Interview with Jack Nelson, LA Times, Retired Washington Bureau Chief

November 19th, 2003
Transcription by Carol Dew

JACK NELSON: Well, I'm Jack Nelson, a former Washington Bureau Chief of the Los Angeles Times. I've covered every President since Richard Nixon. This is the most secretive president I've ever encountered. I was with the LA Times for 36 years. And I recently was at Harvard under a Shorenstein Fellowship, and I did a long paper on government secrecy of which there is an awful lot today.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay, and -- What is involved in being a bureau chief in Washington? What is that --
NELSON: Well, in my case -- There are different kinds of bureau chiefs, but particularly on large newspapers, which have a large Washington bureau -- there are not very many: New York Times, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Boston Globe, a few others -- some of the bureau chiefs are largely administrative. I was a writing bureau chief. So while I oversaw the whole product of the bureau, I actually was writing. I was covering the White House, and covering national security -- other issues.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So on any given day, you have a lot of stories coming in. How do you determine what to cover? And what not to cover?
NELSON: Well, you determine on the basis of what's really important. And what you think -- not people -- just what they want to know, but what they need to know about what the government's doing. And -- Of course, as bureau chief, I oversaw that. But I also had editors in the bureau who were responsible for assigning reporters.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. And what -- How do you approach something that -- If something flies underneath the radar for a little bit, but it's important, but not interesting -- for example, Hussein Kamel was a defector that defected from Iraq, and he had a lot of information that -- Newsweek came out with an article on February 24th, but it wasn't picked up by any other of the -- New York Times or Washington Post -- and then it trickled down in not being covered. So can you talk about the hierarchy of information flow -- if someone else breaks a story?
NELSON: Yeah. Well what happens is that there are certain newspapers that sort of set the agenda for what is really big news in the United States. The New York Times is Number One. If they play it, and play it big, almost everybody picks it up. The Washington Post is another one. The LA Times also, because it's a large newspaper and it helps set the agenda. But I'd say that, barring those three papers -- the Wall Street Journal as well -- newspapers don't usually -- aren't able to set the agenda, unless it's one of those papers.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So -- [pause to change background pictures]
NELSON: You can't make out those phony pictures of Michael Dukakis and Jesse Jackson, can you?
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: No.
NELSON: Okay, just checking.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: No. Okay, so -- Another question I have is -- let's say someone that's not an agenda-setting outlet like Newsweek -- How do they get about getting other people to cover a story that's an important story?
NELSON: In other words, how does Newsweek itself promote that story?
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Right.
NELSON: Well, it does it by calling other newsmen, other bureau chiefs, bringing it to their attention, bringing it to the attention of the Associated Press. And that's part of what bureau chiefs often do, too. If you have a really big story in your bureau, and nobody else has it -- it's an exclusive, you try to find a way that other people find out about it.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Right. So you would get a call from Newsweek, and they would say, --
NELSON: Yes. Exactly.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: "Write about this."
NELSON: Um hmm.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. Well, another thing about what I'm doing here that I didn't explain it, I guess, is I'm going to cut out my voice as a questioner. So I guess if I asked you that again, and you just put that in your words. Like what -- specifically about the process when...
NELSON: Right. Sure. Oh, I see what you're talking about, yeah. You want me to -- you want me to incorporate the question in a way.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Right. And so, if I -- I may stop you and say --
NELSON: I got you. Yeah, okay.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So specifically, talk about the process that would happen if Newsweek would call you.
NELSON: Well, what happens is, in Washington particularly, if you have an exclusive story -- whether it's Newsweek or Time, New York Times, LA Times -- and nobody else has it, you want to make sure it gets around. So you probably let other reporters know, or other bureaus know that you've got that story coming. You let -- certainly let the networks know that it's coming. And you'll let the Associated Press know. And if it's a big enough story, frequently they will pick up on it.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. Good. Let's see. Now -- How do you approach institutions that usually have a big wall of secrecy, like the CIA or the State Department or the Pentagon?
NELSON: Well, when you run into secrecy in Washington, and of course you run into it at every level, not just the CIA -- You can run into at the Education Department, or you can run into it at the Housing and Urban Development Department. Any department of government has a certain amount of secrecy to it. So what you do is, you first try to find people within the department who are willing to talk to you, and to break some of that secrecy. And you look at people who used to be in that department -- former officials, and talk to them. And you also talk to people on the Hill, both staff members, and Senators, and House Members, who maybe are on committees that oversee those departments. And that way you frequently can penetrate the walls of secrecy.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So a lot of networking?
NELSON: Yes, and a -- and a lot of -- Well, the networks do that as well as the newspapers.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: I mean, networking -- physically.
