Calling Bush's Lies Lies (Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps?)

Michael Kinsley once said:

CJR Daily: Michael Kinsley on Slate vs. the L.A. Times, Calling a Lie a Lie, and Opinion Journalism as Indulgence : The biggest problem [with American journalism] is -- and I don't know what the solution is, so it's not a criticism, as much as it is a puzzle -- is that the conventions of objectivity make it very difficult to say that something is a lie. And they require balance, which is often just not justified by reality

Example from this morning: Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post unable to quite say that Bush's lies are lies--and still have national political editor John Harris think that he is "objective":

Glenn Kessler : "Assertions on Spying, Jobs And Spending Invite Debate": Bush waded right in the middle of the debate over his warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, making a number of assertions that have been subject to intense debate.... Bush strongly suggested that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks could have been prevented if the phone calls of two hijackers had been monitored.... But the Sept. 11 commission and congressional investigators said... bureaucratic problems -- not a lack of information -- were the main reasons for the security breakdown.... Bush also asserted that "previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have." But the most recent example cited... is hotly disputed by Democrats who say the current and past situations are not comparable. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which required the executive branch to get approval from a secret court before conducting wiretaps within the United States, was silent on warrantless physical searches of suspected spies or terrorists. So the Clinton administration asserted that it had the authority to conduct such "black bag" jobs.... Clinton later sought amendments to FISA that brought physical searches, as well as wiretaps, under the FISA framework. Bush has never sought such amendments, and he did not publicly acknowledge the program until it was revealed in news reports.

In other sections of his speech, Bush omitted context or made rhetorical claims that are open to question. Referring to Iraq, he said the United States is "continuing reconstruction efforts." He did not use the word "spending" because... the administration does not intend to seek any new funds for Iraq reconstruction.... Bush said the number of jobs went up by 4.6 million in the past two and half years. There was a reason he chose not to start from the beginning of his presidency -- that would have brought the net number of added jobs down to 2 million....

Bush also made a pair of contradictory pledges on the budget. He said the budget deficit -- which has soared during his presidency -- is on track to decline by half by 2009. But he also urged a permanent extension of his tax cuts... this would send the budget deficit soaring after 2011.

The president said he has reduced "the growth" of non-security discretionary spending. This only means it did not increase as much from year to year. Moreover, overall discretionary spending has exploded during his tenure, especially when military spending is included.... [D]iscretionary spending as a share of the overall economy is at its highest level in 13 years, according to the CBO....

Bush ended his address with a stirring image that "every great movement of history comes to a point of choosing." But then he said, "The United States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe, and been complicit in the oppression of others." This is historically misleading. At the end of World War II, the United States allowed the division of Europe between Soviet and Western spheres, though it drew the line at giving up West Berlin. And the United States permitted the Soviet Union's grabbing of large parts of other countries -- or even whole countries, such as the Baltic states. Bush should know this. In May, he flew to Latvia and declared that the United States bore some blame for "the division of Europe into armed camps" -- what he called "one of the greatest wrongs of history."

Note what Glenn Kessler tries to do: He tries to signal--in as many ways as he can--that Bush is telling lies "Historically misleading", "contradictory pledges", "omitted context", "rhetorical claims that are open to question", "did not use the word 'spending'", "subject to intense debate", and so forth. This is Mike Allen's dictum that you write so that a sophisticated, careful reader understands who is lying--in this case, Bush. The White House, however, is not to unhappy to Glenn Kessler's story. It thinks that the overwhelming bulk of readers will think: "The President made his case, and partisan Democrats are sniping at him. Who knows who is right?"