Bob Schieffer - Part-Time Journalist or Full-Time Courtier?

Magic Lantern Slide of Dog Jumping Through a Hoop

 (National Media Museum 1830)

Well it looks like Bob Schieffer of CBS is at it again. Back in 2010 I posted a piece about him where he went after the Salahi's for crashing a White House party. He didn't want to investigate the Bush administration torture program but he got all indignant about the Salahi's crashing a White House party. He wanted no accountability for war criminals but he wanted to throw the book at the Party crashers for their hideous crime.

Now he has focused his wrath on yet another enemy of the state by going after Edward Snowden, the whistle-blower who has exposed government wrongdoing in the illegal NSA spying scandal.


 


Our "serious" journalist, Bob Schieffer tells his viewers:

"I like people who are willing to stand up to the government. As a reporter, it's my job to do that from time to time."

From time to time, Bob? Wow, you're just a part-timer? Shouldn't that be your job all of the time? Bob then goes on to say:

Some of the people I admire most are in the government

What? Where did that come from? That's oddly out of place in the discussion, isn't it? Well then again, maybe it's not. I submit that this oddly placed statement actually let's us know the truth about Bob's kind of journalism. His admiration for the people in government that he's so anxious to get on the record may help explain why he only stands up to government from time to time. You see in Bob's world, what David Sirota calls "Permanent Washington," you defend others who are also a part of permanent Washington. A long time ago this would have been called circling the wagons.  When anyone dares to challenge the narrative created and nurtured by permanent Washington insiders they all circle the wagons to protect each other by attacking the person or persons who have the audacity to challenge their rule. It's how they turn an almost certain defeat on the merits into a victory through propaganda. They are especially incensed when the challenger is someone they consider beneath them. You know, someone who didn't go to the right schools and get the right piece of paper, etc. 

Bob then goes on to wax poetic about giants in the Civil rights movement to try to use their stature to raise his own.

"Men and women who led the civil rights movement - Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr. - they are true heroes".

Now who could argue with that? But what Bob fails to remember or has conveniently forgotten is that Martin Luther King, Jr. was himself spied upon by the FBI. I hardly think Martin Luther King, Jr., were he alive today, would be on Bob's side for obvious reasons.

Bob also tries to pretend that he's really not defending what the government has done:

Schieffer noted that his criticism of Snowden did not mean that he approved of the programs that he helped reveal to the public, saying "I don’t know yet if the government has over-reached since 9/11 to reinforce our defenses, and we need to find out.

Bob says we need to find out if the government has over-reached. Ok Bob, put your part-time journalist hat on and start pressuring some of those people in government who you admire so much and find out what in the world they are doing. After all isn't that what journalists are supposed to do? Maybe if you and others like you were actually doing your  job by speaking truth to power, maybe people like Mr. Snowden wouldn't have to risk their lives to become whistle-blowers. 

But Bob isn't really interested in investigating this story.  That self-serving comment he made is just for show. We know this because Bob also said this in his commentary:

"I think what we have in Edward Snowden is just a narcissistic young man who has decided he is smarter than the rest of us. I don’t know what he is beyond that, but he is no hero. If he has a valid point—and I’m not even sure he does—he would greatly help his cause by voluntarily coming home to face the consequences."

So after Bob tells us how we need to find out if the government over-reached he then tells us he isn't even sure Mr. Snowden has a valid point by showing all Americans what their government is doing. What? For crying out loud Bob if you feel like this I'm not very confident that you really are interested in getting to the bottom of this NSA spying program any more than you were interested in getting to the bottom of the Bush era torture program. 

Face it Bob, you aren't even a part-time journalist, are you? You are just another Washington courtier who sucks up to power by doing it's dirty work. Admit it, the whole purpose of your commentary was to attack the whistle-blower, Edward Snowden, who is doing the job you should be doing by holding the friends you admire so much accountable for their bad deeds. The rest of your commentary, that is wrapped around this attack of Mr. Snowden, is mere  camouflage to fool the uninformed.

What About the Rule of Law?

The most recent USA/Gallup survey in February, 2009, that polled Americans about their views concerning whether they favored investigations into torture allegations elicited the following response:

39% favor criminal investigation

24% favor an independent panel

34% don't want anything

3% had no opinion

Because so many Americans want an investigation into the well documented allegations of Bush administration torture and the fact that the biggest share of those people favor a criminal investigation, it was not surprising to see a number of questions about torture appear in this past Friday's Washington Post chat with David Broder. 

A description about David Broder on the Post Writers Group website says:

..."while the journalistic pack is pestering a flack, Broder is out with the people; no one gets a better sense of the pulse of American opinion."

So what happens when you have a chat between the public and a journalist, who's bio makes the claim that he's in tune with the public? What happens when that "in tune" journalist meets a public that overwhelmingly favors investigations into the Bush administration torture allegations and where 39% of the 63% who favor investigations, favors criminal investigations?

