Well, it’s all over the news today – former Bush press secretary Scott McLellan says in his new book that he passed on lies from on high to a waiting and eager press. I take this as a sign of how completely out of touch I am with reality here. I assume that everything I hear is a lie, and look upon my job as a news consumer to ferret out those nuggets of truth that occasionally fall upon us, usually by accident.
And lest this be taken as “Bush Bashing” (def: criticizing George W. Bush in any fashion), it is not meant to focus on him. Yes, he lies, constantly, though usually unknowingly. He rarely says anything that is true, and then only by accident (def: gaffe). But his administration, and the one before it and before it … has a White House wing full of people whose job it is to sift through data and reinterpret it in a favorable light to the people in power (def: lie).
The job of the press secretary, then, is to pass along the most favorable information sifted up above – that is, to lie, but to do it professionally. To be good at the job, the person in that position has to create a climate of trust, and that is the key to being effective. The people on the receiving end of the lies have to believe in the person telling them.
And it is at that point that all of the lying pivots and turns on us – the press pool surrounding the administration has to be unusually trusting of people in power (def: toadies). Some aren’t, like Helen Thomas (def: gadfly), and if they are well known, they are tolerated. Most aren’t, however, and anyone in the White House press pool without a name who makes trouble (def: prig) can soon look at reassignment.
So here’s how it would work in a perfect world: 1) President says we have to invade a country that has not harmed us in anyway because they might attack us using weapons they might have. 2) Press corps is all over this, man – “Whoa!” they say – let’s have some evidence, some justification in law. One of them writes a long and thoughtful piece on how there seems to be a great deal of incentive here to lie, that there might be other reasons they want to attack this country (def: oil), and the piece is so insightful that it’s reprinted everywhere and quoted on network news. It sets off a firestorm – a talking circus of doubt (def: democracy). Skepticism mounts, and 3) the administration, defensive, backs down, and says they’ll try diplomacy. The issue vanishes.
Ha. I’m not a cynic (def: a disillusioned idealist). I just know how people in power operate. This administration, the one before it and before it … they lie because the truth doesn’t serve them well. They cultivate a culture for sycophancy because good journalism is harmful to them. So it is that the most “successful” journalists also turn out to be the biggest ass kissers (def: Tom Brokaw.) Those that get uppity, even a little bit, find themselves ostracized (def: Dan Rather, and I do mean just a little bit over a long toadying career.)
That’s just how it works, friends. Our job is not to be skeptical so much as to simply use our heads. If their lips are moving, they are probably lying. How to find truth? Sift, 24/7. Think, and sift. Never trust, always verify (def: citizenship).
Piece of Mindful 
Mark, this is a well-written piece. That said, my two cents or three…
You say: “The job of the press secretary…is to pass along the most favorable information sifted up above – that is, to lie, but to do it professionally. To be good at the job, the person in that position has to create a climate of trust, and that is the key to being effective. The people on the receiving end of the lies have to believe in the person telling them.”
Having served in the capacity of “press secretary” on numerous occasions and in various capacities, I can say that mutual trust is indeed the key. A press secretary who “lies” is not only useless but is a detriment to everyone, including himself/herself. A reporter who “sets up” a story for himself/herself for bogus reasons ultimately gets “snubbed.” Trust is a two-way street.
For the most part, press conferences should be conducted by principal(s), not a press secretary. I have served in the capacity of journalist and/or editor, so as “press secretary” I sought to bring principals and reporters together, not “press secretary” and reporters. A good reporter doesn’t want to hear what a “press secretary” has to say, and a good press secretary doesn’t want to be put in that position. For obvious reasons, the White House can not operate that way.
A press secretary who is “lied” to, as Scott McClellan claims he was, isn’t paying attention to what is going on around him/her, and therefore should not be in that position. As far as your job description, then: “The job of the press secretary…is to pass along the most favorable information…that is, to lie…” a good “press secretary” would not accept the job under those terms. Ferret out the truth or quit! That would be my description of the job.
Finally, a question: You say, “I just know how people in power operate.”
How so?
LikeLike
Having paid attention.
Have you ever heard of “political speech”? Most of it is not designed to convey useful information. Nothing coming out of the Bush White House is of the information-carrying variety.
From there on down, it’s a matter of degree. You didn’t serve as press secretary to make your boss look bad. You sifted. He was careful not to let bad information out, and platitudes are the order of the day.
And yes, we are all full of integrity in what we do. I’m yet to meet a person, car salesman or politician, who was not serving the public interest to the best of his ability. Problem is … blinds spots. We all have a lot of them. More of them than clear vision.
LikeLike
What did you think of Bill Moyer as a presidential press secretary? I’m not trying trip you up. I really am curious.
LikeLike
In his institutional role, his job was to protect his boss. On a personal level, he is Nelson Mandela. Got to separate the two.
LikeLike
I have had the good fortune in my lifetime (so far) to have served alongside and worked with journalists such as David Halberstam, Horst Faas, Mike Dennison, Chuck Johnson, Jim Gransbery (god bless his perpetually weary soul!) I guess that’s all I can say at the moment. To sum up, I think “bloggers”
LikeLike
Each constrained by the institution he served. You seem to miss the point that people are one thing in real life, another when they serve someone else.
And say what you want about bloggers, we are no longer constrained by professional journalists to respect authority.
LikeLike