Profiles in Turdage

Plum Line's Greg Sargent elicits George Stephanopoulos' response to criticism over his questioning the President about comments made by Sarah Palin that compared his nuclear policy to a child asking to be beaten up:

"Whatever you think of Sarah Palin, she’s a former VP candidate — and a potential challenger to President Obama — with a strong following in the GOP. She made a pointed critique of a new Presidential policy. By getting the President’s response, I was doing my job."

First of all, here's the "pointed critique" in question:

"It's kinda like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me.'"

That is what Stephonopoulos, when finding himself in a one-on-one interview with the most powerful man in the world, decided to put on the short list of matters to be addressed.

Think about that:

It is Stephanopoulos' stated understanding that it is his job (as a "journalist," presumably) to solicit the President of the United States' response to what can be charitably described as an ignorant, juvenile attack from an individual with no background, whatsoever, on the policy issues at hand.

And the worst part is, he's probably right.

It is no longer the journalist's job to take a public figure's statements, see how they comport with objective facts, and follow up for an explanation if they fail to do so. The "journalist's" job is simply to pass claims along, uncritically, and, when given the opportunity (as Stephanopoulos was here) to effectively become one of the kids on Palin's imaginary playground, breathlessly sharing overheard insults in the hopes of instigating a fight.

Stephanopoulos--and Sargent, alike--justify this decision in the same, profoundly cowardly way: Palin is popular, therefore her views matter. No effort, whatsoever, is made to claim that this line of questioning was acceptable because she has relevant policy experience or even that her observation is correct, and for good reason: she doesn't and it's not.

While their "popular = newsworthy" argument might explain repeating Palin's childish attacks, it's the unspoken--but clearly evident--way that rule actually works in practice that's far more damaging: Popularity isn't just a standard, it's the only standard, utterly supplanting things like "accuracy." In the field of stenographic journalism, as practiced by Stephanopoulos and defended by Sargent, no matter how asinine or factually bereft the claim, it's presented as if it merits equal weight to the opposing view.

It's this shoulder-shrugging "What can you do? Some say this, some say that?" mentality and the resultant abdication of journalistic responsibility that keeps the decayed corpses of discredited zombie memes (Death Panels, Socialist takeovers, etc.) shambling their way through our public discourse.

The desperate lies of Johnnie Mac

Once again, "Straight Talk" gets thrown under the Express:

Couric: Senator McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane (phonetic) was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

Shorter John McCain: "Pardon me while I lie out my ass, Katie."

He's got some gall opening with a comment about "false depictions" when there isn't a shred of truth to anything McCain says, here. In order to manufacture an attack, he completely reinvents the framing of Couric's question to claim that Obama gave no credit to U.S. forces and that isn't even the real whopper.

It's "a matter of history" that The Glorious Surge began the Anbar Awakening?

Interesting observation, considering that said surge didn't even begin until the Sunnis had already been working towards security goals for months. I'd be curious to find out exactly what history ol' Johnnie is going by. Perhaps the same one where Iraq and Pakistan are neighbors.

Despite this fundamental error/egregious lie, CBS does their best to perpetuate McCain's revisionist history. First, the subheader is priceless:

"Senator Tells Katie Couric Obama Does Not Understand Challenges The U.S. Faces In Iraq"

Of course, since John McCain is so deeply experienced in matters of foreign policy, he is the one who "understands," even when he clearly doesn't.

Worse, CBS chose not to air that portion of the interview on their broadcast, (though it is available on their website, if you read through the entire transcript or watch the 14 minute video clip). After his inability to tell the difference between Sunni and Shia, his repeated Czechoslovakia references, and hot on the heels of his Iraq/Pakistan border blunder, CBS conveniently omits perhaps the most glaring "McCain Moment," yet. No slip of the tongue or outdated reference, here. This is, at the very least, a total lack of understanding, not only of timing, but the basics of how events transpired in the first place.

Obama would be pilloried for his political naïvety for making such a claim. Johnny Cakes will likely just get another box of doughnuts from his adoring stenographer friends in the press pool.

EDIT:

Countdown busts CBS here:




FURTHER EDIT: And here's CBS' actual hackery--about :40 in, after the Olbermann intro (Courtesy Jed Report):

The McCain - McCain Debates

Indeedy.



I have to say, The Jed Report is turning into one of my favorite reads. There is no more effective take-down than the sort seen above. Despite the fact that everything these candidates do is on tape and, likelier than not, readily available on the web for anyone to find, it speaks volumes that no "established media" types take the time to check out the veracity of these sweeping--and, all too frequently in the case of McCranky--indignant claims. A guy with a youtube account and some half-assed video editing capability is doing more legitimate journalism than most outlets' Washington bureaus, combined.

Court stenographers, one and all.