning.

Additionally, I might add, Obama is the story. McCain is ratings lead. Obama is gold. If they want the story, they'll put up with these conditions.

They're journalists, not royalty. Reynolds can leave his seat to someone else, I'm sure there are hundreds waiting for it.

Is there no bigger group of whiny brats than the modern GOP and their minions? I think not.

I loved this bit:

The other day in Albuquerque, N.M., the reporters were given almost no time to file their reports after McCain spoke. It was an important, aggressive speech, lambasting Obama's past associations. When we asked for more time to write up his remarks and prepare our reports, the campaign readily agreed to it. They understood.

I presume Reynolds also gets to sit on McCain's lap and lick his face. And treats too, and a Kong!

Found me a while to find it, but if you go here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/20/utility/main2027545.shtml

And scroll to the bottom of the page you can find a "contact us" link and let them know what you think about this type of threat. . .

Shorter Dean Reynolds: Where's my damned tire swing?!?!?!?!

little things like schedules and a some informal access to the candidate can go a long way. - mudwall jackson

Really, just ask John McCain's lobbyists. Why should journalists be any different?

I was a reporter for more than a decade, including at the White House. While I tend to agree that Reynolds struck the wrong tone I also hope that the Obama people pay attention to what he wrote.

Bill Clinton was renowned within the press corps for his ground-level unreliability, and lack of organizational responsiveness to the day-to-day conditions of the working press. I think that when the chips were down for Clinton, those attitudes and habits paid negative dividends. Karma's a bitch.

These people are not robots. They are human beings who operate within a tight set of constraints. It's true that the news reporters are subordinate to the news makers, but it's also true that a smart campaign (and a smart White House staff, because that's what Obama will have -- a White House staff) will make it as easy as they can on the working press.

Look at McCain. He enjoyed excellent relations with the press over the years, and to this day those relationships continue to pay dividends. If you treat the people who produce the coverage like shit, there's a much higher chance that their resentment will creep into their coverage, especially when things are down for you.

I know that this isn't the way it's "supposed" to be, but once again, the working press is not a bunch of robots. They are human beings with real lives, real responsibilities, and real pressure.

Dump on Reynolds all you want, but that guy is a longstanding press corps veteran. I suspect he might regret the tone of his outburst, yet a wise Obama campaign operation would ask itself what it can do differently to avoid driving professional human beings crazy.

One last thing. I am a life-long Democrat and an Obama supporter. I'm going to vote for him regardless. So, Obama staff, if any of you happen to read this I hope you'll take it in the constructive spirit that it's offered. Treat the reporters better than you have. You will not regret it.

mudwall jackson,

To begin with, journalists aren't human. They don't deserve to be treated as such.

All joking aside, Obama stayed a half an hour after the debate shaking hands and answering questions on Tuesday. He does treat people with respect.

Reynolds is looking for above and beyond treatment because he thinks he's entitled.

Did you ever consider Obama doesn't release his schedule because the Secret Service advised him not to? Do we really need third rate hacks like Reynolds broadcasting every detail of where Obama is going to be on any given day?

No. We don't.

"When he is available, John McCain is friendly and loquacious."

The same McCain, who won't allow Sarah Palin to speak to the press (other than Fox News) at all, you mean?

And please, anyone defended this tripe, which is clearly nothing more than a hit piece, can you tell me which campaign keeps the reporters isolated and corralled away from American citizens and won't let them leave a specified area?

Which campaign has given relatively no access to the vice presidential candidate?

If Dean had written a truly critical piece criticizing both camps for the constraints they place on the media, I might begrudgingly agree with you.

As is, only one camp is trying to manipulate the media, the other is Obama's.

Who cares if they can't speak to the VP candidate? As long as they get a sweet ride and some quality BBQ it's all good.

Dean Reynolds just can't make Obama understand how important he is...Where's the barbecue? Part of campaigning is to make sure the press is bribed..er..I mean comfortable. If a candidate can't spend money for a better plane he can at least pay for a catering service for the press...that is if he expects us to say good things about him.

Note to Reynolds...there are literally hundreds of reporters that would gladly take your place with pleasure. Maybe what you're smelling is your upper lip. Was this really worth publishing..small minded perceptions when there is so much to write about??

Dean needn't worry too much. Come January 20 all Obama reporters will be traveling in the comfort of the presidential plane.

Generally speaking, you shouldn't piss off people who buy ink in 50 gallon barrels.

If there is any truth to this, I hope Sen. Obama's top staffers get it corrected ASAP.

As someone up above mentioned, VP Gore managed to get the traveling press to hate him & it really hurt him (IMO) in the close election.

Shorter Reynolds' whine...

Where's the BBQ?

doubtful wrote: "John McCain can run for president of the media."

McCain is already running for president of the media.

That's why he is proposing to give $1.44 Billion in tax breaks to the handful of giant corporations who own and control America's mass media.

That's why he is proposing to give additional tax breaks to the ultra-rich CEOs of the giant media corporations, as well as to the merely wealthy "on-air personalities" and "pundits" of the corporate media.

That's why he is proposing to continue the CheneyBush administration's deregulation of media ownership, to allow the giant media corporations to gobble up more and more of America's few remaining independent radio & TV stations, networks and newspapers.

The "media" in America is a for-profit business that has substantial financial interests in putting right-wing Republican presidents like George W. Bush and John McCain in the White House.

In furtherance of its financial interests, the corporate-owned, so-called "mainstream" media works in close coordination with the openly partisan right-wing media and the Republican Party to character-assassinate Democratic candidates and glorify Republican candidates, and to systematically disinform and mislead the American people.

In the last two elections, their efforts succeeded in getting the Republicans close enough to steal the elections through voter disenfranchisement and fraud -- blatant, shocking thefts that were for all practical purposes covered up by the corporate media. They may yet do the same thing this year.

The blatant, egregious conflict of interest in the corporate media's "reporting" on a campaign where the outcome affects BILLIONS of dollars in potential profit is an outrageous national scandal.

And oddly enough, it is a scandal that doesn't get much media coverage. Go figure.

Most of Reynold's article can be laughed off as the whining of a spoiled, self important Ted Baxter type journalist who is blissfully unaware of what pain he is. However, the little threat at the end of the article, and that's precisely what it was, should be grounds for Reynold's dismissal.

Oh, and by the way, which campaign's followers scream threats and racial epithets at the "mainstream media" journalists who are attempting to cover their rallies?

Get used to it Reynolds, you are your ilk are becoming increasingly irrelevant, and not a moment to soon.

Start shorting Viacom stock.

Considering that people like Steve Benen would have nothing to write about if it weren't for the reporting of people like Dean Reynolds, he might want to think about revising his own tone.

The press, broadcast and print, is not hostile to Sen. Obama. He could make it hostile to him. That isn't hard to avoid, and would be a lot harder to deal with if it weren't avoided. Obama isn't the first national politician to prefer going "over the heads" of the media to speak to the people. No more than was the case with Richard Nixon or George Bush is this about the people, or his respect for the people; it is all about Obama and what makes him comfortable.

WTF's this world coming to. We are in the middle of an economic emergency and people are concerned how Obama says Pakistan and what the media section of his campaign plane smells like?
P.S. to Renyolds - if your section of the plane smells maybe take a shower and ask your media buddies to do the same. Stupid F***!

I remember an incident at the White House in the mid-'80s. Reagan's press office had made a clerical screw-up and as a result I was denied admittance to a signing ceremony for legislation I had covered. When I say "covered," I mean wearing myself and two pairs of soles out walking the corridors of the Capitol for a year and a half.

I really put everything I had into that coverage. Ordinarily, I couldn't have cared less about any ceremony for anything. I was the kind of guy who didn't attend the State of the Union speeches even though my credentials entitled me to do it. I'd say, oh hell I can watch this on TV.

But, for whatever reason, watching Reagan (who I loathed) sign the bill was important to me. I had lived it for a long time. It was, to use an overworked phrase, a matter of closure. I wanted to be there, and had called the press office twice in advance to be sure I was on the list for the Rose Garden ceremony.

I got to the gate, and I wasn't on the list. I lost it. Screamed at the Secret Service and told them they ran the place like Eastern Europe, and stalked back to my office. It took a couple hours to climb back down from the ceiling.

Yeah, it was completely irrational. When I think back on it, I feel a mixture of embarrassment and amusement at my behavior that day. But you know what? Later that day, the White House press office called me to apologize for their error. Say what you will about Reagan's policies, but his press office was a class act.

Obama's campaign needs to work on this. It's a separate issue from anything that's happening at McCain's rallies. One bad act doesn't justify another. And when Obama gets into office, he needs to establish a disciplined, professional press operation, and to identify and court members of the media.

People might not like what I'm saying, but Obama's people need to be practical and realistic. They should do what the Japanese do in their manufacturing processes, and treat a defect and the reporting of it as a gift that enables them to correct their problems and make a better product.