NELSON: Oh, networking. Yes, the networking is often done by different journalists in order to propel a story beyond what it started out as.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So how do you -- Is it a process of going to cocktail parties? Or how do you develop those networks?
NELSON: Well, most really successful reporters in Washington spend a lot of time in social occasions as well, because of the networking that goes on among journalists. For example, they do go to cocktail parties a lot. They'll go to panel discussions. They'll go to hearings on Capitol Hill. They'll talk in the Capitol corridors to staff members, and Senators, and Members of the House. So there's sort of a constant conversation going on among journalists and government officials.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Talk a little about how now more and more, the government will use access to high-level officials as ways of determining what questions are allowable and not allowable? For example, what happened to Helen Thomas on March 6th, not being called on?
NELSON: Well, the thing about it is, in dealing with government officials who are trying to set their own agenda, and want to get their information out and nothing more, is that all of them do it. There's no question about that. And I've covered every President since Richard Nixon. This president and his administration, does it more than any other administration. And what they do, is they will -- They'll find out if a reporter is really interested in getting all of the facts, or if they're just interested in access. And if they're just interested in access, and you can just feed them whatever you want to feed them, they'll give them access. But if they're interested in going beyond the information you're trying to put out, they'll shut you out. They won't return your telephone calls. They won't call on you at press conferences, as in the case of Helen Thomas. Helen Thomas made the mistake of having said some critical things about this administration, and so they quit dealing with her.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So in other words, it's a flack. It's a way of -- of a censor or a filter.
NELSON: Yes. Yes, it's exactly a filter that they go through, no question about that. And it's not -- It's not, of course, just this administration. It's all administrations that engage in that. It's just that this administration carries it farther than anybody I've ever seen. The fact of not just -- not just telling people not to return telephone calls, but to withholding information that is clearly public information from reporters who they feel may want to get all the facts, not just what the administration wants to put out.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So -- Have you been keeping abreast with the local news, and being able to make assertions that, possibly, that they've been getting more and more reporters out there that aren't interested in getting all the facts? Or --
NELSON: Well, I don't -- I don't think that there are more and more reporters out there who are not interested in getting all the facts. What I do think is that there are some cases of reporters -- particularly television reporters, particularly cable television reporters, who have actually an ideological bent. Fox News is a perfect example of it. I mean, you know, they can get interviews with administration officials nobody else can get, and why? Because they have a very pro-administration slant. There's no question about that.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. And why don't you talk a little bit about the dynamic that journalists must balance between maintaining that access and getting leaks from public officials -- the balance they must choose, between becoming a political pawn versus actually getting all the facts and serving the public interest?
NELSON: Well, there's no question about it, but that journalists have a hard time, sometimes, looking for a really good balance on being able to get leaks from government officials, and yet not just doing the government's bidding -- not just floating something that the administration wants to float. For one thing, reporters who get leaks need to look at the motive of the leaker. And if the motive is simply to get out some message from the administration without further examination, then they need to try to strike a balance and find somebody who'll -- who will -- an opponent of the administration, for example, who will look at what that information is, and either comment on it or help analyze it. So the -- So it's important for the reporter to do that. Otherwise, you could get any number of so-called "exclusives" that really don't tell the whole story.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Can you go through, maybe, some of the different reasons why there are leaks of information?
NELSON: Yeah. Well, there are a number of reasons for leaks by the government officials. Some of them are government officials who leak strictly to get out the administration's message. There's no question about that. Then there're some people within government who look at what's going on, and they think, "Maybe this isn't exactly right. Maybe what the government is doing here, the public should know about it, and the government is trying to shield it." So these people, for really good interests of public service, will leak information. Then of course, you'll have people actually in the White House who don't have the President's attention, who will leak information to a reporter to get the President's attention. Or you'll have people in the White House who have it in for the Defense Secretary, and they will leak something to -- in other words, to cause a problem for the Defense Secretary. So you do have those kind of leaks as well. You may have somebody in the White House who doesn't like a particular senator. He'll leak something that may not reflect admirably on this particular senator. So you have all of these different motives for leaking. And that's one of the things that reporters have to be careful about. They have to at least know something about why the leak is coming out, and what the motivation is, and whether or not there's more to the story than just that leak.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And one of the things I've also noticed is that when there's a leak, sometimes the motive is very unclear. Is it the journalist's job to make the motives of the leak clear? Or is it --
NELSON: Well, I think that a journalist, if he knows what the motive is, and can afford to say what it is -- in some cases, he may not be able to afford to say what it is, maybe because of a confidential agreement with whoever's leaking the information. But I think wherever possible, that the reporter ought to try to make it clear that if it's leaked by an enemy of the person who is -- doesn't come out looking very good in this leaked information, then I think it should say it came from an enemy or a critic of this particular person. So I think that's the -- that's a responsibility of the reporter.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. And I guess another factor in this is anonymous sourcing, and maintaining that balance of giving information that you can't source versus just for no reason, people not wanting to be named. Have you seen an increase in anonymous sourcing? And how can that be exploited?
