Bush's 9/11 Meeting: More Silliness From The Press And Internet

Written by Joe Gandelman
Published May 01, 2004

Our politics has seemingly evolved into side issues break-dancing around larger issues — witness a truly revealing story in the New York Times plus the-fuss-of-the-day starting on the Drudge Report, which ehoed on the radio talk shows.

THE REAL ISSUE AT HAND: President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney got questioned about 911 in a historic meeting before the 911 Commission. Even though the White House insisted the Prez and Veep's non-sworn testimony not be recorded, this literally involved life-and death issues: what happened in the days leading up to 911 and what should be fixed?

SIDE ISSUE ONE: THE NEWS STORY:: The NewYork Times' a had a story on the fact that reporters, cameramen and photographers weren't allowed into the Bush-Cheney-Commission meeting. As everyone knows, Bush and Cheney insisted on being together, sort of like the political Bobsy Twins. But there was a press and photo blackout.

So here was the lead on the Times piece:

    If an important meeting takes place in the Oval Office and there are no television cameras to record it, did the meeting matter?"

After noting how little time TV disdainfully devoted to it — NO PICTURES TO SEE — the Times said this:

    The White House's insistence on a private, no-tech meeting made political sense: the president's aides have no interest in allowing pictures that might make him look vulnerable under questioning or overly reliant on his older vice president. But the nonvisual event was so anathema to television that at one point, the CNN anchor Daryn Kagan said it seemed as if "the event took place in the 18th century."

So, folks, we have now definitely entered the age of Marshall McLuhan — where the medium is the message. If there aren't PICTURES TO SEE and there aren't TAPES WITH VOICES TO HEAR the event is irrelevant (well, I guess so; it was the same way at my bris).

True, reporters would have been (and are) trying to get tidbits out of commission members to reconstruct what was said because there was indeed content in those three hours. Our issue isn't with the Times report. It's with what you realize when you read it: that because there were NO PICTURES TO SEE, the event didn't matter.

page 1 | 2
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Bush's 9/11 Meeting: More Silliness From The Press And Internet
Published: May 01, 2004
Type:
Section: Politics
Filed Under: Culture: Humor and Satire, Culture: Media, Video: Television
Writer: Joe Gandelman
Joe Gandelman's BC Writer page
Joe Gandelman's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Joe Gandelman
Culture: Humor and Satire
Culture: Media
Video: Television
All Politics Articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — May 1, 2004 @ 07:08AM — Marc [URL]

What was said will be contained in the final report, as will Clintons "interview" that hardly anyone mentions in the context of being "behind closed doors."

The Bottom line is: Way too much oyxgen, ink, and bandwidth is wasted on a committee that has become a joke and not worth the final report.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/15271)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments