Related Post
When Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) suggested Wednesday that the U.S. shouldn’t offer Ukraine membership in NATO and should focus more on China, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said he was “digesting Russian misinformation and parroting Russian talking points.”
Then Thursday, NPR’s Ayesha Rascoe asked Psaki if the U.S. could provide evidence supporting President Joe Biden’s statement that al-Qurayshi detonated a suicide bomb and killed civilians during the U.S. military raid “[b]ecause there may be people that are skeptical of the events.”
“Skeptical of the U.S. military’s assessment when they went and took out … the leader of ISIS? That they are not providing accurate information and ISIS is providing accurate information?” Psaki responded, not-so-subtly implying that questioning the administration’s readout of the raid means someone believes ISIS is a more truthful actor. Psaki then did go on to address Rascoe’s question, reiterating “that the individual who was the target detonated himself, killing his entire family,” though she didn’t offer any additional evidence beyond the administration’s repeated statements.
The White Helmets, a Syrian civil defense and humanitarian group, reported that they had recovered the bodies of six children and four women from the site of the raid.
Moments later at the State Department, spokesperson Ned Price sparred with the Associated Press’ Matthew Lee, who pressed Price to show evidence for the allegation that the Russians planned a false flag operation as a pretext for a Ukraine invasion. “If you doubt the credibility of the U.S. government … and want to find solace in information that the Russians are putting out, that’s for you to do,” Price responded at the end of a testy five-minute exchange.
Just six months ago, the administration called the bombing of 10 innocent people, including seven children, in Afghanistan a “righteous strike” before The New York Times proved otherwise. This is the same administration that confidently backed intelligence assessments indicating it would take over a year, maybe two, for Kabul to fall. And yet, Biden officials seem dumbfounded when journalists ask probing questions before filing to their editors an official summary or raw collected intelligence doled out by the administration.
Maggie Haberman, a reporter for The New York Times, told POLITICO that her paper’s reporting “on the actual facts of the drone strike months back are a reminder of why asking questions of the government is important.”
No Biden officials would speak on the record about their remarks. But Psaki and Price were once official-statement skeptics before reentering government. After former President Donald Trump in 2017 bombed Syrian targets in response to a chemical weapons attack on civilians, Psaki asked on Twitter: “what is the legal authority for strikes?”
Price also openly questioned the Trump administration’s 2019 release of intelligence that Iran planned attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria. “[O]ur antennas should go up every time we hear this administration characterize intelligence as the basis for escalating against Tehran–especially militarily,” Price tweeted at the time. (Though in fairness to Price, he worried Trump’s team aimed to start a war while this administration aims to stop one.)
The State spokesperson did apologize to Lee in a phone call and on Twitter. “Nothing but respect for him,” Price wrote. And Psaki attempted to set the record straight, tweeting that context was important and noting that their “focus has been on providing as many confirmed details as we know at this point.” Psaki also called Rascoe to apologize.
There’s no evidence to suggest the administration made a conscious effort to label inquisitive reporters as foreign mouthpieces, and it’s more than likely that Psaki and Price’s comments were ill-timed back-to-back. But reporters and political opponents aren’t taking kindly to the implication that they’re being manipulated by adversarial sources — particularly when it comes from an administration that has promised transparency and respect in dealing with the media.
The media’s pushback has begun. “Both of these responses from Psaki and Price are completely dumb and gross and only make them, and the case they are making, look worse,” Chris Hayes, host of a MSNBC primetime news show, wrote on Twitter. “Sorry but no US administration has earned a ‘trust us’ on matters of foreign intelligence with regards to war and peace.”
“It’s the job of reporters to ask for proof to back up government statements. Doing so does not mean one believes propaganda put out by U.S. adversaries. I imagine these officials know that,” tweeted Felicia Sonmez, a Washington Post national reporter whose Twitter thread brought attention to the spokespeople’s comments.
“The US government has repeatedly made false statements about civilian casualties, only to admit them after reporters unearthed contradictory info. That’s why reporters ask such questions,” Kenneth Vogel, a New York Times reporter, piled on.
The collective response isn’t just the normal mobilization of a press under fire. It’s a reaction to how the administration has handled the press to date.
Briefings are back, sure. And yes, this administration doesn’t call the media the “enemy of the people.” But when the Biden White House hosts a call to explain a policy decision, it’s almost always “on background” and attributable to a “senior administration official.”
It’s a common complaint in the press corps that when a reporter makes a slight error, or makes an analytical case against the administration’s policy, a spokesperson will call and act as if it was a personal slight. The president also rarely makes himself available for interviews except to friendly outlets, though when he does give press conferences they can extend for historically long periods of time.
While it’s possible the administration is representing the series of events accurately, said Erik Wemple, The Washington Post’s longtime media critic, the U.S. government’s history of hiding or distorting inconvenient facts during conflicts justified the need for transparency.
“For the most part, it’s been an enormous return to normalcy,” Wemple said of the Biden administration’s relationship with the press. “But this is absolutely insane. The dichotomy — that [if] you don’t believe us, you believe the other side — it’s a complete non-starter, and completely antithetical to a functioning democracy.”
As for this piece, one Biden official did offer a statement on background.
“We welcome good faith scrutiny. Our spokespeople hold daily briefings where they answer tough questions from smart journalists to the best of our ability — as Jen and Ned tweeted,” a National Security Council spokesperson emailed.
“A day when we kill the leader of a terrorist organization threatening Americans, and call out the efforts by another country to lay the predicate for war is a good day for the United States and the American people. We will let others prognosticate if they would like to the contrary.”
Max Tani contributed to this report.
