Media postsSunday May 14, 2017
OK, Can We Impeach NPR's Mara Liasson Then?
Here's a dialogue about the past week in politics between NPR's “Weekend Edition” host Lulu Garcia-Navarro and NPR National Political Correspondent Mara Liasson, which ran this morning:
Garcia-Navarro: What about the left? I see a whole political spectrum mobilized by Comey's firing. You know, you look on social media and cable news, they're calling for Trump's impeachment. What do you think when you hear calls like that? Is it feasible?
Liasson: No. I don't. I think there's a lot of magical thinking on both ends of the political spectrum. You know, his supporters think he's rewritten the rules, and they'll tell me, “It doesn't matter what he does, it doesn't matter what his approval ratings are.” Remember during the campaign he said he could stand on 5th Avenue and shoot someone and not lose any voters. On the left, I think they are in the grip—many people, critics of him—are in the grip of this delusion that he's going to be impeached, or that we're in a full-fledged constitutional crisis. So this is a phenomenon of our very tribalized politics.
I can't imagine a more blasé response from a political reporter to an unprecedented week in politics.
Reminder: This week, the president of the United States fired the director of the FBI, who was in the midst of investigating his presidential campaign. According to initial reports, the president did this because of the director's handling of an unrelated matter, and he did it only upon the recommendation of the attorney general and assistant attorney general. A day later, the president admitted on television, no, it was his decision, and that he fired the FBI director because of the investigation into Russian ties—which he feels are baseless. It's also been revealed that in January the president demanded the FBI director swear loyalty to him rather than to the Constitution. Later, the president tweeted a veiled threat to the FBI director if he should leak any information.
I could go on. Even The National Review (The National Review, Liasson) concludes there are only three reasons for James Comey's firing:
- the initial stated one (Clinton, emails)
- the Russia investigation, because POTUS feels it's baseless
- the Russia investigation, because it's not baseless
TNR disimisses 1) as both absurd and contradicted by POTUS, feels 2) is likely, but is open to 3).
The third one is definitely obstruction of justice, which is an impeachable offense. My question: Is 2) obstruction of justice as well? I'm looking for someone to answer that. Maybe a national political correspondent for a prestigious radio network.
But here's where Liasson really pissed me off:
Liasson: I talked to a conservative yesterday who accused the media of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” because CNN was focusing on the fact that Trump gets two scoops of ice cream when everyone else gets one at the White House. So I think that Trump is a divisive figure, and he's divided America even more.
Garcia-Navarro (amused): Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Liasson: Well, there was also Obama Derangement Syndrome on the right! So this is a real phenomenon, unfortunately, of our politics today.
Really? Obama insures millions, kills Osama bin Laden, opens up Cuba, tries to extricate U.S. ground troops from foreign wars, conducts himself with civility and propriety ... and the right-wing froths at the mouth. Trump tries to take away insurance from millions in favor of a tax break for the uber-wealthy, appoints dept. heads who despise their departments, enacts unconstitutional executive orders, signs more executive orders in his first 100 days than any president ever, is chiefly advised by his daughter and son-in-law as well as people tinged with anti-Semitic ties, blames everyone but himself, and fires the FBI director investigating him ... and the left-wing calls for impeachment. Can you spot the difference? It's a little easier than “Where's Waldo?” but I don't know if Liasson can see it.
The goal should be to strive for objectivity without descending into stupidity. Liasson, and most of NPR, are failing at this.
NPR: Drug Addicts Attack NJ Rep Whose Daughter Died at Age 11
Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) is the congressman who resurrected the repeal/replace Obamacare bill with the so-called “MacArthur amendment.” This is what the New York Times editorial board had to say about it:
The original Trumpcare bill, whose spectacular failure embarrassed the White House, had a public approval rating of just 17 percent because it would have taken health insurance away from 24 million Americans, many of them poor, sick and elderly. The new version would further tighten the screws on vulnerable Americans by letting insurance companies charge older people and people with pre-existing conditions much higher premiums than they charge younger and healthier people. It would also give insurers the freedom not to cover essential health services like maternity care and cancer treatment.