Reynolds is lucky he isn't assigned to McCain and wrote the piece on his campaign. Reynolds would be standing on the tarmac watching the plane take off!

You belong to the MSM and consequently you are a whore to the Rethugs so why should a Democratic candidate treat you with any respect. Keep lying and I hope you die of a rash.

The whole fucking world on the verge of collapse and this petty pathetic prick can only think of hand sanitizer and air freshener!

The audacity! Not mollycoddling the mama's boys.

Waaaa

Definite dittos on both comments by "Former Journalist," the long one by "Secular Animist" and the one by "Zathras."

Like I said above, this is a "flies/honey/vinegar" issue of PR and marketing. It's a no-brainer, or it should be.

Considering the "MSM" has an approval rating that probably rivals that of congress, I don't know who he thinks is supposed to feel sorry for him.

If you haven't noticed, the rest of the country does NOT want Obama to be more like McCain.

However, as other people point out, it would be dumb for Obama to alienate the press.

This lament is eerily similar to one back in 1992 about the Clinton campaign. That one came, as I recall, from Brit Hume, in the days before Fox News when we still assumed that he was a more-or-less professional journalist. I seem to recall that Hume didn't like the quality of the food. Wonder if Obama is giving Reynolds a tummy ache.

People might not like what I'm saying, but Obama's people need to be practical and realistic. They should do what the Japanese do in their manufacturing processes, and treat a defect and the reporting of it as a gift that enables them to correct their problems and make a better product.

Yes. Because, after all, it's not as if over the last several years, the traditional media have shirked their responsibility to inform the public with impartiality, thoroughness, and bravery. Oh, wait...they have.

if reynolds has failed to mention the hate rising from the republican rallies, while he calls attention to his discomfort, he should be demoted. i am not saying he is wrong about the obama press situation. i am saying that he is a professional reporter who is missing a huge story. he sounds like a spoiled brat. is there another way he could have publicly articulated his concerns? had he spent as much time lamenting the loss of the homes of over i million fellow citizens?

It's really impossible to tell from this whether or not security is at issue here. Reynolds dismisses it when he talks about the early baggage calls, though clearly that was given as a reason. Almost everything he complains about could be easily security related (no "book form" schedules or schedules handed out early, the unexpected waiting, the baggage times).

It also seems that the hurry up and wait aspects he describes come from both the more hectic schedule -- arranging security and other logistics for 2-3 events a day necessarily entails changing of plans in response to what's happening right then more often than one event a day would. Just like hanging around for an extra half hour or not flying during the news hour is going to be easier if you're only doing one thing a day.

That said, I don't see the harm in the campaign trying to freshen up the plane or doing their best to be nicer to the press, just because they can. Maybe some food and a few pats on the head?

In addition to his general tone -- a light touch would have been much better -- I'd be critical of Reynolds for confining his remarks to the Obama and McCain campaigns. Reynolds has been around the block. He's not a 30-something airhead who just bounced in from some affiliate in the sticks.

His piece would've been more useful to his readers, who ought to be #1 on the list, if he had included perspective on past campaigns he's covered. My experience from both sides of the fence, both as a former reporter and later as someone whose job it was to talk with reporters on behalf of a campaign, is that campaigns are by their nature somewhat disorganized and frustrating for everyone involved.

By the way, I don't know what Reynolds is doing at this moment, so let me pass along something I've gotten from a trusted source within the McCain campaign. McCain is visiting Waukesha, a Republican-leaning suburb of Milwaukee, today, Thursday, October 9th.

This source said that McCain arrived in Milwaukee last night at 8 p.m., looking sick and wretched. His words, not mine. The entourage went to the Pfister Hotel downtown. McCain's event in Waukesha wasn't until 11 a.m. Central time today, which means McCain spent more than 12 hours at the Pfister. My guess is sleeping.

The source says McCain is physically running out of gas. Most campaigns will schedule three events in a day, and sometimes even four. But McCain does two events in a day, and the source wonders whether McCain will even make it until Nov. 4th.

You see, when you've had long and friendly relations with the media, that's the sort of stuff that might not get reported by a press corps that has been treated with courtesy and respect. I realize that this is wrong -- especially consider who the guy's running mate is -- and that the press corps should be fearlessly independent, etc etc etc.

But the reality is that they're human beings, and woe betide the press operation that forgets this. By the way, that crap that's been happening at McCain's rallies doesn't exactly bode well for him. So don't imagine that I'm off on a one-sided jihad about Obama's shop. All I'm saying is that someone should listen to what Reynolds told them. He was doing them a favor by telling them.

You know, Dean Reynolds is one guy with a gripe.

Before we plunge into hand-wringing and analysis over the Obama campaign's horrible, misguided, incompetent, and otherwise detrimental relations with "the media", it would be nice to know whether Reynolds' complaints reflect a view widely held by the political press corps covering the Obama campaign, or not.

For all any of us know, other political reporters covering the Obama campaign may be reading Reynolds' article and thinking "God, what a whiner, I knew that guy was a shmuck who only got the job because of his dad."

These people are not robots.

That's true. Robots don't complain about having to do their jobs.

Is Reynolds a ginormous asshole? Yes. Should the Obama campaign still cater to his and his colleagues' whiny little needs and great big egos? Yes. The old rule still applies: Don't pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel--or film by the mile.

But any "journalist" who's stupid enough to trumpet his lack of ethics right there in print --"what goes around comes around" -- should be canned immediately.

That's always a possibility, Secular Animist. Really, you never know. My guess is that Reynolds isn't a notorious whiner, because those people usually don't last as long as he has. News is a tough, tough business, and the whiners tend to fall by the wayside.

More common among the veterans is a thick skin and a certain amount of ruthlessness. Take Andrew Mitchell of NBC, for example. You know, the veteran correspondent who's married to Alan Greenspan? When I worked in Washington, she was notorious for getting to the front of press scrums by elbow male reporters in the nuts.

Probably an apocryphal story. And probably spread by Andrea herself just to keep everyone, um, on their toes.

It's not odd. It's the ravings of a journalistic hack, who's not happy unless everything is spoonfed him.

I'm a journalist and I've covered presidential campaigns. The hours are excruciatingly long, the days filled with frustrations (usually about how ``incompetent'' the campaign staff). But it's also a thrill.

We are seeing history being made this year. Obviously hacks like Reynolds don't see that or just don't give a shit. Makes one wonder why they are on the campaign trail, or in the news business, in the first place, when they could be watching the campaign on TV from the comfort of their nice, clean-smelling homes in Washington or New York.

I made a mistake in my previous post. I identified Andrea Mitchell as Andrew Mitchell on first reference. Maybe a Freudian slip.

And Gregory, yeah, Reynolds should do his job. No question about it. But who in hell never griped about his work life?

I've still yet to see one of the media apologists here make a good case against the argument that it's just not wise for Obama to hand out his daily schedules to people who intend to publish it given the current political climate he finds himself in.

And really, that's the only remotely legitimate claim this blowhard makes.

Ask me if I'm surprised?

The DJIA is now below 9,000 so if anything this whole situation can only get uglier.

doubtful, maybe things have changed, but when I was a working journalist we'd get some information on an "embargoed" basis, meaning that you couldn't release it until a certain time. I think I only saw one or two instances of an embargo being broken.

Like I say, call Reynolds an asshole if you want, but the Obama people should pay attention to the asshole. Complaints like his are like cockroaches. For every one of them that you find out about, there are another hundred behind the wall.

But who in hell never griped about his work life? -Former Journalist

I gripe to fellow coworkers, my family.

I don't stand on the roof yelling about it in a loudspeaker.

I don't cry about it like child in the supermarket.

You said yourself, McCain only schedules a couple stops per day instead of the normal four or more Obama is maintaining.

Maybe McCain's lax, sleepy campaign is more suited for the likes of the lazy, fact-impaired journalists of today.

And to be fair, I never called Reynolds an asshole. I called him a hack. Third rate, to be specific. I've yet to see evidence to the contrary.

He's mad because he thinks the Obama campaign treats him like the irrelevant dinosaur he's become. McCain treats them like the gods they think they are. The difference is, today, no one cares. A bitchy journalist doesn't solve economic woes.

Clearly the polls support this notion. McCain and his fawning media whores are irrevocably behind.

And to dismiss security concerns with talk of embargoes is naive. I don't think the MSMs behavior during the buildup to the Iraq war, or anything relating to Valerie Plame, or giving credence to the false accusations of Obama's religion, or their treatment of him in general, have inspired the campaign to trust them.

Trust isn't given, it's earned. They haven't done the leg work necessary to earn Obama's our our trust. It's depressingly sad when the person coming closest to an actual act of journalism during this entire campaign is Katie Couric.