NELSON: Well, anonymous sourcing can be exploited by the administration simply by -- [Interruption]

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. Let me take it from the top wherever -- talking about anonymous sourcing -- Yeah. Okay. So. Yeah. I guess, I'll just ask the question again. Talking about anonymous sourcing, how can that -- Do you see a trend of it being exploited a lot, or when it's unnecessary?
NELSON: Well, I think what happens on anonymous sources is -- and in this town, in Washington, I mean, you really do have to depend upon anonymous sources a lot. There's no question about that, because there're so many people in government who would like to help you sometimes get information, and for very good reasons -- I mean, for healthy reasons -- but they don't want to be identified. Because they don't want to lose their job, or they don't want to be ostracized, or some reason like that. So there are a lot of anonymous sources, and newspapers and newsmagazines are frequently using them. Are there too many sometimes? Yes, I think sometimes there are too many. And as a matter of fact, there are so many used sometimes, that I think that reporters occasionally will use an anonymous source when they could have used the source on the record, because they think the story sounds like it's more exclusive, more exciting, if they're quoting anonymous sources rather than somebody on the record. So I think it's exploited sometimes by journalists, and of course it's exploited by people in government frequently, when they could be on the record, but won't go on the record.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So as a consumer of news, how do you assess the motives of the leakers, and also if -- [Interruption] -- So, I guess what was -- I lost my train of thought...
NELSON: I forgot what you asked too, but --
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: The -- Oh, as a consumer of news, how you assess if there's an -- should you -- Should a red flag go up if you see an anonymous source and you can see that -- anytime you hear an anonymous source, and it's making big news?
NELSON: Well, I think as a consumer of news, and somebody who has been involved in reporting the news over the years, I'll always look very carefully at a story that has anonymous sources, and try to figure out -- depending on what the story is -- but try to figure out who the sources really are, and whether or not this information is solid. And I think it helps, of course, to have been on the end of reporting the news to be able to determine sometimes who those sources are. I think the average consumer has a very hard time when they see anonymous sources -- "a senior administration official," "somebody close to the President." It's hard for them to understand who it might be.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. And another point on spokesmen of these different -- CIA or State Department. Do you find that sometimes that they try to protect the institution of the Pentagon, or the CIA, or the White House? And the personnel or -- and the policy, and blend those together, and stand up for the integrity of the CIA when someone did something wrong, or ...
NELSON: Well, yeah. I don't think there's any question but that the spokesmen at the various agencies -- [background noise]
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Sorry. Okay, let's
NELSON: You can hear this?
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Yeah, I can still hear it... It's okay now.
NELSON: Okay. The question again --
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Oh, just talking about the spokesmen, and the --
NELSON: Yeah. I think that -- Most spokesmen for almost any agency within the government considers his job protecting the agency -- protecting the people in the agency. However, there are spokesmen in government who see their job as representing the public as well. And it depends upon which spokesman you're talking about, and which administration you're talking about. I think that there are many cases where press secretaries see that they have a duty to -- certainly to be honest in dealing with reporters. On the other hand, there are some who have flat out lied to reporters. And some of them have lied not know -- or maybe not have not necessarily lied, but have given false information because they didn't know it was false. For example, I remember the case of Larry Speaks, Press Secretary to Ronald Reagan, giving out some false information on the invasion of Grenada because he had been fed false information. And he later apologized for it.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. So I guess that's one of the defenses of this current administration, is that if there is false information being fed to either -- Bush, then he's pointing the finger at other people and saying, "Well, I don't know." And so they say, "Well, he didn't know he was lying."
NELSON: Well, the thing about President Bush and this administration is that the buck really does stop with the President of the United States. And so I don't think that -- that President Bush can say, "I was given false information." Fact is, he hasn't claimed that, I don't think -- I mean, so far they haven't claimed that. But he obviously has passed on some false information.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Right. I guess -- getting back to the -- Do you see -- What is different between a beat reporter and more investigative journalism?
NELSON: Well, a beat reporter really covers, essentially, whatever breaks on that particular beat -- whether it's the Pentagon or the State Department or the White House. An investigative reporter normally can go across any lines, and is involved in trying to find out things that, in almost every case, people are trying to prevent him from finding out. And so he's really digging for information that the government -- somebody in the government is trying to keep the public from having.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And have you seen a decline on investigative journalism over time?
