Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle Cloud Reader.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the Author
OK
Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush Hardcover – May 9, 2006
| Eric Boehlert (Author) Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author |
Lapdogs is the first book to demonstrate that, for the entire George W. Bush presidency, the news media have utterly failed in their duty as watchdog for the public. In blistering prose, Eric Boehlert reveals how, time after time, the press chose a soft approach to covering the government, and as a result reported and analyzed crucial events incompletely and even inaccurately. From WMDs to Valerie Plame to the NSA's domestic spying, mainstream fixtures such as The New York Times, CBS, CNN, and Time magazine too often ignored the administration's missteps and misleading words, and did not call out the public officials who betrayed the country's trust. Throughout both presidential campaigns and the entire Iraq war to date, the media acted as a virtual mouthpiece for the White House, giving watered-down coverage of major policy decisions, wartime abuses of power, and egregious mistakes -- and sometimes these events never made it into the news at all. Finally, in Lapdogs, the press is being held accountable by one of its own.
Boehlert homes in on the reasons the press did not do its job: a personal affinity for Bush that journalists rarely displayed toward his predecessor, Bill Clinton; a Republican White House that threatened to deny access to members of the media who asked challenging questions or voiced criticism; and a press that feared being tainted by accusations of liberal bias. Moreover, journalists -- who may have wanted to report accurately on the important stories -- often found themselves at cross-purposes with media executives, many of whom were increasingly driven by economic concerns. Cowed by all of these factors, the media abandoned their traditional role of stirring up meaningful public debate.
Boehlert asserts that the Bush White House never subscribed to the view -- commonly held by previous administrations -- that a relationship with the press is an important part of the democratic process. Instead, it saw the press as just another special interest group that needed to be either appeased or held at bay -- or, in some cases, squashed. The administration actively undermined the basic tenets of accurate and fair journalism, and reporters and editors accepted their reduced roles without a whimper. To an unprecedented degree, journalists too often stopped asking uncomfortable questions of people in power. In essence, the entire purpose and pursuit of journalism was sacrificed.
Riveting in its sharp denouncement, supported by dozens of glaring and troubling examples of journalistic malpractice, Lapdogs thoroughly dissects the press's misconduct during Bush's presidency and gives voice to the growing public dismay with the mainstream media.
Lapdogs is the first book to demonstrate that, for the entire George W. Bush presidency, the news media have utterly failed in their duty as watchdog for the public. In blistering prose, Eric Boehlert reveals how, time after time, the press chose a soft approach to covering the government, and as a result reported and analyzed crucial events incompletely and even inaccurately. From WMDs to Valerie Plame to the NSA's domestic spying, mainstream fixtures such as The New York Times, CBS, CNN, and Time magazine too often ignored the administration's missteps and misleading words, and did not call out the public officials who betrayed the country's trust. Throughout both presidential campaigns and the entire Iraq war to date, the media acted as a virtual mouthpiece for the White House, giving watered-down coverage of major policy decisions, wartime abuses of power, and egregious mistakes -- and sometimes these events never made it into the news at all. Finally, in Lapdogs, the press is being held accountable by one of its own.
Boehlert homes in on the reasons the press did not do its job: a personal affinity for Bush that journalists rarely displayed toward his predecessor, Bill Clinton; a Republican White House that threatened to deny access to members of the media who asked challenging questions or voiced criticism; and a press that feared being tainted by accusations of liberal bias. Moreover, journalists -- who may have wanted to report accurately on the important stories -- often found themselves at cross-purposes with media executives, many of whom were increasingly driven by economic concerns. Cowed by all of these factors, the media abandoned their traditional role of stirring up meaningful public debate.
Boehlert asserts that the Bush White House never subscribed to the view -- commonly held by previous administrations -- that a relationship with the press is an important part of the democratic process. Instead, it saw the press as just another special interest group that needed to be either appeased or held at bay -- or, in some cases, squashed. The administration actively undermined the basic tenets of accurate and fair journalism, and reporters and editors accepted their reduced roles without a whimper. To an unprecedented degree, journalists too often stopped asking uncomfortable questions of people in power. In essence, the entire purpose and pursuit of journalism was sacrificed.
Riveting in its sharp denouncement, supported by dozens of glaring and troubling examples of journalistic malpractice, Lapdogs thoroughly dissects the press's misconduct during Bush's presidency and gives voice to the growing public dismay with the mainstream media.
- Print length352 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherFree Press
- Publication dateMay 9, 2006
- Dimensions6.3 x 1.2 x 9.2 inches
- ISBN-100743289315
- ISBN-13978-0743289313
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Customers who bought this item also bought
Editorial Reviews
From The Washington Post
The latest to join in the pounding is Eric Boehlert, a contributing editor for Rolling Stone. "Battered by accusations of a liberal bias and determined to prove their conservative critics wrong," he argues in the bluntly titled Lapdogs, "the press during the run-up to the war -- timid, deferential, unsure, cautious, and often intentionally unthinking -- came as close as possible to abdicating its reason for existence in the first place, which is to accurately inform citizens, particularly during times of great national interest." With this for his central argument, Boehlert has written an important book, but one that probably will not be welcomed in newsrooms; journalists don't like scathing criticism any more than the rest of us.
Unfortunately, Lapdogs may be easy for some to write off: It has flaws that too often overwhelm the valuable research and provocative analysis that Boehlert has assembled, including material on subjects beyond Iraq ranging from the "press haters" on the right who seek to dismantle independent journalism to the question of how the 2004 campaign was covered. One obvious failing is that a book by a journalist attacking the press ought to have included some responses from editors and reporters who disagree with Boehlert's conclusions. There is basically none of that here.
Another defect is that Lapdogs too frequently appears overtly political; the book is written as though a cadre of Bill Clinton's defenders were its editors. Boehlert's case that a timorous press was intimidated by President Bush frequently rests on comparisons to the media's supposedly more aggressive approach to Clinton and former vice president Al Gore. This is arguable, at best, and the tactic diminishes the book's overall impact. Moreover, Boehlert reinforces this problem with an odd ending. "While the point of Lapdogs," he writes, "is to document the press's failings and not necessarily to offer Democrats communication or campaign strategies, it does seem obvious that if Democrats have to battle both entrenched Republicans as well as a MSM that refuses to give the party out of power a fair shake, then Democrats are going to continue to have trouble winning elections." It's not easy to be a credible media critic when you're also being, at least indirectly, a Democratic s!
trategist.
Moreover, the book starts out by waving another red flag. In the preface, Boehlert writes, "The goal of Lapdogs is to cut through incessant rhetoric about a liberal media bias, and to show, factually, just how the mainstream media has tipped the scales in President Bush's favor for going on six years. The proof for that is all in the public record; in the voluminous pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, and Time, just to name a few, as well as in the mountain of transcripts produced by network and cable news programs." Laying this out, he writes, "makes the conclusion -- that the press rolled over for Bush -- inescapable." But there is no way to prove that this is "inescapable," which would mean knowing what was inside the heads of producers and editors at the time their news decisions were made.
I firmly agree with Boehlert that the press was seriously derelict in its prewar coverage. (Indeed, he refers to some of my critical columns during my tenure as The Washington Post's ombudsman.) But topics such as Saddam Hussein's weapons programs were tough subjects to get at -- although U.S. newspapers ran quite a few good stories, produced by Knight Ridder's Washington bureau, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, among others. One big problem, however -- especially at this newspaper -- was that these challenging stories were far too often run inside the paper rather than on the front page. Other stories that challenged the whole premise of an invasion were simply missed or minimized.
So does that mean that the editors who made those calls were pro-Bush or cowed by the aftermath of Sept. 11, fiery right-wing bloggers, conservative broadcasters and a mean White House press strategy? Or did some editors simply exercise poor news judgment or lack the experience or determination to make sure that nothing was left unsaid, unchallenged or uncovered? Or were they convinced that a war with Iraq was coming and were too focused on getting ready to cover it?
I tend to chalk up uncritical reporting on administration claims about Iraq's supposed doomsday arsenal to that combination of factors. And of course, the obvious inference from Saddam Hussein's behavior -- his use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and his own Kurdish civilians in the 1980s, his earlier nuclear arms ambitions, his bucking of the U.N. arms inspectors -- was that this was a regime with something to hide. But maybe something else was indeed going on in America's newsrooms. If so, Boehlert's book will prove to be the most well-researched and well-argued one I've yet seen about the darker side of why the press failed.