So while I doubt the Obama campaign did anything to malign the press beyond withholding schedules, they're absolutely justified should they choose to do so.

It's not like they told the press they couldn't interview US citizens, after all.

When the management of the improperly named CBS "news" fired their last news editor, Dan Rather, (because he embarrassed them by attempting to commit real journalism) and replaced him with an over-aged entertainer with no news experience they dropped out of the news business.

Reynolds is simply demonstrating that CBS no longer hires professional news people. Soon CBS will shut down the sad rump of a news organization they still retain and replace it with a game show that they can make more profitable.

Unfortunately for Reynolds, he probably can't qualify for a job with E!. So he'll just have to whine.

Former Journalist+Dean Reynolds=BFF

Hey, FJ, are you a "former" because you whined like Reynolds, too?

Are reporters/journalists/groupies somehow privileged solely because they're the 4th estate? That their words are so solid and can never be effectively rebutted?

Reynolds is not the first journalist to write or say something like this. You think his rant could be a game-changer for the presidential race. You think he's just one outspoken fellow who's courageous enough to say what others are thinking.

You're projecting your own experiences onto whatever you perceive went down between Reynolds and the Obama campaign. And you ignore the little reporters' revolt in the McCain campaign, which has obviously done a lot of good.

Former Journalist is right, and this is the way it has been for a very long time.

I remember at the Press Club at Da Nang in 1967 they even put up a banner to welcome a lady from CBS or NBC, don't recall which one.

It was all about getting your story on the network news.

Reynolds comes from that era I guess. I don't think much of him though.

Rob Gainey, other than the one time where I lost it in front of the White House, I was not a whiner. No one forced me out. I enthusiastically changed careers in pursuit of (much) better money and new challenges. It dawned on me that, for all the supposed glamor, being a Washington correspondent meant transcribing the lies of boring people, day in and day out. That's when I knew it was time to leave. My organization tried to keep me from leaving, but there was no way to entice me to stay.

Something to understand about journalism is that it's the ultimate low-morale profession. I struggle to imagine businesses where there is more discontent. I'm told that orchestras are seething cauldrons, and that the movie business is brutal, but even before the Internet scared the shit out of everyone, journalism was a very, very tough environment.

And I'm not Reynold's p.r. agent here. I thought his article was petulant, just like you do. All I'm saying is that Obama's people would do well to understand that they're not being covered by machines but by fallible human beings under a LOT of daily pressure. Obama's under pressure, too. That's why he has a staff. It's up his staff to do what they can to make things work as smoothly as possible.

I don't know why that's such an offensive message to you. I think it's common sense.

One last thing. I am a life-long Democrat and an Obama supporter. I'm going to vote for him regardless. So, Obama staff, if any of you happen to read this I hope you'll take it in the constructive spirit that it's offered. Treat the reporters better than you have. You will not regret it.
Posted by: Former Journalist

Please ... Journalists have spent the lest 10 years demonstrating why they are unfit to hold the title of "professional."

It shouldn't have to be too much to ask you to just do your fucking jobs, and not become stenographers and lapdogs for whichever master treats you better.

This is why no one respects American journalists, and why they are becoming increasingly obsolete.

By the way, Clinton did a substandard job of media relations too, and it hurt him BADLY in his second term. Don't you think that there was just a LITTLE bit of payback in that all-Monica, all the time, coverage? I do.

George W., on the other hand, continued the post-Nixon tradition among the Republican of actively courting and manipulating the media. You might not like it, but there is no denying that it served him well. Same goes for McCain, whose cordial relations with the media earned him a wholly undeserved reputation for being an ethical maverick.

So, Democrats, go piss all over the people you must go through to reach the public. Sure, the Internet can offset a lot of stuff, but it cannot and will not replace the print and broadcast media. Much of what's out there on the Internet is merely the aggregation of traditional content, gathered and delivered in the traditional way.

You cannot remove the human element from this.

Gonads, I haven't been a journalist for quite a while, so I am presuming that you're not including me in the admonition to "do your fucking jobs."

I am doing you a favor by telling you what's it's really like. If you want someone to tell you exactly what you want to hear, then go to the Daily Kos and join the circle jerk there. Or, for those who are wingnuts, go to the Free Republic site and join their circle jerk.

Journalists are NOT "becoming obsolete." That idea is one of the many trivial conceits of those who never bother to look under the hood of the Internet political and news sites, which would pretty much collapse if the major media weren't stupid enough to make their content available for the taking. Someone actually does the reporting, and makes a paid living at it. If you think otherwise, then the fucking idiot is you, and not me or Reynolds or Bill O'Leilly or Keith Olbermann or whoever you love or hate.

It's a little bit like going into a restaurant. If you piss off the server badly enough, something strange might show up in the food. Any idiot knows that, except maybe you.

Just a setup for the "The country's not being run by grown-ups!" line of Republican and reporter outrage they used during the Clinton years. Prepare for more stories of pizza parties at the White house. Mike Murphy has noticed that the McCain campaign is being run by juniors (hint, those under 60) as well.

The old folks see the times are a changin', and all they can do is whine about smelly planes. Next thing you know, they will be be writing that the men need haircuts and the women are showing too much skin. It's no fun to turn into Andy Rooney when you still thought you were cool.

Of course, most of these people were never cool.

For Obama's sake, I hope there is an adult or two in his media operation.

There is something else to say here. The media is just now getting to know Obama. The relationship is new, and therefore is in its formative stages. If there was EVER a time to try HARD to treat them well, then NOW is that time.

Look at McCain. I consider the guy to be a phony from the word go, but he's had a long and friendly relationship with the working media. Only lately has it soured, and I have no doubt that if lightning struck and he were elected, he'd easily patch it up. Which would make me puke more than once, but that's beside the point.

What's the source of McCain's cordial relationship? He at least SEEMED to respect the media's needs, and did so for a long time. They need a good quote. They need it on deadline. They need the illusion, at least, of candor. And you know what? All that Dale Carnegie crap about remembering people's names and smiling at them never hurt anyone.

Yeah, yeah, I know it sucks. Get over it. Obama's media people, take some notes. The time's approaching when your guy is going to be president, and during his presidency he's going to need the media. Don't sit there and think otherwise. Without the media, the most you can do is win grudging tactical victories. But if you really want to change the country, then you'd better make friends and influence the influencers.

Former Journalist, what you say makes sense, but I also think there are some holes in it. First, every complaint Reynolds makes seems to be related to Obama's much more rigorous schedule and tighter security. OK, they should air the plane out. But the rest can't be fixed unless the campaign puts reporters ahead of campaigning.

And second, while reporters complain about how they are treated when they don't like the candidate, I'm not sure they reason they don't like the candidate is, in fact, the treatment. I am remembering Hillary bringing out bagels to her press contingent, and they all just gave her fishy looks. If McCain does that its charming and accessible. If Hillary does it, she's artificial and sucking up.

And Bush has been horrible to the press since he took office. They treated him with kid gloves until his approvals dropped under 30. Even now they ignore him rather than mocking and attacking him like they did Clinton. What did Clinton do that was so much worse than Bush's threats and biased access granting?

Lay off FJ. He's not saying it's right, just that it's so. Holy cow, no need to be nasty to a fellow Democrat.

Journalists are NOT "becoming obsolete." That idea is one of the many trivial conceits of those who never bother to look under the hood of the Internet political and news sites, which would pretty much collapse if the major media weren't stupid enough to make their content available for the taking. Someone actually does the reporting, and makes a paid living at it. ...
Posted by: Former Journalist

I said American journalists were becoming obsolete.

Incidentally, your defense of your institutions' need to be catered to is not attractive, and is actually somewhat pathetic.

Look at Bush ... he treats you people like shit, and you cower in fear of his potential denial of access. What access??? Journos were writing propaganda pieces, without citation, attribution, verification, or research. A fucking monkey could do that.

The only access you were afraid of losing was to the parties, to the in-crowd. You people act like, and Reynolds reads like, an insecure aging Heather who wasn't asked to the ball and she didn't want to go anyways.

yeah, Reynolds should do his job. No question about it. But who in hell never griped about his work life?

Griping about work is one thing. Printing your gripe in the company newsletter -- to say nothing of a national blog -- is quite another.

Perhaps he should be embeded in Iraq. Then he could really bitch about the smell and travel arrangements.

Shorter Former Journalist: Obama shouldn't make the mistake of counting on journalists' professionalism; they haven't any.

Duly noted. I've never been happier that I didn't enter that so-called "profession."

Lay off FJ. He's not saying it's right, just that it's so. Holy cow, no need to be nasty to a fellow Democrat.
Posted by: kgb

It's also the case that old, fat white women from West Virginia don't plan on voting for Obama because they're ignorant racists. Do we cater to their insecurities, too?

Former Journalist wrote: "The media is just now getting to know Obama."