NELSON: Well, I've seen a decline in aggressive reporting. And I guess that comes into a decline, somewhat, in investigative reporting -- I think that's right. And I think it's a sad case to see a decline in investigative reporting, but I think I have seen it.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: What do you attribute that to?
NELSON: Well, I'm really not sure. But I think -- I think anytime you have a president who's popular, there's not as much aggression on the part of the press, unfortunately. But I think that's true.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Looking at, specifically, at the build-up to the case for the war, there seemed to be some politicized intelligence. And then -- So the Democrats were not really speaking out a lot on it. And so there weren't anybody making news -- Do you have an assessment over -- Could the media have been doing a better job at digging in the build-up to the war?
NELSON: Well, I don't think there's any question but that the media could have done a much more aggressive job trying to search out the facts when this administration was beating the drums for war. And the fact that the Democrats themselves seemed to be shying away because of the popularity of the President in the aftermath of 9/11, doesn't excuse, in my opinion, the press for not more aggressively pursuing the story, and being out in front a little more than they were.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So you think if they would have been more aggressive, then it could have led to information that we have since found out -- that would have raised more red flags -- or helped stop it?
NELSON: I doubt that the press could have done anything that would have stopped this administration from going to war. They seemed hellbent on going to war. And so I doubt they could have stopped it. But I think that they could have at least -- They could have raised more questions in the minds of the public about what the administration was up to -- what it was doing. And it's possible -- It's possible if the public had decided that this was not a good thing to do, and it had made it -- had made that clear, it's possible, I guess, that President Bush might have seen it as not politically the thing to do. And maybe wouldn't have done it. But he had the public behind him because of 9/11, and he wasn't going to be deterred.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. And let's see -- I guess, in the build-up to the war, there's a lot of -- a lot of the coverage was surrounding the UN inspections and international law. And it seems to be a challenge to make something that doesn't seem to be that interesting, but really significant -- for journalists to make that significant. Can you talk a little bit about how do you go about making something that's significant -- but instead of taking the Bush administration's interpretation of it, actually looking at other international opinions, or non-profit think tanks that are actually having a dissenting opinion?
NELSON: Well, I think that in the case of the build-up of going into Iraq, there was not enough looking at the critics of what was going on. There was not enough -- There was not enough looking at history. There was not enough looking at what happened when we bombed Libya, for example. And that didn't quote "stop terrorism." That's what that was designed to do. And you could almost look at a lot of things that happened with regard to Libya, and they apply to Iraq today. I mean, we went in, and we bombed, and we killed some civilians -- bombed the French Embassy, and we didn't wind up really stopping terrorism at all. Thank God we stopped short of invading, but we didn't learn anything from it, obviously.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So that's the -- a challenge that I see is that the history seems to be so dynamic -- if information is being declassified and information is coming out -- Is it the journalist's responsibility to keep abreast on the history that is constantly changing, and to incorporate that?
NELSON: Well, I do think that the journalists have an obligation to put everything into historic context. And it's true that a lot of information is continually coming out. And I think sometimes that the think tanks do look at this information. Reporters are inclined to not look at it until maybe the think tanks have already done it. They probably should be doing more of it.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: And can you talk about the relationships between the influence of the think tanks, especially that may have a conservative or liberal mindset? How do you, as a bureau chief, look at all the information that's coming in, and weight it accordingly?
NELSON: Well, of course, when information comes in from a think tank, you look at its orientation. And if it is the Heritage Foundation, of course, you know it's very conservative. If it's Brookings, it's more, I would say, down the center rather than liberal, but at least -- [Interruption] -- You're getting it again, huh?
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Yeah...
NELSON: Sorry about that. It's going to happen in any room in the house, by the way.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Yeah. Yeah. -- Okay. So from the top, when you get information from a think tank, how do you --
NELSON: Well, when you get information from a think-tank, you usually look at the think-tank's orientation itself. If it's the Heritage Foundation, for example, I mean, you know good and well that it's a very conservative viewpoint on almost everything they do. If it's the Brookings Institution, it's probably maybe a little left-leaning, but more to the center, and more likely to get somewhat of a balanced view. But you have to take that into consideration when you're reporting whatever their findings are. So you have to look for the other part of it, and bring some balance to whatever report they issue.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So talk a little bit about the differences between editorial writers, who may have more freedom to incorporate history, versus regular beat reporters or investigative reporters, and how they incorporate history.