Yesterday, Rep. MacArthur met his constituents in a town hall in Willingboro, NJ, and NPR was there with him. In more ways than one. Their report on Morning Edition evinced much sympathy for the millionaire businessman and barely any for the citizens he's supposed to be representing—many of whom will lose health care if his amended bill makes it through the U.S. Senate.
While we hear some of the back-and-forth, at one point reporter Scott Detrow feels he has to “walk us through” the situation. He tells us, doesn't let us hear it, but tells us, that MacArthur talked about his daughter who died at the age of 11, then adds, “and the crowd responded by jeering and heckling him.”
We get the aftermath of this, with MacArthur admonishing the crowd, but not the actual jeering and heckling. I'm not sure why. Was it the whole crowd jeering him? Or a few people? In what context did MacArthur bring up his daughter?
Meanwhile, the main constituent we do hear from, who is complaining about losing her coverage, is a drug addict. I shit you not.
Basically on NPR, it's: a man who lost his 11-year-old daughter vs. a drug addict. Those are the battle lines. Which side are you on?
When his report was finally over, we got this back-and-forth with host Rachel Martin:
Rachel: Oh, Scott. That was intense.
Scott: You get that for about five hours.
Rachel: So was MacArthur just kind of standing there on his own? Was anyone in the room defending him?
Scott: Not too many people. This was one of the more Democratic parts of his district, and that's something he pointed out. ... But he did have some backers in the room, including Loretta Hence.
Loretta: I'm a little bit taken back. It's such a hostile crowd. And I got irritated with some of the people because they wouldn't give him a chance to talk.
Scott: You know, she wanted to hear what Congressman MacArthur had to say at the meeting, and she felt like the people in the room didn't want to hear what he had to say, they just wanted to yell at him? And i can tell you, that did seem to be the case with a lot of people in the room. It was more about getting in his face and pushing back rather than having a conversation. That's why MacArthur I think got frustrated.
Poor man. All he wants to do, after all, is not appoint a special prosecutor in the Comey firing and taking away health care from 24 million people. How awful that the drug addicts of New Jersey are preventing him from doing both. But thank god NPR is there to help him out.
That NPR Report on Northerners Flying the Confederate Flag
It's took more than a minute into their nearly four-minute piece on northerners flying the Confederate flag before NPR brought up race.
During that time, two white Iowans who display the flag talk about their reasons for doing so: their affinity with the 1860s Southern cause. Says one:
Those people were fighting for states' rights, and the freedom to make their own way and to choose their own way against a tyrannical federal government.
Says the other:
They wanted their independence, they wanted a smaller government. I find that a lot in people. It's just that rebelliousness.
As for slavery? Or racism? Here's the first one again:
I dismiss it, because I'm not racist whatsoever. That flag doesn't mean that to me.
“But it does for many others,” adds reporter Sarah McCammon, who interviews a professor of history on the topic. But that's about the only clarifcation that's made. One side says this, the other side says that. Who knows where the truth lies?
Compounding the matter, the first guy also tells NPR his interest in “Civil War history and symbols deepened during the Obama administration, when he felt President Obama was overstepping his executive authority.” OK. How did Obama do that? Was it executive orders? Even though Obama signed fewer EOs than George W. Bush or Clinton? And Trump signed more in his first 100 days than any president ever? Can NPR give us (or him) those numbers? Of course not. Let the old men continue with their FOX News delusion. Right-wing media propagandizes, mainstream media simply reports on the result. And throws up its hands.
I'm so sick of this type of reporting. These guys can say the Confederate flag doesn't mean racism to them, but sorry, that's what it means. It's like saying the Swastika represents “nationalism.” Sure. A few other things, too.
NPR's piece does end with this chilling bit of information: In 2015, after Dylann Roof killed nine black people in a church in Charleston, S.C., one Confederate memorabilia outlet “saw a 10-fold spike” in sales.
Small government proponents, no doubt.
FURTHER READING: “Why the Confederate Flag Made a 20th Century Comeback,” from National Geographic.
Just another white man wanting his independence.