The media is "just now getting to know Obama" -- who has been running for President for two years. And has written two books about his life and his political views.

That sounds more like an indictment than a defense of "the media".

Perhaps Dean Reynolds would be happier covering Sarah Palin's rallies -- where her followers threaten and scream racial epithets at "mainstream media" journalists.

By the way, I take exceptions to commenters here who categorically denounce all "journalists" or even "American journalists". Amy Goodman of Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now is an American journalist. Greg Palast is an American journalist -- although it's true that he did have to move to Britain and go to work for the BBC to get his investigative reports on the theft of the 2000 election in Florida published.

As stupid as it seems, are we really going to disregard ?? We have a look into the modern day reporter's thoughts and all we can do is call him whining baby, even thought that is precisely what he is.

Let's get the odor removed, get some sort of workable schedule, stop dissing the reporters, get some super customer service reps coddling these clowns and doing whatever we can, w/o compromising our principles, to make their lives more comfortable.

Obama has spent how many millions trying to get his message out and yet they can't spend some cash on odor remover or printing a few schedules or maybe even providing bottled water. Christ, give them some Obama pens and notepads with little "Change" logos on them. It's seems almost illogical to not have some sort of customer/press satisfaction person making sure they are comfortable.

The owner of the Dallas Maverics, Mark Cuban is one of the only owners that provides the visiting team with Maverick logo towels they can keep, most owners prefer painting the opponent locker rooms pink and shutting off the hot water. Well Cuban turned the team completely around in part because people liked the way he treated them, even when they weren't on his team. Making future recruitment very easy.

I am not suggesting we do anything like throwing a BBQ, but making sure the fricken plane doesn't stink, seems like one of the best investments we could make in this campaign.

Former Journalist

Thank you for your insights, although I took exception to the term 'jerk circle'. A rather grotesque image (even for a country whose normal epithet is 'w-nker' or t-sser.

I agree with you that the age of the Internet makes some journalists, in some ways, more powerful. 90% of internet posts seem to start with a link to mainstream media articles or analysis.

And about the importance of treating journalists as human beings.

Yes the Republicans are much better than the Democrats in this regard.

This thing with Obama's campaign has been a long running thread with the press, that they can never get close to the man, he is too well managed and protected.

If it is to be an Obama presidency, he will not start with the reservoir of media goodwill that will be essential as he makes the usual mistakes and fumblings. I'm sure we'll have at least one Vince Foster in the first term. Heck even Jed Bartlett had scandals!

When GWB became president, it was only when he started hiding from the press, that they tumbled to the fact that actually he had never answered their questions in the first place. Once Iraq had gone wrong, he was then a soft target-- but really the knives only came out when he was so hopeless after Katrina. But everyone who has ever met the guy (see for example Oliver Stone's interview in the Guardian, where Bush remembered that he and Stone were contemporaneous at Yale) will tell you that Bush is a master of the personal touch.

The press protected Reagan when he was obviously losing it in the second term. Very little of that came out until afterwards.

The press protected Reagan because they liked the guy, and being a Hollywood veteran, his Press people were first rate, protecting him and his reputation like a top Hollywood star.

"The other day in Albuquerque, N.M., the reporters were given almost no time to file their reports after McCain spoke. It was an important, aggressive speech, lambasting Obama's past associations. When we asked for more time to write up his remarks and prepare our reports, the campaign readily agreed to it. They understood."

Duh. What "they" understood is that with extra time, they'd get a longer, better(?) story from you reporters. And at this point in time, the McCain folks need all the help they can get.

That said, human kindness goes a long way, Obama campaign people. It would be best to see if you can't do a little better in accommodating sensitive types such as Mr. Reynolds......

"The other day in Albuquerque, N.M., the reporters were given almost no time to file their reports after McCain spoke. It was an important, aggressive speech, lambasting Obama's past associations. When we asked for more time to write up his remarks and prepare our reports, the campaign readily agreed to it. They understood."

Duh. What "they" understood is that with extra time, they'd get a longer, better(?) story from you reporters. And at this point in time, the McCain folks need all the help they can get.

That said, human kindness goes a long way, Obama campaign people. It would be best to see if you can't do a little better in accommodating sensitive types such as Mr. Reynolds......

From a still-active journalist:

ScottW... that was until Cuban tried to boot a Dallas Morning News blogger from the locker room. Cuban actually has pretty thin skin.

Gonads and Gainey, get a clue. I'll e-mail you one if you want.

Former Journalist, even at a non-daily, I stil get stuff on embargo.

And, I can offer a personal complaint of my own about Obama's campaign, speaking of that.

Every day during the GOP convo, my paper company (a group of south suburban Dallas weeklies) got the full cycle of mass-blast e-mails from the McCain campaign.

We got SQUAT from Obama. Whether that was because we're non-dailies, from Texas, or just a fucked-up or arrogant media operation, I don't know.

For those saying internet journalism wouldn't exist without mainstream journalism, maybe you're right.

Internet journalism exists mostly to correct the myriad mistakes made by mainstream journalism.

SecularAnimist,

I agree, but I think when you're including Palast, Goodman and other actual journalists, you're using a broader definition than those of use lambasting American journalism.

CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox. You could count the number of actual journalists on those networks on one farm-accident-deficient hand.

Most of the people who work for those networks are fact-adverse stenographers, and they are becoming obsolete as the industry that cropped up to point out their ineptitude catches on.

kgb,

Absolutely correct. We can disagree without being petty and resorting to name calling and insults.

Generally speaking, you shouldn't piss off people who buy ink in 50 gallon barrels.

If there is any truth to this, I hope Sen. Obama's top staffers get it corrected ASAP.

Right. This (non) story will have about as much impact as Ayres, which is to say, none. It's too late, for one thing, and for another, I don't think too many people in danger of losing their retirement savings or their homes to foreclosure will be in much of a mood to put stock into a tantrum thrown by a WATB.

Man up, Reynolds. If your father were alive, he'd probably kick you in the stones and rue the day you were born. Journalist, my ass.

Incidentally, your defense of your institutions' need to be catered to is not attractive, and is actually somewhat pathetic.

It's not "my institution." I did the job for 11 years. I am at least as upset with the media as you are. In fact, I am probably more critical, because I am more familiar with the sausage factory than you are. But yes, it must be "catered to" at some level. Call it "pathetic" if you want. I call it "realistic."

Look at Bush ... he treats you people like shit, and you cower in fear of his potential denial of access.

He doesn't treat ME like anything. I switched careers well prior to the Shitbrain in Chief coming to power. Don't confuse me with someone who likes this state of affairs. I'm am talking about that world works, and how it's going to work while Obama is president.

I realize that you would like it if everyone got their information by osmosis, but in fact there will still be traditional reporters, both print and video. These reporters will be human beings under a great deal of pressure with respect to scheduling and production, and who even in the best of times are prone to bad morale.

Only an arrogant idiot who, like so many newcomers to Washington, thinks his shit doesn't stink, will treat these people badly at the nuts and bolts level. Washington has a way of chewing those sorts of people up and spitting them out, without regard to their ideological or partisan affiliation.

And the media, in particular, just hates them. I was amused at the report of someone in a McCain crowd calling a black TV cameraman "boy." Whoever did that didn't know that your average TV cameraman of any race is one step away from being a wild animal who will rip your lungs out given the slightest provocation.

I am talking at that level here, and that's the level that Reynolds was talking at. The guy has a deadline to meet, a story to file, a wife to call, kids to talk to, dinner to eat, sleep to get, etc. At the VERY least, a press operation with any competence does what it can to have its shit together so people can "do their fucking jobs."

Griping about work is one thing. Printing your gripe in the company newsletter -- to say nothing of a national blog -- is quite another.

I agree with that, but now that it's out there the question is what to do about it. My point is that if there is an adult in the Obama press operation, that adult will view Reynold's gripe as a gift and make some adjustments. An arrogant prick of the sort that many commenters here are will not make any adjustments. That arrogant prick will get away with it, but payback's a bitch. Ask Bill Clinton.

The media is "just now getting to know Obama" -- who has been running for President for two years. And has written two books about his life and his political views.

Come on, don't be stupid. I'm talking about in a working relationship sense. The press pack has been on the case for about six months. That's an eyeblink.

The press protected Reagan because they liked the guy, and being a Hollywood veteran, his Press people were first rate, protecting him and his reputation like a top Hollywood star.

My politics couldn't have been more at odds with Reagan's. I never voted for him. But, the one kind of comical screwup notwithstanding, Reagan's White House press office was unfailingly polite and efficient.

They didn't tell you squat unless they thought they had to, but the briefings were on time and the facilities worked. Reporters have lives, too. Keep someone sitting on a tarmac doing nothing for a couple hours and that person knows he's not going to get dinner that night, won't talk to the wife 'n kids, and won't get a good night's sleep.