NELSON: Well, of course, editorial writers have a different job entirely. Their job is to reach some sort of conclusion about the issues and about events. And to make some sort of judgement on it. They're not any freer, in my opinion, than reporters of the news to include historic context, and probably should, because there should be a lot of analytical reporting. And when you bring it into historic context, you're frequently doing some analysis, and that's what the best reporting involves.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. Great. Let's see. Talk a little bit about the competitive aspects, the lust to get it first versus the lust to get it right. If you get an exclusive, there seems to be pressure to get it out there as soon as you can.
NELSON: Well, there's always a rush to get the story first, to be first out there, and to have people have to quote you, maybe -- in other papers, on television, or whatever. And sometimes that goes too far, there's no question about that. I mean, I remember a specific example back during the Vietnam War. I had a story about the FBI using some agent provocateurs in connection with some cases involving the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. And the New York Times was about to beat me on the story, I thought. And I called up and talked to our national editor, and he said -- I said, "I don't have it quite dead, but I've got enough of it I think we'd better go with it before the New York Times beat us." And he says, "Be second, but be right." And I think he was right about that. Most responsible editors -- and I thought of myself as a responsible reporter, although my editor helped me be responsible -- believe you've got to have it right. And you'd like to get it first, but you've got to have it right first. But there is that thirst for being first, and sometimes I think it outweighs being right, which is bad.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Now, what happens -- How do you approach, when you're second -- you know, when the first -- like the New York Times -- will break a story? How do you go about trying to cover it? Do you -- I guess that it depends on the situation, but sometimes stories will be ignored. Is that a phenomena that happens? Because it --
NELSON: Well, yeah, it is true that some newspapers will ignore a story if somebody else has broken it first. I don't think that your major newspapers normally will do that, though. If they've been working on a story, they'll run the story themselves and try to bring it an extra dimension to it or something, but not actually ignore it. What does happen sometimes, though, is that if a newspaper has an exclusive story, and they break it, and the others papers were not working on it -- unless it's just really compelling, they may do their best to ignore it. It's hard to ignore it if it's in the New York Times -- very hard to ignore it. And it's often hard to ignore it if it's in the Washington Post and the LA Times. One reason being that it'll go on the LA Times/Washington Post News Service, which will go to 300 other papers in this country, with about a 25 million circulation, and another 200 million overseas -- 200 papers with another 20 million overseas. So it's hard to ignore if it comes out of one of the major publications.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Can you talk a little bit about the dynamic between the print news media that has a different deadline and news cycle versus the evening news that may have their deadlines later on in the evening, where something would happen to the day -- How do those two interrelate? Do -- is someone -- Do you see an influence of the print media on what is covered in the evening news?
NELSON: Well, there's absolutely no question, but that what the print media covers sort of sets the agenda. Once again, the New York Times above all, but the New York Times, the Washington Post, and in some cases, the LA Times, although the 3-hour time differential from LA makes a difference -- But nevertheless, it's what the major media does, because let's face it -- The major newspapers put so much more manpower into covering the news than the networks do. I mean, for example, the LA Times Washington Bureau now has about 58 people in it -- 58 people. I mean, that's larger than the -- than the Washington Bureaus of ABC, NBC, and CBS put together. And so they're out there covering the news much more so than the networks are. And so a lot of what happens, of the news that comes out on the evening news, comes out because of what's happened in the print media.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So I guess, how many people do you know -- or can you say, that the LA Times would reach? Because I know that the Neilson Ratings -- if you look at that, there may be 30 million people that ABC, CBS, and NBC are reaching?
NELSON: That's true. Well, the evening news of the three major networks, ABC, NBC, and CBS, still reach a huge number of people -- not nearly as many as they used to because of cable television and everything else, but they still reach a huge number of people. The only reason the LA Times or the Washington Post may reach a very huge audience too, maybe like 20 million, is that they have this LA Times / Washington Post News Services. New York Times is the same way. The New York Times, of course, is a major paper, and based in New York where the networks are located, where the Associated Press has a big presence and everything, that makes a difference too. But the New York Times also has a news service, and that news service goes to hundreds of papers all over the country. So that's the reason that the major papers also have a big impact on what happens. Although, it's still true that most people get their news -- most people -- from television.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Right. That's interesting. What if the government is telling you -- if they're saying this event is being caused by these factors, what kind of process can you go through to analyze what other factors may be actually causing that, instead of what the government is saying? How do you go about --
NELSON: Well, if the government, that is that the Executive Branch -- if the White House or the Defense Department or the State Department or what have you -- tells you that certain things are true about what's happening, and you don't necessarily take their word for it, you go to Capitol Hill. You talk to members of the committee that may oversee this particular department, and you ask them, "What's the truth of this?" You go to opponents of the government, and ask them about it. So there are ways of finding out whether or not the government's giving you the whole story, but it's a tough job. It's a very difficult job. Let's face it. The government has a huge information apparatus. I mean, if you took -- If you took all of the news bureaus in Washington, D.C., and put all their manpower together, it wouldn't equal what the government has in the way of information specialists, press secretaries -- "spin-meisters" as they call them -- other people who are trying to feed what the government view is. And so the only view that the American people can get, other than the government's own view, of what it's doing, comes from the media. Well, and from Congress, if it's Congress looking at what the Executive Branch is doing. But again, you want to know what's going on in Congress, the only view you can get, other than from Congress, is the media. So the media really is the public's representative in finding out what the government's doing -- both in the Judiciary, in the Legislative, and in the Executive Branch. There's no question about that. It is the Fourth Estate.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: One thing that comes to mind is a lot of people who are either pro-war -- or conservatives, Republicans -- will say that there's a liberal bias in the media, and they'll discount a lot of what they say. Do you see that there's a liberal bias? Or do you see that it might be a conservative bias? Or attributed to other factors?
