Our Media

Benen: WAPO OMBUDSMAN POINTS TO 'MISSING INGREDIENT'....

It's a familiar problem. During a presidential campaign, reporters covering the candidates will invariably cover the horse race and ignore the substance. If a campaign unveils a national security policy, for example, coverage will focus on "what it means" -- whether the policy will position the candidate as "tough," whether it addresses a problem that's emerged in the polls, etc. -- not whether the policy is any good.

Andrew Alexander, the Washington Post's ombudsman, noted the same problem with coverage of the health care debate. He pointed to some quality journalism on the subject, before conceding the larger trend. Readers, Alexander explained, "want primers, not prognostications. And they're craving stories on what it means for ordinary folks and their families."

In my examination of roughly 80 A-section stories on health-care reform since July 1, all but about a dozen focused on political maneuvering or protests. The Pew Foundation's Project for Excellence in Journalism had a similar finding. Its recent month-long review of Post front pages found 72 percent of health-care stories were about politics, process or protests.

"The politics has been covered, but all of this is flying totally over the heads of people," said Trudy Lieberman, a contributing editor to Columbia Journalism Review, who has been tracking coverage by The Post and other news organizations. "They have not known from Day One what this was about."

It's not for lack of interest. About 45 percent of Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center for People & the Press recently said they have been following the health-care story more closely than any other.

But nearly half of those surveyed this month in a nationwide poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation said they are "confused" about reform plans.

Kaiser's president and CEO, Drew Altman, worries that the media have devoted too much attention to "accusation and refutation" stories instead of focusing on the "core questions about health-care reform that the public wants answered."

By "gravitating toward controversies" such as the recent boisterous town hall meetings on health care, he said, the media may "unwittingly" be allowing coverage to be shaped by evocative rhetoric and images.

I'm not sure if "unwittingly" is the right word here. For the media in general, I think there's a reliance on horse-race and he-said-she-said journalism because it's easy -- and because all of their colleagues and competitors are doing the same thinng.

It leads to a superficiality that contributes to public confusion.

C&L: The 'Washington Post' provides much needed cover for Cheney's FOX News Sunday "torture" appearance

By John Amato Sunday Aug 30, 2009 7:00am

(The incredible C&L video archives comes through again. Via a post from 02/08/07 The Guide: How Dick Cheney uses "Meet the Press" to control the message )

In ‘01, Cheney said this on MTP:

CHENEY: It‘s been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April.

on 6/19/04 CNBC, he said:

GLORIA BORGER, TV SHOW HOST: You have said in the past that it was, quote, “pretty well confirmed.”

CHENEY: No, I never said that. BORGER: OK.

CHENEY: I never said that. BORGER: I think that is…

CHENEY: Absolutely not.

It's not like we haven't seen this tale before. Cheney is getting ready to go on a Sunday Talk Show to discuss important issues, a big article appears that tries to completely justify his positions almost at the same time he's about to take the center stage. Wow. What a shock. One of Cheney's first victims and allies was the NY Times. Judy Miller was used as a a willing pawn when Cheney needed cover right before he was going on Meet the Press to help push the country into war with Iraq in 2002.
Cheney's team admitted during the Scooter Libby trial that using Meet the Press allowed them to control the message which was a major embarrassment for Tim Russert.

BILL MOYERS: Was it just a coincidence in your mind that Cheney came on your show and others went on the other Sunday shows, the very morning that that story appeared?

TIM RUSSERT: I don't know. The NEW YORK TIMES is a better judge of that than I am.

BILL MOYERS: No one tipped you that it was going to happen?

TIM RUSSERT: No, no. I mean-

BILL MOYERS: The Cheney office didn't leak to you that there's gonna be a big story?

TIM RUSSERT: No. No. I mean, I don't have the-- This is, you know-- on MEET THE PRESS, people come on and th4ere are no ground rules. We can ask any question we want. I did not know about the aluminum tubes story until I read it in the NEW YORK TIMES.

BILL MOYERS: Critics point to September eight, 2002 and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the Administration plants a dramatic story in the NEW YORK TIMES And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the NEW YORK TIMES. It's a circular, self-confirming leak.

TIM RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the NEW YORK TIMES. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that.

My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.

Now the Washington Post has taken the job since Miller isn't around to pass along Bush talking points. I understand that at times anonymous sources play a role in breaking news, but this piece which is rife with anonymous sources is clearly there to provide cover for Cheney as he takes up his cause of justifying his horrific torture regime once again to the American people, but this time with a brand spanking new piece of propaganda from the elite media. The Sunday shows will have a field day with this...

Glenn Greenwald has more: 'The Washington Post's Cheney-ite defense of torture.'

