It would seem that the Associated Press wants to consider its January 25 story by Devlin Barrett (“Feds detail Christmas Day attack”; also saved here for future reference, fair use, and discussion purposes) the last word on what occurred in the hours immediately following Flight 253’s landing in Detroit on Christmas Day.

But if that’s indeed the case, Barrett’s report also serves to prove that the wire service had no business revising originally accurate reports to remove what were apparently inconvenient facts relating to the incident.

To refresh by way of my Big Journalism post on January 15, AP’s initial reports on Christmas afternoon and early Christmas evening told readers that “the man claimed to have been instructed by al-Qaida to detonate the plane over U.S. soil,” and that it had even used the M-word (“Muslim”). But, I wrote, by the middle of the next morning, “The supposedly solid AQ connection somehow became tenuous and unproven,” and the M-word was gone.

This scrubbing conveniently gave the Obama administration precious time during the weekend that followed to regain its bearings after significant initial clumsiness. Ultimately, I noted that AP’s revisions “allowed the President of the United States to inform us (on the Tuesday after the attack), without challenge and as if it was a recent discovery, that — shazam! — the attack might have had something to do with AQ.” (more…)

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs faced pointed questions from two reporters during a briefing on Wednesday regarding President Obama’s about-face on transparency in the health care bill debate. A sampling:

Reporter: During the campaign, the president on numerous occasions said words to the effect of, quoting one, “All of this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public.” Do you agree that the president is breaking an explicit campaign promise?

Watching Gibbs dodge and weave with answers varying from “we covered this yesterday” to “the president wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible”  is at once nauseating and fascinating. Not only did he not answer the question — what, be honest and lose his job? — but his deameanor implied that answering such questions is beneath his dignity and not worthy of the time. I’ve noticed this on more than one occasion.

Certainly it’s the press secretary’s job to make his boss look good – but it’s a reporter’s job to play devil’s advocate. Why did only two reporters in the room press Gibbs on the transparency issue? George W. Bush was constantly criticized for being too secretive – and yet here we have a direct promise of transparency being broken, and only a couple of reporters dare to ask why. Perhaps they’re worried about being denied access if they ask questions that are too probing, as happened during the campaign. (more…)