More troubling to me than the IRS scandal targeting the words Tea Party, as I wrote here is the Justice Department making a big sweep to get phone records of AP journalists. In the former, for all the serious wrong there, the IRS does have the right to look into claims of organizations applying for tax exempt status, and it doesn't appear to touch the Administration. With the AP, it comes closer to the White House, and it seems that the intent was to put a chilling impact on all journalists. Almost a warning, "Don't do this or we'll investigate you."
The Department of Justice has a right to look into what they perceive as breaches of security, and with a fairly recent law change, they even have a right to do so without getting warrants on occasion. But (though I think that that law should be changed), it's generally been done is a limited manner, seeking out specific information on a specific individual. This just threw out a net to see what they could catch. As far as it appears, no wiretaps or transcripts of conversations and emails were sought. But the impact is bad nonetheless. If you're an anonymous source who's considering talking to a reporter only on the condition that your anonymity will be protected, how likely are you to do so if you think the government might know you're talking, regardless of whether they know what you said? It certainly doesn't come as a shock that government officials hate leaks and will do anything to try and stop them. But you not only expect there to be limits, but you also hope that those less-controlling will be more attune to those limits. Again, it doesn't appear that there is anything tying this to the White House, but -- a) it shouldn't occur even at the Department of Justice, b) that's too close to the Administration, and c) there was no direct order from Henry II either when he offhandedly bemoaned, "Who wouldst rid me of this turbulent priest?", but Thomas More still ended up dead. The one interesting aspect of this particular situation, though, is the corner it paints for Republicans. Normally, they'd likely be all over President Obama for even this hint of a scandal. Except that they not only hate journalists almost as much as they hate him and have such a long history going after them, but when the original leaks occurred, they were all the president to investigate where the leaks came from. So, they're in the position of criticizing the president here and going against their true beliefs of hating the press, or criticizing reporters and supporting Barack Obama. If I had to guess, simply because they're too much on the record on this and have too long a history trying to put journalists in jail, that I think they'll fall on the side of the Administration.
0 Comments
I was reading the news yesterday and came across the following front page headline -- "Ohio Kidnapping Suspect Accused of Attacking Girlfriend."
First of all, let me begin by saying that I think the real story in this headline is not the accusation, but that the Ohio kidnapping suspect actually has a girlfriend. But that aside -- I think it's terrible if the Ohio kidnapping suspect did, in fact, attack his girlfriend. It would be abusive, unacceptable and criminal. Unfortunately, the guy is also accused of...well, three gruesome kidnappings, chaining up three girls for a decade, and multiple counts of rape of minors, with the possibility of murder, for stomach-churning starters. So, unless you're the girlfriend, it's just hard to focus attention on the fact that he attacked someone. I mean, honestly, it it wasn't for that whole stomach-churning, multiple kidnap-chaining-rape-murder of minors charges, it just doesn't seem likely that attacking one's girlfriend (despicable and shameful though it is) would have ever -- ever -- ever made frontpage national news. It's not only not what the disgusted national public cares one tiny whit about, it just (unfortunately for the girlfriend) gallingly pales compared to the far, far, far more repulsive, horrifying story. In reading that headline, I' was reminded of a one of my favorite exchanges on the Mary Tyler Moore Show. Lou's incompetent nephew has been sent out with a news camera to cover a scoop that came in about a raging fire. When they later look at the footage, they discover that the only video the young kid took was of a caterpillar crawling on the sidewalk. Lou is beside himself, trying his best to control his fury. For the life of him, he can't understand what in the world his nephew was doing taking the video of the caterpillar crawling. The exchange that followed was along the lines of -- LOU: What were you possibly thinking??? NEPHEW (all artistic and humanistic): I wanted to show the irony that just a few feet away from a raging fire, life goes on. LOU (calm, controlling himself): Well, did it ever occur to you to show the irony that just a few feet away from life going on...THERE WAS A RAGING FIRE??!!!!!!!!!!!!! For the February 18 issue of Time magazine, the publication fell all over itself and anointed a new head of the Republican Party. The man who would lead the floundering and disjointed party out of the wilderness and into the Promised Land. It would be as if they thought him Moses, but in fact they reached even higher. Marco Rubio. The Savior of the Republican Party. The freaking Savior!! The man they call right there on their cover for all to see..."the new voice of the GOP." So, you know the phrase, "Everything old is new again"? Well, it seems there's a corollary. Everything new is old again -- and really, really quickly. Just six weeks after being anointed the new voice and party savior, along comes National Review magazine, a far-right publication you would think would adore Sen. Rubio (R-FL), the favorite poster-child of the Tea Party corporations, and pile on the love. All they did, instead, is pile on. Well...gee, that's different. From Savior to Folly. In just six weeks. Yipers.