If anyone ever tells you that they don't understand what is meant by "stenography journalism" -- or ever insists that America is plagued by a Liberal Media -- you can show them this article from today's Washington Post and, by itself, it should clear up everything. The article's headline is "How a Detainee Became An Asset -- Sept. 11 Plotter Cooperated After Waterboarding" -- though an equally appropriate headline would be: "The Joys and Virtues of Torture -- how Dick Cheney Kept Us Safe." I defy anyone to identify a single way the article would be different if The Post had let Dick Cheney write it himself...read on

Benen: MORAL RELATIVISM, CONSERVATIVE STYLE...

Mid-way through the "Fox News Sunday" interview, host Chris Wallace asked Dick Cheney if he's comfortable with intelligence officials exceeding "legal authorization" to try to obtain information from a detainee. The former vice president said, "I am."

And that, in a nutshell, is all one really needs to know about Dick Cheney. The law should be followed, except when it shouldn't. And when the law isn't followed, the only real outrage would be an effort to hold criminal responsible for their conduct. Think conservatism is about moral absolutes, and stark lines separating right from wrong? Think again.

Michael Scherer noted, "There is not much nuance there.... One CIA contractor, according to the CIA Inspector General, is alleged to have beaten an Afghan detainee to death with a large metal flashlight and his foot. Released criminal records show that another CIA employee was interrogating a detainee at Abu Ghraib prison in a stress position with a bag over his head, when the detainee died of asphyxiation. Assuming that Cheney did not misspeak, his statement to Wallace suggests that he believes these deaths are "OK' given the circumstances."

Asked, in the same interview, whether he would cooperate if sought out by federal investigators conducting a criminal investigation, Cheney said, "It will depend on the circumstances." (The former vice president may refuse to cooperate with the Justice Department?) Cheney also argued that the attorney general is a "political appointee," who should base prosecutorial decisions on the political wishes of the president. Seriously.

Aside from Cheney's crass partisanship and craven support for torture, why is he constantly in the public eye, making this case? I think publius had a good item on this.

To me, the goal of his recent charm offensive is simply to kick up enough dirt to force a "draw." That is, he wants to politicize the torture debate as much as possible -- to transform a profound debate about our country's values into just another everyday Republican/Democratic partisan squabble that makes people throw up their hands and despair of knowing "the truth."

If you've noticed, Cheney tends to pop up in the aftermath of damning evidence. We just (re)learned, for instance, that our CIA agents murdered detainees, choked them, and threatened to rape their wives. Normally, you would think these revelations would give pause to even the most ardent Cheney supporters.

But then Cheney comes along, and tries to reframe the whole story. His intended audience isn't the nation as a whole, but conservatives. He wants to make sure that they view these stories through partisan-tinted lenses. [...]

In short, Cheney wants to transform what should a broad consensus against torture into a "he said/she said" partisan squabble. And if most conservative blogs are any guide, he's probably been successful.

One last thought. Early on in the interview, Cheney insisted that the Justice Department's interest in illegal interrogation tactics is "clearly a political move." The former VP added, "I mean, there's no other rationale for why they're doing this."

"No other rationale"? How about the existence of evidence of criminal wrongdoing, brought to the attention of the Justice Department? Isn't that a "rationale" for a prosecutor?

I honestly don't get the "political move" argument. Indeed, it seems backwards. If Eric Holder had decided to go pursue Cheney, Yoo, Bybee, Addington, Gonzales, it'd be easier to understand the complaints. They'd be wrong, but the allegations would at least be coherent. In this case, though, the "political move" would be to ignore alleged crimes for the sake of political expedience.

• Benen: HURTING DICK CHENEY'S FEELINGS....

  Dick Cheney offered quite a bit of nonsense on Fox News yesterday, but perhaps the most entertaining thing was hearing him talk about how the Obama White House has hurt his feelings. Apparently, the current president was supposed to seek out the former vice president for advice on national security matters.

  "I guess the other thing that offends the hell out of me, frankly, Chris, is we had a track record now of eight years of defending the nation against any further mass casualty attacks from Al Qaeda. The approach of the Obama administration should be to come to those people who were involved in that policy and say, 'How did you do it? What were the keys to keeping this country safe over that period of time?'"

  Got that? What Obama really ought to do, according to Dick Cheney, is seek out the former vice president's advice and follow it. After all, Cheney believes he's proven himself on the issue.

  I seem to recall the Bush/Cheney era a little differently. Cheney thinks it was a sterling success when it came to national security and counter-terrorism. Perhaps there's something to this. After all, except for the catastrophic events of 9/11, and the anthrax attacks against Americans, and terrorist attacks against U.S. allies, and the terrorist attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Bush's inability to capture those responsible for 9/11, and waging an unnecessary war that inspired more terrorists, and the success terrorists had in exploiting Bush's international unpopularity, the Bush/Cheney record on counter-terrorism was awesome.