Sometimes it's unavoidable, but if you have half a brain you try not to have it happen. If it does happen, you do what you can to soften it. You don't stand back and treat the people who are doing their jobs like shit. Memories are long.

Every day during the GOP convo, my paper company (a group of south suburban Dallas weeklies) got the full cycle of mass-blast e-mails from the McCain campaign.

We got SQUAT from Obama. Whether that was because we're non-dailies, from Texas, or just a fucked-up or arrogant media operation, I don't know.

That kind of thing is sheer stupidity. I can tell you this much: Reagan's White House, and both Bush campaigns, always gave you something to write about, and you never were at a loss for their propaganda. Not that I didn't want to vomit reading it, but the beast that signs your paycheck needs to be fed.

If you want to eat, you'll feed the beast. If that's pathetic, well fuck whoever says it's pathetic to have to eat. And fuck any press office that's too incompetent to understand the basic realities that govern the lives of the human beings that it is their "fucking job" to deal with every day.

This is no rocket science. It's simply a matter of someone giving a shit. If that person hates the media they probably shouldn't be in the media office, but if they are there then at least they ought to get it through their steel-plated skull that it's in their boss's interest that they pretend to give a shit.

The arrogance of some of the posters here is just stunning. I don't like the performance of the media any better than you do, but ignoring the ground level realities of the business is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Especially for Democrats. Come on, dorks, don't you understand that the media is Republican owned but Democratic staffed? If you have reporters mad at you and you're a Democrat, then you must have gone way out of your way to be a stupid prick.

Slight correction. I wasn't around for Bush Jr.'s campaign. I only heard from people who were.

Here's a little story. Remember Lloyd Bentsen, the running mate to Dukakis? He had all the warmth and charisma of a bowl of cold oatmeal, but he got very supportive coverage. Want to guess why? Because Lloyd Bentsen had the single best press secretary that I've ever dealt with. Jack Devore was a legend. He treated everyone really well, and you always came away with a story you could use.

His PLANE smells funny? What's up with that? Are they cooking some of those exotic ethnic Hawaiian dishes or something?

I promise not to keep ranting and raving, but I need to say this:

Obama, the media WANTS to like you. At least the people who do the real work want to like you. These people are under pressure like never before. Not only are their organizations half-staffed compared to a few years ago, but everyone who remains is looking over their shoulder wondering when they'll be shitcanned because of declining circulation and cratering advertising revenues.

In other words, these people are scared, and all but the biggest stars are as economically fearful as everyone else. So, use that high I.Q. to find yourself a press secretary who likes reporters and knows how to deal with them. You will be the first top-level Democrat in a long time to do it, and it will pay big dividends.

If you really want to knock it out of the park, find yourself a Lou Cannon. If you don't know who that is, then ask someone.

Finally, I'd like to say that I offer these ideas not as much as a former journalist as a current Democrat. It is in my Democratic Party's self-interst to cultivate the media. You're going to have to deal with them one way or the other anyhow, so come on, how hard is it to have your shit together?

p.s.: Lou Cannon not as a press secretary, but as a media sycophant-biographer. How come stupid old Ronald Reagan was smart enough to have a Lou Cannon, but Rhodes Scholar Bill Clinton was too stupid to do the same thing? Will wonders never cease!

Sorry, Former Journalist, for the invective from some of the folks here. You have it exactly right.

Work with these people and it will pay off big time. Winning an election is one thing. Running an Administration in a era where there is so much to fix while the right-wing fights you every step of the day is quite another and will require some massaging of the media. While I'm certain that an Obama administration will try to make its case on the merits, it never hurts to have a resevoir of good will in the group of people who sit around bored most of the time just waiting for you to show up and watching you when you do.

And, I'm hopeful that "the Davids" will note this and improve the situation. Say what you will about the campaign so far they let very little slip.

Well, LarryK, thanks. I really hope someone with clout in Obama's crew is listening. I think they've run a pretty damn good campaign, but I found Reynolds's piece a bit worrisome.

I was just astonished when Clinton got the media wrong from the start. In '92, I remember talking to old friends who were telling me that Clinton was forever fucking with their deadlines and running an amateur operation in a myriad of other ways. The one thing that sticks out at me was Clinton's inability to meet a schedule. It might be cute and understandable for a while, but it gets real old, real fast for a working reporter.

If you recall early 1993, Clinton got utter hosed on gays in the military, and his first budget squeaked through with one vote. I strongly believe that his terrible ground-level press operation materially worsened those situations. He had the wrong bunch of people mad at him. By the time Monica rolled around, there wasn't a hell of a lot of sympathy in the press corps.

Obama strikes me as someone with considerably more self-discipline than Bill Clinton. But he's also been described as the most introverted man to run for the presidency in a very long time. The nature of the guy at the top often shows at the lower levels, so maybe Obama's press operation has taken on his standoffish character.

Someone needs to fix that. They don't have to like fixing it, but they need to fix it as a matter of discipline. Reynold's "whine" ought to be viewed as a gift and an opportunity to correct something before it turns into a real problem. It's not about whether the plane smells, it's about how you treat the people whose job it is to cover you.

Even if it's true, they are only hurting themselves by dissing audiences that run in the tens of millions every night.

Dissing the audience? By not catering to the Press Corpse? The pshrinks have to have a word (or twelve) for this pass-on-the-insult thing the Right is so fond of. I first heard it from Limbaugh; "when they say these things about me, they're really insulting you, my listeners". Not saying Reyknolds is a Righty, I have no idea what his politics are, but he sure seems to share some of their pathology...

Former Journalist is depressing the hell out of me.

So, basically, we have no right to expect journalists to be impartial. Journalists will always be on the side of the person who feeds them the best, regardless of the policies that person has. The only recourse a politician has is to cater to their every need, because otherwise they'll use their first opportunity to rip him/her apart.

I think we really are in the last days of the American Empire if we've come to the point where an entire country can be held hostage by people who are pissed off that they missed their deadline and didn't get their Dove Bar.

These expressions of concern that if you're not solicitous of the welfare of the press junketeers on the campaign plane it'll come back at you are all very well, but I'd also consider that an article like Reynolds' is more than likely to convince a reader (like me) that the press deserves treatment even less favorable than what Reynolds whinges about. At this point being liked by the press doesn't exactly count for me as a recommendation, and if there's someone running that the press has difficulty concealing its dislike of, they're likely to get a second and third positive look from me for that reason alone.

So, basically, we have no right to expect journalists to be impartial. Journalists will always be on the side of the person who feeds them the best, regardless of the policies that person has. The only recourse a politician has is to cater to their every need, because otherwise they'll use their first opportunity to rip him/her apart.

I need to reiterate that I am no longer a journalist, and that I am talking not in ideological terms but in human terms. I'm talking about the lizard brain. Forget about partisan or political sympathies and think about Maslow's hiearchy of needs.

A reporter is just some guy or gal with a sense of curiousity and a cute face (if video), a gift for words, or both. This isn't some alien species who arrived here from Jupiter, it's a person who, in the immortal words of some prior commenter here, just wants to "do your fucking job" and then go home to (in the words of Gerald Ford's Agriculture Secretary) loose shoes, a tight pussy, and a warm place to take a shit.

Yeah, yeah, so get depressed. You're a journalist in the making, then. But if you're a normal human being, you will realize that karma is everywhere. And I'm not some fuckin' Buddhist about it. But if you fuck people over, by and large the same thing will happen to you.

Do reporters try to shed their prejudices? Hell yeah they do. I sure did. After a bunch of time regurgitating political lies (most of them, but certainly by no means all of them from Republicans) I left Washington and was glad to do it. To this day, I have a heightened appreciation for the difference between fact and opinion, and a huge respect for fact regardless of who it hurts.

Such as, for example, the FACT that the Democrats were at least as culpable for the Fannie and Freddie mess as the Republicans. And for the FACT that George W. Bush directly ordered the torture of enemy non-combatants, a horrendous crime that contradicts every single thing that has ever made us Americans. Facts are facts, and I consider it a character test to watch what people do when they are confronted with a FACT that contradicts their inclinations, prejudices, and opinions.

Anyway, no, it's not necessary for anyone to cater to every whim of a reporter. (I call myself "Former Journalist," but I regret that because I've always liked "Reporter" better.) A good reporter will try to screen all of it out. I know I did. But we are human beings, and there are conditions under which we have a wide latitude to do as we wish to do.

It is under those conditions -- the absurd impeachment of Clinton for blowjobs in the nook off the Oval Office being a prime example -- when our discretion runs free, that all of those slings, slights, arrows, and accumulated resentments are set free.

If this depresses you, my answer is this: Tough shit. Grow up. I realize you are God, or more to the point you think you are, but reporters are fallible weak human beings unlike you. Better fucking get used to it, too.