NELSON: I don't think there's any bias whatever in the media. There is bias in certain aspects of the media. The media in general, I mean, if you're talking about the major newspapers, you're talking about the major networks, I'd say no media bias. If you're talking about Fox News, very conservative, without any question. If you're talking about a lot of the cable television news, extremely conservative. If you're talking about some of the talk radio people, like Rush Limbaugh and others, I mean there's no question about it. They're overtly conservative -- and not just that, but in many instances, real demagogues. But it's a sham that they've put on the American public, and I guess, convinced a lot of people it's so. But I mean, you look at the columnists in this country. Who are the big columnists in this country? George Will, who screams about the media bias. Charles Krauthammer, who screams about the media bias. William Safire, who screams about the media's bias. All of these big-name columnists that have these huge audiences out there -- like they're not part of the media? And so if there's any media bias at all, I'd say it's on the conservative side.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So, on any given day, when you were the --
NELSON: Bob Novak...
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Yeah --
NELSON: I had one time -- one time I -- One time I actually faced off with Bob Novak on that very question, "Is there a media bias?" And then he stood up there as a real conservative, claiming that there was a liberal bias. Unbelievable. Unbelievable.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So on -- If you were to go and -- on an ordinary day as a bureau chief, what time would you get into work? And how would you get your news of the day, to know what to do for the rest of the day?
NELSON: Well, to begin with, I'd get up in the morning, and I'd read the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, for awhile there I was reading the Washington Evening Star, in the afternoon, at least. And so I read all of those papers, I get up, and I make telephone calls. I talk to other people in the bureau and around -- of course, I worked for a west coast newspaper, the Los Angeles Times. Our editors wouldn't get to work until about three or four hours after we did because of the time differential, and by the time they'd got in contact with us, we already pretty well knew what we'd be doing for the day, so that there was not a lot of assigning of things from Los Angeles. Most of the assignments originated in Washington.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Interesting. Let's see. Now, what about government sources of information? Do you -- Would you look at -- of the documents that are coming out of the government?
NELSON: Well, the government documents that come out are -- We don't get a lot of just routine government documents coming out other than press releases, which usually are not of much value to us. Most of the government documents that we deal in are documents that you may go looking for when you're involved in some particular story. But what you do do in the morning, is you start calling sources right away. People -- some of them, you just call up blind, you say, "What's going on today?" Like if you're at a local newspaper, calling up City Hall and ask somebody what's going on. So some of it is just blind. Otherwise, you're calling up and you're asking about particular issues.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. So what about the Congressional Record, or something that -- what Congress is doing -- proceedings. I guess, if that -- Do you pay attention to that if you're -- on your topic
NELSON: Well, we don't -- Yes, we don't pay a lot of attention to the Congressional Record, because the Congressional Record is something that's already happened, and we've had people there watching what's happening day in and day out. So we know what's going on in Congress on a day-to-day basis. It's not that -- when an issue comes up, sometimes we'll go back and check on it to -- again, to put it into some sort of context. But as far as the breaking news is concerned, we don't use the Congressional Record, because by the time it comes out, it's not news. We've already had somebody covering that. It's hard to say that you see a lot of documents on a routine basis -- government documents on a routine basis. You have to be looking for something. And then, of course -- and frequently, of course, you'll find resistance to letting you have documents, and sometimes you have to use the Freedom of Information Act to get the documents. It depends upon what it is.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. And, let's see -- How do you evaluate the media's performance leading up to the war on Iraq?