Sadly, this is what you get from Broder:

David S. Broder: I'm not familiar with what the Brits are doing or if they have their own Abu Ghraibs to investigate. But I understand the reluctance to open a wide-ranging probe of past practices. It seems to me we are better off focusing on cleaning up the policies and practices for the future than trying to settle scores for past actions

David S. Broder: Yours is a perfectly legitimate point of view. But I have become convinced that there is not much learning that takes place from one administration to the next; otherwise, we would not have repeated scandals and coverups in Washington. So I think we're better off putting our focus on the policies (and people) a new president is putting into place.

David S. Broder: Again, I understand and acknowledge the desire to punish wrongdoers and hold people accountable. But in the current circumstances, I think both the White House and the Justice Department have bigger fish to fry.

David S. Broder: I think the "truth commission" idea of Senator Leahy is a very promising one, provided procedures were fair and the duration reasonable.

David S. Broder: Your motives may be pure; I accept that you simply want to know the truth and let the chips fall where they may. But I run into a lot of people here who really want to see Bush--or, even better, Cheney--standing in the dock, struggling to stay out of the slammer. I remain of the view that we have better things to do.

Alexandria VA: Isn't it ironic that about 3 questions so far have been about "the rule of law" and that Bush and his people should have been investigated and punished? How come no one seems to remember that in 2001, President Bush wanted to swipe the table clean in spite of the massive push to go after Bill Clinton for the alledged selling off of pardons? Isn't it just more likely that no incoming administration wants to be dragged down into the bad behavior of the former presidents but go forward to set their new agenda?

David S. Broder: Yes. I think you've got it exactly right.

While I've  known for a long time that David Broder values bi-partisanship over everything else I was actually shocked by his utter lack of knowledge in these exhanges and his extreme resistance to holding those who authorized torture accountable for their crimes. Evidently the "Dean of Washington journalists" isn't even aware of the most basic of information reported about the torture of  prisoners or he just doesn't care. Actually I find it quite stunning that the readers appear to be far more informed than the "journalist" - check out their excellent questions. After reading these exchanges you get the impression that once David Broder saw the Abu Ghraib story he was permanently frozen in time - mentally shut down - no longer able to see or hear anything else that was reported beyond the initial Abu Ghraib story or maybe it was just that he no longer wanted to know.

How can you be a journalist working at one of the major newspapers in the country and appear to be so ignorant of the biggest story to come along since Watergate? How can you call yourself a journalist and not even want to have an investigation into these serious allegations unless they fit into some artificial timeframe that meets your defintion of  a "reasonable duration"? What does that even mean? And how can you call yourself a journalist if you think just because some people don't have a "pure motive" when they call for prosecution that we shouldn't follow the rule of law? What does a person's motive have to do with whether there is a legitimate reason for investigation and prosecution? And finally, how could a journalist, who's actually read the ICRC report, say "amen" to this person's comment?

Houston TX: Do you remember that during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, former president Gerald Ford said that in hindsight, he was correct in giving Nixon the pardon? So with New York, and Gaitersburg, and Franconia wanting the head of President Bush, are they really ready to have Obama's first term sidelined by the TV trials of George W. Bush, and all those naughty Republicans day afte day?

David S. Broder: Amen. And goodbye for today. I'm going back to work. Enjoyed the conversation as always.

Most of the people in the chat who asked questions about torture clearly favored criminal prosecutions just like those Americans in the USA/Gallup poll favored criminal prosecutions. But the bio about David Broder was way off the mark. It's pretty clear that Broder doesn't have a clue about what the public wants and quite frankly, it's pretty apparent from this chat that Broder either doesn't have a clue about the facts that have been reported about the torture story or he just doesn't care and that's just unacceptable for a person claiming to be a journalist.

David Broder talks about "Settling Scores" - "Pure Motives" -"Bigger Fish to Fry" - "Better Things to Do" in an effort to distract us and possibly himself from focusing on the real issues at hand:  the failure of our government to follow the rule of law when they authorized illegal torture, the failure of our Justice Department to investigate clear crimes and our collective failure to challenge the cover-up of these crimes. 

For people like "journalist," David Broder,  evidently the most important thing is, not finding out the truth about serious crimes committed in our names but, making sure that the cover-up of those crimes continues so that the new president's "bi-partisan" agenda isn't inconvenienced by the messy business of protecting and defending our democracy. With this kind of status quo protecting mindset I doubt very seriously  if Broder will ever get nominated, much less win another Pulitizer for writing commentary, like he did back in the 1970s. 

**While reading digby's Hullaballo blog  tonight I clicked on a link that took me to  Greg Sargent's blog. And lo and behold there was a post talking about Broder. Evidently other people were amazed at the Broder chat on Friday too. Check it out.

Updated: 4/13/09

torture

Clark & Taguba - A Media Tale of Two Generals

As we all know everyone in the media seems to have an opinion about General Wes Clark's remarks about McCain when Clark appeared on Face the Nation this past Sunday. 