I think we really are in the last days of the American Empire if we've come to the point where an entire country can be held hostage by people who are pissed off that they missed their deadline and didn't get their Dove Bar.

Ah yes, the old Roman Empire analogy. Along the way to earning your degree in art history, did anyone teach you that Americans have been comparing this country to Rome in decline ever since the United States of America was established as a political unit? So spare me the self-righteous horseshit. It's too easy. Get into the real world, which is a lot harder.

One more thing, Mnemosyne: Nowhere is it written that reporters need to be impartial. You need to actually educate yourself, if you dare, about your own fucking country's history. If you did, you'd find out that the idea of an "objective" press didn't come into existence until the combination of the Civil War, the telegraph, and new printing technology created an opportunity for those who provided accurate battle information.

"Objectivity," therefore, is a commercial construct. It has utterly, and I do mean utterly, nothing to do with freedom of the press. When the founders wrote the 1st amendment, all publications were partisan, and the idea was that people would consume something of everything and that the truth, like a turd, would float to the surface of the swimming pool.

Currently, we are seeing the media slowly but surely regress to the 18th Century state. FauxNews is a bunch of wingnuts. MSNBC is left-wing. The so-called "broadcast networks" are stuck in the middle, with CBS center-left, ABC center-right and NBC trying to stay in the middle. The only truly "objective" information comes from C-SPAN.

I don't know where all of this leads, although my gut tells me that Americans will eventually reward the NBC centrist model as the shit really hits the fan. But the idea that reporters are somehow required to be objective is horseshit. By training and cultural inclination that's my ideal, but your Olympian, self-righteous disdain is comical, at best.

Actually, my degree is in journalism. You might not want to assume you're the only person on this thread who knows anything about journalism or the only one who's ever worked at a newspaper.

Here's what's really getting to people: you're assuming that if the Obama campaign fixes all of these problems that journalists will then treat them fairly. Given the events of the past 16 years, I think that's a HUGE assumption that you're making, and you don't even seem to realize it. When a working journalist's Rolodex runs the gamut from Newt Gingrich to Karl Rove, no amount of free food is going to make them magically develop liberal and Democratic sources. They're still going to be getting fed bullshit from Republican operatives and they're still going to run with it.

Here's what's really getting to people: you're assuming that if the Obama campaign fixes all of these problems that journalists will then treat them fairly.

No I'm not. I'm saying that the Obama people are going to have to deal with journalists no matter what, so they might as well treat them well. It's a lot cheaper than advertising, and it will come in handy in the future.

When a working journalist's Rolodex runs the gamut from Newt Gingrich to Karl Rove, no amount of free food is going to make them magically develop liberal and Democratic sources.

Typical liberal Democrat, looking for the quick fix magic bullet, with no appreciation for the long slog. There are a million things Obama has to do. Treating the media well at the nuts and bolts level is one of them, and it's easy. Oh, and in case you give a fuck, it's also the right thing to do.

Oh for the love of Christ, you journalists whining that if you don't get fed you'll dish on Obama (or whoever) are just WATB x 2.

When I went to J-school we were taught to get the story, period. None of this goody-grabbing attitude that some of you seem to be exhibiting. I echo what was said above -- if you can't tell a story objectively and you think your own shit don't stink AND you gravitate to the guys who feed you the best and pat your heads, then you're in the wrong business, period. You're not there to dish roses for the folks who feel you up good; you're there to tell an objective story.

I'll say it again: you're out there to get a story; you're the eyes and ears for other Americans who can't be where you are -- you're supposed to be objective, tell the fucking story, and don't piss and moan about what it takes to tell that story. Those of us who are your readers don't give a damn about your personal BO problems; we just want to know what happened. Do you get that??

What all your little whiny anecdotes about the GOP giving you time to write, etc. that Obama didn't send you jack or that Clinton or Bush fucked you over, etc. ad nauseum tells me is that you're out for yourselves. You've forgotten your audience, the people who pay for your product -- the readers/viewers. Once you do that, you're not a journalist anymore. You're a pet stenographer.

If you can't do your job, then get out of journalism and go do something else that lets you get home, call the kids, etc. For every one of you who is whining about "having a life" let's please remember that the candidates you're covering (and their staffs and the secret service agents and all the others who make these campaigns run on wheels) are ALSO away from home, frazzled, missing their kids, etc.

This is not all about you, journalists... it's about the folks at home, the eyeballs you're delivering for. Forget them and you might as well hang it up; you're no better than yesterday's news.

Once again, if you can't take the heat, then put your fucking laptops away, ditch the crackberries, and go find work as a rodeo clown or something similar that suits your self-aggrandizing attitudes.

Oh for the love of Christ, you journalists whining that if you don't get fed you'll dish on Obama (or whoever) are just WATB x 2.

When I went to J-school we were taught to get the story, period. None of this goody-grabbing attitude that some of you seem to be exhibiting. I echo what was said above -- if you can't tell a story objectively and you think your own shit don't stink AND you gravitate to the guys who feed you the best and pat your heads, then you're in the wrong business, period. You're not there to dish roses for the folks who feel you up good; you're there to tell an objective story.

I'll say it again: you're out there to get a story; you're the eyes and ears for other Americans who can't be where you are -- you're supposed to be objective, tell the fucking story, and don't piss and moan about what it takes to tell that story. Those of us who are your readers don't give a damn about your personal BO problems; we just want to know what happened. Do you get that??

What all your little whiny anecdotes about the GOP giving you time to write, etc. that Obama didn't send you jack or that Clinton or Bush fucked you over, etc. ad nauseum tells me is that you're out for yourselves. You've forgotten your audience, the people who pay for your product -- the readers/viewers. Once you do that, you're not a journalist anymore. You're a pet stenographer.

If you can't do your job, then get out of journalism and go do something else that lets you get home, call the kids, etc. For every one of you who is whining about "having a life" let's please remember that the candidates you're covering (and their staffs and the secret service agents and all the others who make these campaigns run on wheels) are ALSO away from home, frazzled, missing their kids, etc.

This is not all about you, journalists... it's about the folks at home, the eyeballs you're delivering for. Forget them and you might as well hang it up; you're no better than yesterday's news.

Once again, if you can't take the heat, then put your fucking laptops away, ditch the crackberries, and go find work as a rodeo clown or something similar that suits your self-aggrandizing attitudes.

I've had some time to think about it, and you're right FJ ... I'm being way, way too hard on the people whose laziness make them complicit in the war crime that is our Iraqi invasion.

I apologize to your sensibilities of "reality." Dead civilians make me a little aggressive, so forgive me the desire to punch Reynold's and his espoused sentiments in their lily white mouths.

Maybe I should cater my medical care to the poor little bastard whose Mom brings me better donuts? Sure that'll make me less professional and dishonor my oath, but hey, I'm only human. ...

Hope your kid makes it ...

P.S. And while you're at it, starting covering the absolute atrocities being whipped up by Palin (racist crap), and the big story in California that Mormons are crossing into the state to campaign against that' state's gay referendum on gay marriage. Why aren't some of you calling that one what it is -- a church interfereing in politics?

sorry about that double post up there... when I hit the "post" button I got a note from the server that the apache something or other had a string access issue (or something --it flashed by pretty quickly). So, I had to click "back" and try posting again.. you might want to check out your server's action there, WM.

Dejah, you're talking apples and oranges. Reynolds didn't have anything to say one way or the other about the content of the campaigns. Ditto for the long string of other people talking through their hats the same way.

Maybe you're envious of FJ? (I'm not. Working at small papers pays less, but means fewer layers of bureaucracy, and less chance of losing my job, now.)

And, beyond that, I don't have a J-school degree, even. I'm a school newspaper atheist with a graduate divinity degree.

Former Journalist -- Rogues & Scholars called Obama a "control freak" a while back, and the light bulb immediately went on in my head. (Disclosure: I'm voting Green, so neither Obama NOR McCain's issues are my bottom line. And spare me any invective, anti third-party trolls.)

Anyway, it's NOT that Obama is being "managed."

He WANTS IT this way. This isn't Plouffe, Axelrod or anybody else, this is B.O. himself

When I went to J-school we were taught to get the story, period. None of this goody-grabbing attitude that some of you seem to be exhibiting. I echo what was said above -- if you can't tell a story objectively and you think your own shit don't stink AND you gravitate to the guys who feed you the best and pat your heads, then you're in the wrong business, period. You're not there to dish roses for the folks who feel you up good; you're there to tell an objective story.

Tell me something: Where did you work, and for how long? I don't need anything that will identify you. I'm trying to get an insight into what your actual journalism experience is, as opposed to what someone spouted at you in J-school.

What all your little whiny anecdotes about the GOP giving you time to write, etc. that Obama didn't send you jack or that Clinton or Bush fucked you over, etc. ad nauseum tells me is that you're out for yourselves.