  After the previous administration established a record like that, President Obama didn't ask Cheney for tips? The nerve.

  I am curious about something, though. Terrorists first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, early on in President Clinton's first year in office. Six people were killed, hundreds more were injured. The Clinton administration caught those responsible, subjected them to the U.S. criminal justice system, and foreign terrorists did not strike again on U.S. soil during Clinton's terms in office.

  So, at any point in 2001, did the Bush White House turn to Bill Clinton and Al Gore and ask, "How did you do it? What were the keys to keeping this country safe over that period of time?" I think we can probably guess the answer.

  For that matter, did Al Gore find a sympathetic media personality in order to complain about how it "offends the hell" out of him that Bush/Cheney didn't seek the previous administration's guidance? After all, Clinton/Gore had a track record of eight years of defending the nation against any further attacks from foreign terrorists. The approach of the Bush/Cheney administration should have been to go to those people who were involved in that policy, right?

• Yglesias: CIA Operatives Should Be Afraid to Break the Law
  

  Not the most repugnant, but certainly the most bizarre, aspect of the most recent twists in the torture debate has been the willingness of the press to take seriously the argument that criminals who also happen to be CIA employees should not be held account for breaking the law because holding them to account might discourage them from breaking the law in the future. To wit:

  Krongard, one of the few active or retired CIA officers with direct knowledge of the program willing to voice publicly what many officers are saying privately, said agency personnel now may back away from controversial programs that could place them in personal legal jeopardy should their work be exposed. “The old saying goes, ‘Big operation, big risk; small operation, small risk; no operation, no risk.’”

  “If you’re not in the intelligence business to be forward-leaning, you might as well not be in it,” Krongard said.

  If one of the higher-ups at CAP asked me to do something that could place me in personal legal jeopardy, I would back away from doing it. That might be unfortunate for my would-be law-breaking boss, but from a social point of view this is the whole reason we have laws. If my bosses want me to commit a crime on their behalf, we as a society want me to say “sorry, I don’t want to go to jail.” But the view of the intelligence community seems to be that it would be a huge problem if this same principle applied to the CIA. Instead, they think people should feel that there will be no consequences for following illegal orders. That way, people will be more likely to follow illegal orders in the future!

  It’s completely insane. But I think that direct quote from Krongard captures the essence of a mindset that seems dangerous prevalent in the intelligence world—the idea that breaking the law is their job, and that anyone who expects them to do otherwise is just being naive.

• Josh Marshall found this Revealing

  At Main Justice, Mary Jacoby notes that in his appearance today on Fox News Sunday, former Vice President Cheney referred to President Obama as the chief law enforcement officer of the land, with Eric Holder merely a political appointee who executes his policies.

Benen: MCCAIN ON THE TEEVEE..

When I saw that John McCain was going to be on "Face the Nation," I assumed it was simply to reflect on Ted Kennedy's legacy in the Senate. It wasn't.

Both Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Diane Feinstein (D-Calif) emphasized on Face the Nation this morning that the Attorney General's new probe into the Central Intelligence Agency's interrogation techniques is ill-timed and counter-productive.

Speaking first with host Bob Schieffer, McCain agreed with remarks made earlier in the day by former Vice President Dick Cheney, who told Fox News Sunday that the interrogation probe was a "terrible decision."

It's a very weak argument, but it nevertheless offers us another chance to ask why John McCain is making yet another Sunday morning show appearance.

For those keeping score at home, this is McCain's 12th Sunday morning appearance since President Obama's inauguration in January. That's 32 Sundays, for an average of a McCain appearance every 2.6 weeks.

Since the president took office, McCain has been on "Meet the Press" twice (July 12 and March 29), "Face the Nation" three times (August 30, April 26, and February 8), CNN's "State of the Union" twice (August 2 and February 15), "Fox News Sunday" three times (July 2, March 8, and January 25), and "This Week" twice (August 23 and May 10).

Now, this might be easier to understand if McCain played a key role in public policy right now, but he doesn't. He's just another conservative member of a 40-seat minority. McCain isn't playing a role in any important negotiations; he hasn't unveiled any significant pieces of legislation; he isn't being targeted as a swing vote on any major bills; and he's not a member of the GOP leadership. He's just another far-right senator, with precious little to say that couldn't have been predicted in advance.

Oh, and incidentally, he lost the last presidential election by a fairly wide margin. Nevertheless, McCain has still made 12 appearances in eight months.

Eric Boehlert recently checked and found that John Kerry, in the eight months after Bush's second inaugural, made three appearances on the Sunday morning shows. McCain's total, obviously, quadruples that number.

As Boehlert concluded, "[A]fter Kerry lost in November, the press walked away from him. After McCain lost in November, the press still crowds around him."