Failure of the Press During the Blacklist and Beyond
Glenn Frankel's book, “High Noon: The Hollywood Blacklist and the Making of an American Classic,” is a good reminder of all of the forces that went into ruining peoples' lives during the blacklist. McCarthy, who gave his name to the era, actually came around relatively late in the process. The big early guns were, in no order of importance, the FBI, HUAC, the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, the studio moguls, business interests, the Chamber of Commerce, and the usual array of near-fascistic right-wingers and bigots.
Oh, and the press:
The daily press tended to report [HUAC hearings] uncritically. The allegations of “friendly witnesses” like Sterling Hayden were repeated without question or rebuttal. Those who were named as Communists were not contacted by reporters and given the opportunity to respond. There were virtually no articles that questioned the committee's methods. The committee provided a libel-proof forum for accusations of subversion against named individuals who were not permitted to cross-examine their accusers. “The press does not merely mirror or report the hearing; it is an indispensable part of it—like a loudspeaker on a high-fidelity sound system,” wrote HUAC critic Frank J. Donner.
Media heroes were few:
Alan Barth, editorial page editor of the Washington Post, was one of the few mainstream journalists to object to this perversion of the press's role of government watchdog. “The tradition of objectivity ... has operated in this context to make the press an instrument of those seeking to inflict punishment by publicity,” he wrote. “Allegations that would otherwise be ignored ... as groundless and libelous are blown up on front pages and given a significance out of all relation to their intrinsic merit after they have been made before a committee of Congress.”
Imagine that: groundless accusations being blown up by the mainstream media. So glad we've matured past such a barbaric time.
Bye Bye, Bill
Yeah, you can shut up now.
And just like that, Bill O'Reilly's gone from Fox News. I assumed he would never go. Like asthma or acid reflux.
As Capone with taxes, O'Reilly was undone not by his deeper crimes (lying, bullying, using patriotism to bring out the worst in scoundrel America) but by his awful, loutish behavior around women. It was less than three weeks ago, April 1st of all days, that The New York Times ran their in-depth feature on O'Reilly “thriving” despite the numerous sexual harassments suits against him. They tallied up five, added details, and I seriously thought that would be the end of it. We elected a man president of the United States who's done worse. But then the calls for boycotts of his show. And they stuck. They worked. They actually worked. Alex Wagner has an interesting piece over at The Atlantic about how O'Reilly can blame Trump for all of this. If Trump hadn't arrived in the awful, lying, sexual harassing manner he did, classless and idiotic, stupeflyingly oblivious to how hated he is around the world, most folks would be carrying on as normal. Now they're riled up. Women especially. Thank god.
There were calls for boycotts, they worked, and advertisers fled in droves. But I still thought he would stick. He was Fox's most popular guy. He was the John Wayne of their sad little studio: tall and craggy-faced and sometimes calm but mostly angry. He seethed with righteous, racist anger. He was less the benevolent Wayne in “Liberty Valance” than the awful Wayne in “The Searchers” or “Red River.” Now what do they got? Hannity? He's the Rory Calhoun of their sad little studio. Tucker Carlson? He's Jeffrey Hunter.
So both O'Reilly and Ailes were undone the same way. Not really a shocker. You hire a bunch of ruthless, domineering, craggy-faced guys, pair them with hot young things, sprinkle over everything a sense that America's best days were pre-civil rights and pre-feminism, when white men were men and all women were sex objects, well, don't be surprised at what grows in that awful, backward experiment.
According to Joe Muto in his insider look at Fox News, “An Atheist in the FOX Hole,” O'Reilly always asked, “So who's the villain in the story?” To get the outrage, you needed the target: “A name and preferably a photo that could be splashed onscreen for the host to point to and say, This is the bad guy. This is the guy hurting you.”
So who's the villain in the story? The one Bill O'Reilly least expected.
- Stephen Colbert calls upon “Stephen Colbert” to say good-bye to Papa Bear.
- In the wake of the allegations, Jia Tolentino reads Bill O'Reilly's 1998 novel ... about a TV newsman who commits murders after being fired.
- The Daily Show's Trevor Noah says goodbye with some pretty angry, racist shit O'Reilly spewed over the years.
- Randy Rainbow parodies the Jerome Kern/Oscar Hammerstein song “Just My Bill” with some of those same O'Reilly rants.
- Finally, Stephen Colbert again, reeling, and reading from that '98 novel.