I have some disappointing news for you. Everyone, at some level, is out for themselves. The key to running an enterprise, or a country, is to fix it so that when people pursue their personal dreams, they are also serving the common good, at least to some degree.

If you can't do your job, then get out of journalism and go do something else that lets you get home, call the kids, etc. For every one of you who is whining about "having a life" let's please remember that the candidates you're covering (and their staffs and the secret service agents and all the others who make these campaigns run on wheels) are ALSO away from home, frazzled, missing their kids, etc.

Well, that's very true, actually. Everyone is under pressure of some sort. Now, the issue is whether, in a particular context -- the press operation of a campaign, or a White House -- the people who can exercise power at least within a small sphere will exercise it in a constructive way or not.

Forget about whether you like or respect the reporters. Hate their guts if you want to. But if your goal is to get coverage that you a) like, or b) respect but at least c) don't hate, then it's in your interest to treat the reporters well. Notice that I'm not dwelling on what the right thing to do is, because zealots of all kinds hate to hear about the right thing to do.

Once again, if you can't take the heat, then put your fucking laptops away, ditch the crackberries, and go find work as a rodeo clown or something similar that suits your self-aggrandizing attitudes.

That would be nice, I suppose, if a campaign or a White House could abuse the media without repercussions. At least I guess it would be nice if the perpetrator of the abuse shared my politics.

But in the real world, the people they're abusing won't quit their jobs. They'll still put out the story. And they'll seethe. And they'll lie in wait until you stumble, at which point the knives will come out.

I apologize to your sensibilities of "reality." Dead civilians make me a little aggressive, so forgive me the desire to punch Reynold's and his espoused sentiments in their lily white mouths.

So tell me, what have you done on behalf of the dead civilians other than bravely issue a self-righteous posting on the Internet?

Maybe I should cater my medical care to the poor little bastard whose Mom brings me better donuts? Sure that'll make me less professional and dishonor my oath, but hey, I'm only human.

That last statement implies that you're some sort of medical worker. Orderly? LPN, maybe? Are you here to tell me that nasty jerks get the same loving attention that compliant patients do? If you're going to try to tell me that they do, then we'll all know what a liar you are.

And while you're at it, starting covering the absolute atrocities being whipped up by Palin (racist crap), and the big story in California that Mormons are crossing into the state to campaign against that' state's gay referendum on gay marriage. Why aren't some of you calling that one what it is -- a church interfereing in politics?

Are you asking me that question? I hope not, because I'm not a reporter anymore. I am a former journalist, and not the p.r. agent for anyone. I'm aiming to be someone who explains how it really works, but obviously there are some people here whose shit doesn't stink and who are happy to declare some people not worthy of human consideration.

Look, have at it. All I can do is say that I think that's not just wrong, but in practical terms is short-sighted. Hopefully, Obama's people are adults, unlike some of the commenters here.

Rogues & Scholars called Obama a "control freak" a while back, and the light bulb immediately went on in my head. (Disclosure: I'm voting Green, so neither Obama NOR McCain's issues are my bottom line. And spare me any invective, anti third-party trolls.)

Anyway, it's NOT that Obama is being "managed."

He WANTS IT this way. This isn't Plouffe, Axelrod or anybody else, this is B.O. himself

I actually went and looked up the reference. For starters, you got it wrong. It's not "Rogues and Scholars," it's "Scholars & Rogues." And yes, it matters when doing a search. So get your facts right, idiot.

Secondly, you referenced an opinion piece on some website. Big fucking deal. Aside from it being pure opinion the piece you referenced has no connection to the issue we are discussing. It doesn't say a single word about Obama's press operation, or about Obama's involvement with it, or even about Obama's day-to-day involvement with the operational details of his campaign.

So, might I suggest that you actually find something relevant, and that you check your facts, before spouting pure bullshit at me? I might be a "former journalist," but I can see through your sloppy, childish crap in no time flat. It's pathetic, juvenile, stupid, and -- above all -- trivial.

Here's what you ought to do: Admit that you don't know a single goddamn thing about the degree to which Barack Obama is involved in the handling of people who cover his campaign. You are projecting your own fantasies, which are grounded in nothing. You want "objectivity," you say? Well, child, then start by not assuming anything. Then search for fact, and cut the shit.

Former Journalist -- (Disclosure: I'm voting Green, so neither Obama NOR McCain's issues are my bottom line. And spare me any invective, anti third-party trolls.)
Posted by: SocraticGadfly

You're in California, right? So it's irrelevant.

Hell, in 2000, I cast one guilt-free for Nader when I lived in Los Angeles.

That last statement implies that you're some sort of medical worker. Orderly? LPN, maybe? Are you here to tell me that nasty jerks get the same loving attention that compliant patients do? If you're going to try to tell me that they do, then we'll all know what a liar you are.
Posted by: Former Journalist

Puh-lease ... only an MD can muster this level of arrogance.

In peds, compliance is regulated by their age and their parents. Prior to teenage years, anyways. It's why I went into peds, actually ... adults don't always inspire sympathy, whereas most sick kids do.

To answer your question, though, I can at least guarantee to provide standard of care (and usually more because of their underlying helplessness and all) to the most spoiled of brats, and not to enact punitive measures for their lack of deference.

In contrast, we apparently can't even get journalists to do the least of their duties beyond partisan stenography without an extra cookie.

When a working journalist's Rolodex runs the gamut from Newt Gingrich to Karl Rove, no amount of free food is going to make them magically develop liberal and Democratic sources.

Typical liberal Democrat, looking for the quick fix magic bullet, with no appreciation for the long slog. There are a million things Obama has to do. Treating the media well at the nuts and bolts level is one of them, and it's easy. Oh, and in case you give a fuck, it's also the right thing to do.

So when I say that fixing one thing is not going to magically change the relationship between Obama and the Beltway press, you immediately ... accuse me of thinking that fixing one thing will magically change everything?

Did you read anything I wrote, or are you just skimming it for keywords because you "know" what I'm saying is wrong?

I will be more specific, though: I despise the Beltway and national press. They're the ones who decided that going to Iraq was a great idea (CNN was SO excited about their new graphics!) even though a majority of the American people didn't think it was such a great idea. They're the ones who decided there must be something to Whitewater and handed it to the Republicans as a gift, even though -- as we all know 12 years and $70 million later -- there was no story there.

The guys who are going out every day, sitting in hearings at the city council or state legislature meeting, and distilling all of it down for their readers so they know what's going on? I've got no problem with them.

It's the self-important Beltway Boys who've decided that they don't just report the news -- they ARE the news, and God forbid you should hint in any way that you'd just like to hear what the facts are and not Wolf Blitzer's opinion about the facts. Wolf will tell you the facts that he thinks are important, and you don't need to know any more than that.

Mnemosyne, I agree with you about the media's complicity in the Iraq War, but none of that has one single thing to do with Reynolds's complaints. NOTHING at all.

Holy Christ, what is about the zealots that makes them think that they're not only right about everything, but that they can treat anyone who's not on their side like shit? I spent enough time in Washington to see that on both sides, and it made me want to puke.

Want to know what would be really refreshing, from the point of view of someone who spent a lot of time with these people? I'd like to see political figures who, a) Would occasionally acknowledge their uncertainty and even their mistakes in near real-time, and b) Would act as if the rules apply equally to themselves and the other guys.

We wouldn't have any guarantee that we'd be better off if they did that, but maybe over time there'd be a little more trust. Oh, and as someone who covered the news, or what passes for it in pseudo-event city, i.e., Washington, it would be good if all concerned, both the media and the political figures, would be a little more realistic and forthcoming about how it all REALLY works.

But there I go, getting all idealistic. I realize that what I'm talking about would drain the fire from the zealots, and that this is something they will not tolerate too easily. You see, zealotry goes hand in hand with sloth, and that's one of the age-old seven deadly sins.

The one thing that sticks out at me was Clinton's inability to meet a schedule. It might be cute and understandable for a while, but it gets real old, real fast for a working reporter.

Oh, woe is me, the poor poor working reporters. What a dirty mean thing to do for the dirty mean candidate, spending more time working the line and talking to voters at the end of events, not taking into account that the poor reporters are tiiiirrreed and boooorrred and wanna go hoooooomme.

Zealotry is also a friend of greed, by the way. The more these people can get you riled up, the easier it is for them to convince you to fund their campaigns. Keep in mind that outrage is a campaign finance director's friend because it keeps the cash registers ringing. It is also the media's friend because it captures eyeballs.

People are such suckers for this stuff, and if liberals think they're any different then they're just fooling themselves.

Mnemosyne, I agree with you about the media's complicity in the Iraq War, but none of that has one single thing to do with Reynolds's complaints. NOTHING at all.

I mentioned it as a symptom, not the root cause. This is an interesting little aside from Reynolds:

"(Though I would suspect a candidate running behind would want to schedule two or three appearances per day, instead of the one McCain usually does.)"