This book takes a hard look at TV, the news broadcasts as well as the big Sunday interview programs. Lapdogs provides many accounts where TV news divisions seemed to fall short -- for instance, by not asking the right questions (thereby giving policymakers a pass) or inviting the right guests (thereby stacking the deck with conservatives and hawks). It also questions the cozy relationships between some TV hosts and high officials. To their credit, several newspapers, including the New York Times -- which had the most to apologize for -- and The Washington Post, looked in the mirror afterward and reported on their own shortcomings. Television hasn't done that.
To anyone who has been following the press saga of the last six years, the episodes in this book -- from the Swift boats and Bush's National Guard service to Terri Schiavo, the Downing Street memo and the battle for more conservative views on PBS -- will be familiar. But Boehlert fills in several strokes that present a fuller portrait. The performance of the press during the Bush years, especially in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, is so important that all serious attempts to assess it are worthy of attention. Despite the flaws, this is one of them.
Reviewed by Michael Getler
Copyright 2006, The Washington Post. All Rights Reserved.
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Product details
- Publisher : Free Press; 1st. edition (May 9, 2006)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 352 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0743289315
- ISBN-13 : 978-0743289313
- Item Weight : 1.07 pounds
- Dimensions : 6.3 x 1.2 x 9.2 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #675,488 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #545 in Political Parties (Books)
- #1,066 in Journalism Writing Reference (Books)
- #1,798 in Political Conservatism & Liberalism
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Boehlert gracefully catalogs the lapses and tries to analyze why this happened, why even now pundits, columnists, editors, and journalists cut Bush and his incompetent crew more and more slack. He contrasts this with the often brutal treatment Clinton, Gore, and especially Kerry received from these very same media people.
It makes no sense. It still makes no sense. But as a witness to an atrocity, Boehlert does a great job. The media's response to such criticism will no doubt be more of the usual defensiveness. But every reporter and editor in Washington needs to read this with an open mind. It's hard to admit, I know, how badly you were led astray-- but admitting it is the first step to correcting it. And anyone who reads this book -- even the pundits who have made a living the last decade from looking -away- from truth-- has to come away with an unsettled sense of a real disease in the press.
It is impossible to ignore the voluminous documentation that the author amasses with nexus searches, transcripts, video tapes, interviews, reports, etc. that make his case over and over again.
Boehlert shows repeatedly how our main stream media (MSM) are scared to death of a conservative backlash to any story they may feel is biased. They are afraid of being denied future stories if they report the truth. And they are afraid of having their careers brought to an end of they report it. In short, the press has gone along to get along, become lazy, and hit the snooze button of lethargy and apathy toward any lies that came from the White House, or other neocon sources.
Boehlert meticulously provides one example after another how the press, even such giants as the NY Times and the Washington Post, have danced to the White House tune.
Swift Boat Veteran coverage? Nightly for weeks on end. Texans for Truth, (the anti-Swifty, anti-Bush group?) Eight reports only across all networks, newspapers, and news magazines. Reports of Kerry's war record? In the hundreds. Reports of Bush's national guard absences, etc.? Almost none. Pictures of dead Americans from Iraq or Afghanistan? None. Pictures of dead Americans from Somalia (when Clinton is president?) Continuous. Investigation of auto mechanic/male prostitute getting White House Press pass? None. Investigation of Downing Street Memo that claimed the US planned to go to war all along while claiming to pursue peaceful solutions? None. Investigation of false claims of WMD's in Iraq? None. The consequences to the White House of falsely reporting about PFC. Jessica Lynch and the death of Cardinal football player and Army Ranger Pat Tillman? None. The topper has to be the NY Times sitting on the discovery of the government spying on our citizens in violation of the FISA law, and holding the story until after the elections!
In fact, the only time that the press has mobilized since the Bush presidency was to investigate the phony memo handed to Dan Rather about President Bush's national guard record. This they completed in a matter of hours. How long did it take this same press to debunk the Swift Boat lies, story changes, contradictions and inconsistencies? Months. That debunk too came AFTER the presidential election. Is there a discrepancy here?
In page after page this author dramatizes what some of us have suspected for some time. Our vaunted press has deluded themselves into believing they are doing a professional and unbiased job. They show disdain for public criticism, the same public they are pledged to serve. They have replaced truth with "balanced reporting" even if one side of that report is absurd, they will give it copy or air time. It makes you want to tune in to the BBC for "real" news.
This author has provided enough data to bring down this administration. I could not put this book down. I recommend highly that you pick it up.
It is a book of revelations.