NELSON: Well, I don't think the media was aggressive enough in reporting on events that led up to the Iraqi war. I mean, for example -- I'll give you a very good example. When I was at Harvard University on a Shorenstein Fellowship, back when they were leading up to the war, I was there from September into December. We had a Shorenstein Fellow there by the name of William Lambert, who was a retired editor of the Financial Times. While we were there, he went over to a off-the-record meeting in London. And at this off-the-record meeting that was attended by about 50 or 60 people, including a lot of big celebrities -- including some celebrity names from here in the United States. A Mid-east expert -- so-called "expert" from the Defense Department spoke. And he told them they were not only going into Iraq -- he said, "And they will be cheering-- cheering us when they are liberated. And people in Iran and Syria, they'll be next. Because they'll be holding up their arms and saying, 'Liberate us, too.'" So this was going on. I mentioned -- when Lambert came back and told me that, he said it was "off the record." I said, "Well, look, if there were 50 or 60 people in there, how could it be off-the-record? And somebody needs to write about this." Well, he hadn't thought too much about that, but he decided I was right. And he actually wrote something about it in the Financial Times. I hate to say this, but I called up my own paper, the LA Times, and they never followed up on it. And neither did anybody else. And no story was ever written on this. And yet, an official of the Defense Department was over in London, telling these people that, "Yes, we were going into Iraq, and after we quote 'liberated' Iraq, people would be cheering. And they would be cheering in Syria and Iran too, because that's where we'd go next." Now, that was a story, in my opinion, but it wasn't followed up.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So do you think that the decision was already made to go to war? And so the --
NELSON: Well, my guess would be that the decision was already made. He certainly indicated it was -- this defense official.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So how do you see the dynamic between the international press, like if a story breaks overseas, and the New York Times? Are they paying -- If the New York Times is the agenda-setting institution, are they paying attention to all these other stories as well? Or -- How do you do that at the LA Times, if you're not --
NELSON: You mean, is the Los -- Is the New York Times paying attention to the international press in what they're reporting? No, I don't think that the New York Times or the LA Times or the rest of the press is paying that much attention to what's being written overseas. Because for one thing, the Economist and other publications in London have been much more aggressive in reporting what's going on in Iraq, and what led up to the war and everything else, than the American press has been. You can look at BBC -- BBC, which now has a program running here, you know, on public television. I frequently look at them before I look at our own networks, because they have things that -- about the whole situation in Iraq that our own networks don't have sometimes.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. Let's see. Alright. Let me move on to --
NELSON: And let me say one other thing.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Yeah, go ahead.
NELSON: If you want to know about secrecy in this country -- secrecy in this government, don't look for the press to cover it, because they don't cover it very much. You know where you find it? You find it online. You go online, and you go onto the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press. And you go on there on the Federation of American Scientists, and it has this Secrecy Project that Steve Aftergood puts out. Several times a week, I get it on my computer right there. Several times a week, they have bulletins on all of the secrecy that's going on in this country. But the press is hardly covering it at all. I can't really tell you why that is, but the press hardly covers it at all.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Yeah, I read Steve's site every day.
NELSON: I'm astounded. I'm astounded at the lack of coverage that we get. Steve Aftergood thinks that most reporters ought to have a beat reporter covering government secrecy. And I don't know but what -- particularly with this administration, he's not right about that.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So yeah -- I was going to move on to the secrecy and focus more on the -- getting some sound bites that could be used in a thirty-second film as opposed to a longer Project of the Echo Chamber. So why don't you talk about how Bush compares historically with secrecy?
NELSON: Well, like I say -- I've covered every administration from Richard Nixon, who was very secretive. I covered the first George Bush -- George HW Bush, and he was secretive. He was a former CIA Director. And nobody equals George W. Bush. He's more than a chip off the old block. I mean, his administration -- from the outset, before 9/11 -- was extremely secretive. On the whole Energy Taskforce that Cheney set up, for example -- To this day they have not told us who helped, in the energy industry, draw their plan up. Ashcroft, the Attorney General -- most secretive Attorney General I've ever known of. And of course, since 9/11 -- Since 9/11, they have used the fact of the terrorist attack to justify all kinds of secrecy, including holding people incommunicado for years, including arresting American citizens, declare them an enemy combatant, denying them access to a lawyer, denying the press any access at all to who -- what's been happening to any of these people. So this administration, as far as I'm concerned, is by far the worst that I know anything about.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. I'm going to ask you the question again. And maybe in 10 seconds, summarize that you've covered these Presidents and "from what I've seen, this is the most secretive president in history."
NELSON: Okay. Well, I've covered every president since Richard Nixon. And George HW Bush -- I covered him. He was very secretive -- former CIA Director, of course. And his son, George W Bush, is more than a chip off the old block. I mean, he is really super-secretive, and the most I've had any experience with.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay, and how does that secrecy affect democracy?