So John McCain's campaign is running visibly more smoothly but McCain does one appearance a day, while Obama does two or three. Clearly, Obama needs to cut back to one appearance a day so Reynolds can broadcast live on CBS.

This is why people are calling him a douche, incidentally. He's expecting the Obama campaign to schedule their travel and appearances around his broadcast schedule. Because it's far more important for Reynolds to be able to broadcast live from outside a building where Obama spoke just a few hours ago than it is for the campaign to get from one event to another.

He's comparing a campaign that has one event a day to one that holds several events a day, and he's surprised that the campaign that has one event a day can be more flexible and runs more smoothly. Well, no shit, Sherlock.

Want to know what would be really refreshing, from the point of view of someone who spent a lot of time with these people? I'd like to see political figures who, a) Would occasionally acknowledge their uncertainty and even their mistakes in near real-time, and b) Would act as if the rules apply equally to themselves and the other guys.

If you're talking about Beltway journalists, I completely agree with you. I don't know the last time I saw one of them admit to any fault at all. (See Judith "I was proved fucking right!" Miller as Example A.) How many times have we heard the bogus claim that Al Gore said he "invented the Internet"? To this day I see columnists state it as absolute truth even though it's been debunked over and over again.

Maybe the Beltway journalists could set a good example and admit to their own faults once or twice a year. That would be a nice change of pace.

I came across this somewhere else entirely, but I'd forgotten about the embezzlement and bribes behind "Travelgate." White House reporters were pissed that the travel staff they'd worked with for years were fired by the Clintons, and it didn't seem to matter to them that Billy Dale had been questioned by the FBI about gifts he'd accepted from contractors as far back as 1988.

I guess dishonesty and graft don't matter as long as you get a nice hotel room and White House staff who help you avoid paying duty on all the stuff you bought while you were overseas.

Tell me something: Where did you work, and for how long? I don't need anything that will identify you. I'm trying to get an insight into what your actual journalism experience is, as opposed to what someone spouted at you in J-school.

Happily -- I worked for five years as a print journalist at a major city paper in the 1980s BEFORE I went to J-school and I've been a working journalist ever since.

I go out, get the story, write it up, and send it. I accept that the working conditions aren't the best, but I keep my readers in mind, not my own creature comforts first. What I saw in Reynolds's fine whine was a WATB decrying that he wasn't licked up one side and down the other by the Obama campaign. Sorry Reynolds, your readers don't give a shit about BO. They give a shit about you telling the story as it unfolds. Period.

As someone else pointed out, perhaps Mr. Reynolds might like to spend some time embedded with some troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. THOSE guys don't even get to call home regularly, and some of THEM are on their second and third rotations.

Look, have at it. All I can do is say that I think that's not just wrong, but in practical terms is short-sighted. Hopefully, Obama's people are adults, unlike some of the commenters here.

Yeah, right. some of us call Reynold's whining for what it is and we're not the adults? Go fish, baby. There's more here at stake than some reporter's concern for his own creature comforts.

This is why people are calling him a douche, incidentally.

No, the reason people are calling him a douche is that he had the impertinence to fail to swoon as deeply over Obama as you have. If Reynolds had written the same article but had negatively contrasted the McCain campaign with Obama's you'd have been on the cheerleading sqaud for Reynolds and the wingnuts would be all pissed off.

If you're talking about Beltway journalists, I completely agree with you. I don't know the last time I saw one of them admit to any fault at all.

I have boatloads of complaints about the performance of the media over the past 20 years. When I hear the right-wingers talk about "the liberal mainstream media," I laugh. That much said, your comment is just stupid. Apparently you missed the mea culpas from The New York Times and The Washington Post over the coverage of the runup to the Iraq War, for example.

I think the media do a substandard job. Like other American corporations that do a substandard job, like, say, General Motors, I think this is heavily (although not exclusively) the fault of the way they are managed.

Dumping all over individuals on assembly lines because GM sat there with its thumb up its ass while the Japanese and Koreans and Europeans ran circles around them in quality and design is bullshit. So is dumping on individual reporters because the corporate owners of media organizations have hollowed out operations in pursuit of return on equity, pushing the survivors to the brink.

But the end users share some responsibility, too. Ford, Chevy, and Chrysler make much better vehicles than they used to, and too many people won't even look at them. And I wonder how many people in this thread buy the newspaper in their home town. Nah, you're too cool for that.

Oh, woe is me, the poor poor working reporters. What a dirty mean thing to do for the dirty mean candidate, spending more time working the line and talking to voters at the end of events, not taking into account that the poor reporters are tiiiirrreed and boooorrred and wanna go hoooooomme.

I was actually talking about once he got into the White House. Friends of mine told me nothing ever ran on time. When I covered Reagan and Bush Sr., their trains ran on time. Doesn't mean I liked their policies, but it was easier to do my job.

I honestly think that, once Clinton got into trouble over Lewinsky, that his and his staff's attitude toward the media on those little things contributed to the zest with which reporters pursued the story. There was an element of payback.

So, now it's time for YOU to whine about the unfairness of it all. See, I don't like whiners. At the outset here, I wrote that Reynolds struck the wrong tone. But I do think complaints should be heard carefully. The whining about the Lewinsky coverage certainly was; notice that today's mainstream media is FAR less likely to cover sex scandals than it was under Clinton.

The philandering by John Edwards and John McCain has passed with barely a notice anywhere but in the tabloids and on the Internet. The stuff about Palin's daughter's bastard kid has been entirely in the tabs and on the Internet, and at least it was until the McCain campaign made it an issue. The nut who said that he gave Obama a blowjob in the backseat of a limo was resolutely ignored.

So, the complaints do get heard and at times addressed. After all, the media is the business of telling people what they want to hear. I got sick of being there and went and did something else, thank God, but this torrent of abuse at Reynolds is over the top. He committed what I'd all a venial sin, and it was not unprovoked. Quit drinking the Kool-Aid long enough to see that, even though it wasn't stated very artfully, he did have a point.

I worked for five years as a print journalist at a major city paper in the 1980s BEFORE I went to J-school and I've been a working journalist ever since.

Hmm. Writing at a major metro without a college degree? I'm skeptical. Or maybe your J-school was grad school? And what do you mean by "working journalist ever since?" You can drive a truck through that label.

Again, I'm not trying to pry for your name or anything close to it, but fill in the picture a little more. What sort of coverage have you done, and what kind do you do now? I'm asking this because one of the things that really hit me after a few years in Washington was the artificiality of "news" there.

It's all pseudo-events in Washington, and political coverage there snuggles right up to the line of fiction. Not because of political bias, either, but because of the nature of the "news" process. I found it energizing when I arrived, because I was dazzled by the places and the people and the formality and the evident importance of everything, but when he spend some time there you come to see it differently.

If you're at a general circulation daily and covering hard news, i.e., police or even local government, it's a different animal. Maybe this is one reason, aside from your pro-Obama bias, that you can't sympathize with Reynolds. See, in his position, all he does is sit there and wait for the animal (a donkey or an elephant) to squeeze out another turd for him to polish.

His complaint was essentially along the lines of saying, hey come on donkey, would you squeeze 'em out on time like the elephant does and make it easier for me to process your turds so I can get some sleep? I wouldn't have written it the way he did, but after having been in his branch of the factory for a while I can understand where he's coming from.

I came across this somewhere else entirely, but I'd forgotten about the embezzlement and bribes behind "Travelgate." White House reporters were pissed that the travel staff they'd worked with for years were fired by the Clintons, and it didn't seem to matter to them that Billy Dale had been questioned by the FBI about gifts he'd accepted from contractors as far back as 1988.

I guess dishonesty and graft don't matter as long as you get a nice hotel room and White House staff who help you avoid paying duty on all the stuff you bought while you were overseas.

I dimly recall Travelgate, and thinking that it was a pristine example of the sort of inside baseball that gets covered because it's easy. I mean, the White House travel office is something that all the reporters deal with, and you don't even have to leave the building to get the story.

My thought was, who gives a shit about this other than 25 people who get on the plane? In a corporation, travel agencies come and go, but for some reason "Travelgate" became a big deal. To me, it was the marriage of the wingnuts looking for anything they could find about the Evil Clintons and the White House press corps having something to do in between briefings.

It was never about nice rooms. You get that no matter what when you travel with the prez. Customs duties? I suppose that's a worthwhile question, kinda-sorta, but evading Customs is a sport for every traveler to every destination, such as when I went to China last fall, bought 10 fake Rolexes, and had all of them confiscated when I arrived home and (for the first time in my life) they actually searched my bags. I laughed. I told the agent it served me right; you can't walk 20 feet in China without someone trying to rip you off, so why not have Customs complete the job? I was going to give the fakes as Christmas stocking stuffers. Oh well.