"I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark told Bob Schieffer.

We've had multiple stories, blog posts and chats in the major newspapers and the cable folks can't seem to get enough of the story. The pundits are all drooling over the prospect of having another crack at opining about Clark's comments - McCain's response - Obama's reponse - McCain's response to Obama's response, yada, yada, yada. Why even Howie Kurtz, the supposed media critic for the Washington Post, got into the act when he wrote his own column about Clark. 

The majority of the media discussion seems to imply that Clark was at fault. According to some of the narratives, it was even implied that Clark was somehow guilty of dissing the suffering that McCain experienced as a POW even though Clark praised McCain's service and called him a hero for the torture he endured as a POW. Now I have an opinion on the Clark comments but for the purpose of this diary it's irrelevant because this diary is about a media tale of two generals.

Unlike General Clark, the second general in our tale got very little coverage in the media for his comments. Maj. General Anthony Taguba didn't make his comments on a talkshow. He didn't even say them out loud. He wrote a preface to a report by Physicians for Human Rights called Broken Laws, Broken Lives. Included in that preface were these words by General Taguba:

This report tells the largely untold human story of what happened to detainees in our custody when the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture. This story is not only written in words: It is scrawled for the rest of these individuals’ lives on their bodies and minds. Our national honor is stained by the indignity and inhumane treatment these men received from their captors.

He also used words like wanton cruelty, willful infliction of harm and finally he said this:

...there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.

The media isn't quite as taken with Gen. Taguba as they are with Gen. Clark. The pundits aren't lined up to opine on Taguba's remarks and Howie Kurtz didn't write about the media's coverage or even their lack of coverage. In fact, some of you might not have even heard about what General Taguba said because it disappeared pretty quickly from the media, if it was covered at all (there were a few notable exceptions). I did a quick check on the Washington Post website and they only had four entries for "Taguba" show up while using their search tool. Three of the four pieces that talked about General Taguba appeared in Dan Froomkin's blog. Mr. Froomkin even had one blog entry with the appropriate headline: 

General Accuses WH of War Crimes

Now I may not be a journalist but even I know that it's not every day that you have a former Maj. General in the Bush administration, who actually conducted the first Abu Ghraib investigation, come forward and accuse the WH of war crimes. And you'd think that for such an unprecedented story like this that contained such a serious charge that it would be a front page story for sure. In fact you'd probably think that such a story would even include side stories to go along with the main story. But, if you thought any of that would happen you'd be wrong, at least if you were reading the Washington Post. The Post had no front page story about General Taguba and his charge of war crimes. They didn't have an A2, A3, A4, A5 or even an A6 story.  

The fourth Washington Post Taguba reference that turned up in my search was for a story by Joby Warrick. The Warrick story appeared on page A7 of the Post but the title on the story didn't mention General Taguba. It didn't even mention war crimes like the Froomkin blog title accurately described. In fact, if you were looking for the Taguba story on June 19, 2008, as I was that day, you might have missed it. The Warrick piece, which was the only non-blog piece about Taguba that I could find in the Post (if someone knows of another please let us know), was called:  

Exams Back Up Reports of Detainee Abuse, Group Says

Not exactly a sizzling headline for such a dramatic story, is it? Like the bland headline above, the actual Warrick story never mentioned the extraordinary charge of war crimes made by Taguba. The closest Warrick ever got to mentioning war crimes was when he said this:

In a statement accompanying the report, retired Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who led the Army's first official investigation on Abu Ghraib, said the new evidence suggested a "systematic regime of torture" inside U.S.-run detention camps.

Now it's pretty clear from reading General Taguba's actual words that he did more than just suggest torture, he said there was no doubt. But you wouldn't know that from reading the Warrick story (In fairness it should be noted that while I reference the Post in this diary they were by no means the only media outlet to downplay this explosive story).  

Most of us don't really need any more examples to know how far our media has strayed from it's traditional role of informing the public and acting as the public's watchdog because we've already seen far too many examples of that fact. But for me, A Media Tale of Two Generals is about a subject far too important for me to let it go without comment.

So while Gen. Clark, is getting unwarranted coverage from the media for comments that will probably be forgotten long before the election, the same media is dissing the importance of Gen. Taguba's comments, by downplaying or not even covering his accusation that the Bush administration committed war crimes when they systematically tortured their prisoners. Taguba's comments are not just some campaign banter but serious charges against the Bush administration that deserve far more coverage than they've been given so far. The next time you are tempted to post a comment on a MSM website about General Clark's remarks about McCain, I hope you will remember A Media Tale of Two Generals and tell the media that they are covering the wrong general. You can then explain to them that it's General Taguba and not General Clark who made the kind of important, history making comments that deserve the scrutiny of the press.

This was originally published on Daily Kos 7/3/08

Technorati Profile