NELSON: Well, it means what's happening is the government is doing a lot of things that the public has no idea what they're doing. They're being denied the information they need to make intelligent decisions down the road. He's running for re-election. The government's doing things we have absolutely no knowledge of. And so to me, that's just a moron democracy.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. And -- Say it one more time. Okay, yeah... And maybe just go straight from Nixon to Bush, and talk about how he compares to -- Just because I think people, when they think of secrecy -- If this is a political ad, then it's going to be to people who are going to know Nixon's secret. And coming from an expert source -- that you've covered these people --
NELSON: So I don't need to say that I've covered them all...
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Yeah, just specifically -- Go straight from Nixon to current Bush.
NELSON: To current Bush, okay.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Right.
NELSON: Okay. Well, I've covered every president since Richard Nixon, who was very secretive, but this administration, this President is more secretive than any I've ever known anything about.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. That's great. And maybe talk a little bit about the -- keeping secrets from Congress, and how that affects how we can --
NELSON: Well, it's not -- It's not just that this administration keeps secrets from the press and the general public. It keeps them from Congress. You have Republicans as well as Democrats in Congress who have been complaining bitterly about the fact that they are denied access to information that they're entitled to see -- just as the public's being denied access to information they're entitled to see.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay, great. And let's see -- How does Bush use secrecy politically?
NELSON: Well, Bush uses secrecy to keep from embarrassing his own administration, without any question. I mean, there are things this administration's been doing that he's not proud of -- that's pretty obvious. He uses it to justify the invasion of Iraq. He uses it to justify the defence build-up. He uses it to justify just about everything he does.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay, and -- If you could ask President Bush any question, what would you ask him?
NELSON: Well, that's a pretty hard -- that's a pretty tough question to decide on. There're so many different questions you could ask him.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: I looked down and saw "What are you trying to hide, Mr President?" and thought, "Hmmm, well, wonder what" --
NELSON: Well, that wouldn't get an answer, though, of any kind. I mean -- I think -- I think if I had -- If I did have one question I had to ask President Bush, though, I'd ask him, "Isn't the American -- Aren't the American people entitled to know what the government is doing about, not only what's going on in Iraq, but what's going on down at Guantanamo Bay, where we're holding hundreds of these people incommunicado, with no access to a lawyer, no access to the press? Isn't the public entitled to know that?"

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. Can you ask that just one more time? That's good -- just wanted to get it --
NELSON: Say that again?
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Yeah, just because -- yeah, you kind of thought through what you were going to say.
NELSON: Oh, okay, right. Well, if I could ask -- If I could ask President Bush one question, I think I'd ask him, "Aren't the American people entitled to know, not only what the government really is doing in Iraq, but what the government is doing down in Guantanamo Bay, and what's happening to those hundreds of prisoners that are kept down there incommunicado, without access to a lawyer, without access to the press or anybody in the public?"

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay. And let's see if there's any other questions. I guess, when you're --- Would you describe journalism as a discipline of verification? And how does that -- How do you verify the information that you're giving?
NELSON: Say -that again?
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Would you describe journalism as kind of a discipline of verification? Of verifying the info that you're getting? Independently verifying, instead of just taking the word for it?
NELSON: Describe how you do verify it, you say?
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Yeah. I guess -- when you're getting someone telling you a piece of information, a lot of times what I see as happened is that the journalist will just take that and repeat it, almost as if they're reporting it and they've seen it.
NELSON: Right, right. Well, I think any responsible journalist, when they get information from the government, whatever the government source, they look at it, and they see if there are other ways to verify what's there. And if there is some hidden agenda by the person who's releasing the information. But also if there is an opposing viewpoint to bring to it, so that you don't just take what's handed out to you by the government as being gospel. Otherwise, you're just being an extension of the public relations or propaganda apparatus.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Or Echo Chamber, as I would call it.
NELSON: Right.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Yeah. Okay. Oh, one last question. Have you seen that the consolidation of the news organisations -- How has that affected the flow of information? I guess this is more from the standpoint of TV media, moreso than print media. As far as, among the many diverse voices, there seems to be a lot of -- Now, if you want to get an alternative opinion, it seems you have to resort to PBS or programs on there, as opposed to the major news networks to bring information. Have you seen that pattern?
NELSON: I don't know that I -- I don't know that I have a very good answer for that.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Okay.
NELSON: Yeah.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: Alright, that's fine. I guess, I mean, you know, you're kind of stuck in the print journalism world --
NELSON: Yeah
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: -- and maybe don't see it as much, I guess, because the New York Times is still counted as that influence.
NELSON: Yeah.
ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: So, okay. Well, I think that's it.
NELSON: Okay.