Yes, I know that Mr. Rubio had a rough, parched night when he gave the Republican response to President Obama's State of Union Address. But licking your lips, sweating bullets and grabbing for water doesn't seem enough to go from Savior to...Folly. Especially when it's the very conservative National Review, what should your home court advantage, pummeling. So, what in heaven's name did he do?? Well, in part, he did the dastardly thing and offered a plan for immigration reform. And while I know that just chaps the legs of the far right, helping the less fortunate, it really couldn't have come as a surprise to them as they have been building Marco Rubio up all these time. I mean, after all, he comes from an immigrant family, he's made his immigrant family part of his campaign story since he's run for office, and it's his immigrant background which, in large part, helped make him -- The Republican Savior. So, even if conservatives don't like that he's involving himself in immigration, you'd think that this is one "bad issue" to them that they could cut some slack on. But prominent as immigration is, as as much as it's a major explanation Mr. Rubio has fallen from Far Right Grace, I don't think it's the real reason. I think it's because he's not Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is so far to the right that he makes Mario Rubio look almost moderate. The far right really adores Ted Cruz, no matter how loony, out of control, and mean-spirited a Red-baiting reincarnation he is of Joseph McCarthy. Just look at what the previous issue of National Review has -- a love letter to Ted Cruz promoting him for president, titled "Cruz 2016." Mario Rubio stands in the way of that. So, if the National Review wants Ted Cruz to be president, they've got to tear town Mario Rubio. Mind you, horrible and dangerous and foolish and empty and inexperienced as Ted Cruz is, I think Democrats actually owe the National Review a big thanks. I think Mario Rubio is an empty shirt and deeply far right -- but I also have long thought that he is Republican threat, for being young, appealing and able to reach to some Hispanics. (Though Cubans and Mexicans are two different worlds.) Ted Cruz -- far worse a politician and, I think, human, than Mario Rubio is -- has a far, far smaller chance to be president. Not only is his base SO far to the right that it would hard to attract most of the country...but...well, he's ineligible to be president. He was born in Canada and lived there for the first four years of his life. So, if the far right want to take down Mario Rubio on behalf of a guy who would seem to, literally, have no constitutional chance to be president, then a doff o' the cap to the National Review. How the Mini have fallen. In just six weeks. "You can insult us all you want, Mr. O'Reilly, about television ratings and you'll be right that your ratings are bigger for now and maybe forever. You are the undisputed champion. But even if no one watches us at all, except my mom and my girlfriend and people who forgot to turn off the television after Keith, you are still wrong on what really matters, and that would be the facts, your Highness." -- Rachel Maddow, responding to Bill O'Reilly, July 22, 2010 Okay, yes, the quote is old, but, man, it's just too good. It's still Quote of the Day -- the day is just three years ago. It all came about because Ms. Maddow had made a critical report on Fox News cooking the fact, and Bill O'Reilly responded about kicking MSNBC's butt. And Rachel Maddow replied the night after. But...well, I don't have much to add that is nearly as good as the actual video that dives into the pool so much deeper. Few people can be as warmly and cheerfully and pointedly and factually and hilariously ridiculing as Rachel Maddow. Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy While most coverage of the White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday has focused on the comedy monologues by President Obama and Conan O'Brien, I thought it would be worthwhile posting something else from the evening that got a lot less coverage. It's a video that kicked off the evening -- a parody of the Netflix series, House of Cards (adapted from the BBC series). In it, Kevin Spacey re-created his role as Frank Underwood, the Democratic House Minority Whip from South Carolina. The machinations he's involved with here are real-life politicians and press trying to score tickets and get the best seating at the event. (The first person you see with him is Ed Henry of Fox News, who currently services as head of the White House Correspondents Association. The video, House of Nerds, isn't wildly funny, though great fun to see all the participants. By the way, related to this, I had put CNN on to watch the event, and eventually just recorded their broadcast and fast-forwarded through later. Their coverage was ghastly. Some fatuous in-studio guy just yammering, and gushing over how hot Sofia Vergara looked, and talking with two women at the event who just blathered. (One was their “entertainment correspondent,” Brianna something.) This went on for probably almost an hour! It made the E! Entertainment channel look in-depth by comparison. Next year, I'm sticking with CSPAN... Anyway, here's the video. "Fox News," your first choice in accurate news, or something like that, had a major scoop yesterday when it reported on the identity of the Boston bomber suspect. No, no, it's not who you think, but the real bomber. Hey, this is "Fox News." They report, we get to decide. How cool is that?! Check out the black Closed-Caption scroll just below the center of the screen. Yes, it's true, "Fox News" reported that actress Zooey Deschanel was the Boston bomber! Given that her TV series, New Girl, is on Fox, maybe this is just the way of telling the star that her show is cancelled. On the other hand, she might like that they referred to her as 19-years old. Hey, at least they got the story first! Accuracy is secondary. Besides, just be glad that they didn't identify the sibling partner who was killed by police as her sister, Emily. Yes, yes, I know that mistakes get made, especially tech mistakes. It happens, though not seemingly with the regularity as on "Fox News." But mistakes aside, seriously, don't they have a proof-reader?? Then again, this is "Fox News," where facts don't matter. (I believe that is their new motto.) So, why bother with proof-readers? What would be the point? (By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if the writers of New Girl somehow work some sort of homage of this into a script next year.) Here is Zooey Deschanel's Twitter response, followed by that of the journalist who initially discovered Fox's massive gaff. Fox News: We Report. You Decide.
Fair enough. I've decided. You're crass, thoughtless, and incompetent, and the only thing you have in common with "news" is that you want to make it. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|