PR

In the nineties, and likely before, a key axiom of PR was 'info dumping.' Get ahead of any story, throw out tons of information, announce investigations or inquiries, express concern, etc. This is not a mode of action adopted by the current White House. Why?

Paul suggested a couple of possibilities. One is that the White House holds the press in contempt, seeing them primarily as entertainment media, not worthy of serious consideration. An element of this view is that the White House thinks it is unaccountable, above the law, that it doesnt have to answer to anyone. Another is that the only thing this administration can really do is win elections. It clearly fails in terms of governance. Its war on terrorism is a failure; its war against Iraq is a fiasco. It failed and continues to fail in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast. Its prescription drug progam has been a disaster. And, we can talk about the budget deficits, the education 'policy,' etc. Bottom line: no goverance; they simply cannot govern--if by governance we mean something more than putting money into the pockets of the top one percent of the population. So, on one side, the Bush White House holds the press in contempt. On the other side, it simply screws up.

I think these answers are mutually exclusive. To take them together would be to say that the White House screws up by holding the press in contempt. But, this suggests that not to screw up would be not to hold the press in contempt. Was the Armstrong Williams escapade or the planting of stories in Iraqi media a screw up or a success? These were efforts to use the press in a specific way, a kind of taking the press seriously as a vehicle for the production of meanings.

I don't have an answer. But I think that what's at stake involves changes in relations between information, entertainment, and hegemony.

Comments

[Alain]

Perhaps when the administration use the media this is not the same group that they hold in contempt - they despise the NY Times, Washington Post, etc.. but they like Fox news and those on the payroll.

I have also been struck by Cheney's lack of accountability during this incident. I suspect he believes it is no one's business what happened on his hunting trip, and he resents anyone who questions anything he does or says. If one listens to him answer questions, even respectfully asked, his anger is palpable.

And I suspect Cheney and company believe (correctly in my estimation) that their core supporters (about 40% of the electorate) share Cheney's attitude - in fact they might even get off on the fact that Cheney is "man enough" not to give a shit when he accidentally shoots someone.

[rwilson]

I wish they put more money in the pockets of the top 1%.

[pebird]

Pony up.