The trial of Scooter Libby is providing some pretty revealing insight into the mindset of the Washington press. This Sunday's Meet the Press featured an unabashed series of self-glorifications that make it no wonder the general public is turning elsewhere to get its news. The pedestal that the press places itself upon has grown so high now that they appear to believe themselves, at last, above the law.
Tim Russert’s disastrous dance with Libby attorney Theodore Wells last week left him gun-shy enough to allow Howard Kurtz to frame the discussion. Kurtz began by expressing sympathy for Russert’s position on the witness stand, describing Russert as ‘cautious, hesitant, as anybody would be.’ There was no criticism of Russert’s failed memory, no suggestion of the responsibility of a journalist whose statements may end up sending a man to prison. Instead, Kurtz chastised those outside the beltway that have become deluded with the idea that the Washington press is in fact part of the political game:
"And I think that the people out there who don’t follow this all that closely think that we have become part of the club, too much the insiders. And that is a problem for journalism."
Listen closely to what Kurtz doesn’t say- he doesn’t say that becoming ‘part of the club’ is a problem for journalism. He says that the misconception on the part of those out of the loop that journalists have become part of the club is a problem for journalism. So apparently all they have to do is let us all know the truth, and the problem disappears. Precise work from the author of a book called Spin Cycle.
Later, the talking stick is passed to David Broder. Broder is deeply concerned with the fact that government officials have started using the poor unknowing saints of the press to carry out their dirty work. Again no self-reflection, no call for journalists to be responsible for their actions. Just another pained attempt to deflect attention from the spectacle of media self-immolation that has begun with this trial.
The coups-de-grace comes from PBS’s Gwen Ifill. Ifill describes the ‘collective nervous breakdown’ of the press over the Libby trial, and how concerned journalists are that they may one day be subjected to scrutiny in a court of law. She tells of journalists who are beginning to destroy their notes in order to prevent their exposure in future legal proceedings, as if this is an indicator of how oppressed the poor media has become by the evil judicial system in America. Ifill does not consider the near-lawlessness of her statements, as what she is describing amounts to the destruction of evidence for future cases, evidence that may determine whether or not someone rots in jail for a crime those notes may have exonerated them from. Her cavalier attitude toward the civic responsibility of journalists seems the height of audacity, until she concludes with this:
"And I don’t know what kind of implication that has for the business, what kind of implication that even has, not to make it too big a point, but for the history books."
The troubling absurdity of this dialog is tempered, fortunately, by what is starting to look like come-uppance on a grand scale. As a New York Times reporter said to me toward the end of Russert’s testimony last Thursday, “This is not good for journalists.”
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The telling thing about this
February 12, 2007 - 22:14 ET by Conservative in the ArtsThe telling thing about this case is this: A New York Times reporter would never go to jail to protect the Bush admin.
NewsBusters is my raison d'
February 12, 2007 - 22:28 ET by RDWNewsBusters is my raison d'être and a foil for the decerning KNOW YOUR (NY) TIMES, check your ethics at the door, and only your ideology counts; run of the mill liberal reporter. Do I exagerate?
Kurtz has it backwards
February 12, 2007 - 22:19 ET by nkviking75Kurtz: "And I think that the people out there who don’t follow this all that closely think that we have become part of the club, too much the insiders. And that is a problem for journalism."
Howie, the problem is not that the great unwashed think you're insiders. The problem is that you ARE insiders, obviously and shamelessly supporting a liberal agenda. If you really were outsiders, reporting this case accurately, this case would not have been able to go forward because the public would demand a halt to this little circus.
Kurtz
February 13, 2007 - 07:31 ET by BBallleaperI 've lost track of the times Kurtz has covered and backtracked and alibied for his fellow "journalists". What a total hack.
Howie, the problem is not t
February 13, 2007 - 08:13 ET by motherbeltHowie, the problem is not that the great unwashed think you're insiders. The problem is that you ARE insiders-- nkviking
The Liberals always think the problem is one of "perception." So instead of changing their attitude, they hire a consultant to teach them how to "reframe" the issue. In other words, how to fool people by speaking language that makes them think their attitudes are different from what they are.
This is the thing about liberals that drives me nuts. The problem is never with them, it is in those ignorant dolts who "misperceive" them. That's why they are never sorry for saying hateful things, they are only sorry that someone was offended" by them.
Howie's representation
February 12, 2007 - 22:31 ET by ecnirPI liked how Howie started the segment, commenting on how uncomfortable Russert must have been, shown snippets of information without the full context...unable to answer a question fully without being cut off. Sounds like a description of Russert's own style on Meet the Press as well as most other agenda-promoting news interviews. Ah, the delicious irony.
Will Andrea Mitchell tell the truth?
February 12, 2007 - 22:36 ET by d1carterWill the real truth be told when Andrea Mitchell takes the stand. NBC and Ms Mitchell are doing everything they can to keep her off the stand. Will she tell the truth? Talk of nervous breakdown....
MSM: "We want a full i
February 12, 2007 - 22:38 ET by Free StinkerMSM: "We want a full investigation! We want a full investigation!"
Defense Lawyer: "You (members of MSM) have been subpoenaed to testify so we can have a 'complete' inverstigation"
MSM: "Foul!"
No kidding! Never use your
February 13, 2007 - 00:35 ET by bulletproofNo kidding!
Never use your gun to pistol-wip a Liberal. That could mar the finish
.
Today's Journalists in General
February 12, 2007 - 22:48 ET by pickerseniorUsing Russert, his recent performance and moral being as an example -
Today's MSM Journalists belong to a shadow 4th arm of government that is bent on taking us to a liberal/socialist society out of guilt. This is reflected by what they are taught in school, and they will destroy, or leave anyone out to dry (like Libby, Cheney, or Bush) that might oppose or appear to oppose their liberal/apologist point of view. To them, America, and anything reflecting conservatism, free enterprise, or overwhelming strength in the world is objectionable. Bias is so obvious.
I'm not sure of what kind of world it is, that they are trying to push us towards.
Am I totally off base here?
Pickersenior
The MSM is the Fifth Column o
February 13, 2007 - 07:39 ET by gideonmjamesThe MSM is the Fifth Column of islamic fundamentalism, Democratic liberalism, European socialism, and every other wind of political doctrine that endeavors to bring harm to the United States.
The MSM exploits the great weakness of American democracy ... the wicked SHALL be heard and the wicked will ALWAYS be heard.
Libby Trial
February 12, 2007 - 22:51 ET by pbthinkerI'm sure most of you have read the information coming out from the trial. Bob Novak got his information from Richard Armitage and it was confirmed by Karl Rove. Bob Woodward got his information from Richard Armitage and it was confirmed by Ari Fleischer. There's 2 people and no Scooter Libby so what's the point of this trial? Since this whole thing started with Bob Novak's column where is the public outrage. Obviously, there is no outrage because the media doesn't feel any outrage. They could care less if Scooter Libby goes to jail or not, as long as someone, anyone, in the Bush Administration goes to jail.
Then they wonder why the public distrusts them so much. Will Andrea Mitchell tell all, since she was the one who said it was common knowledge among the media, that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA? She has since said she can't understand why she said that. (Could it be it was the truth).
Russert
February 12, 2007 - 23:27 ET by iveseenitallRussert is a liar. It is great to see the weasel squirm. The great inquisitor himself lies during an inquisition. How ironic. Bring on the rest of the left-wing liars who call themselves journalists in America. Expose their agenda for all the world to see. Then lock up Fitzgerald for using the law the way journalists use their microphones and computers---to push leftist politics.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
DAMN RIGHT.
February 13, 2007 - 07:31 ET by gideonmjamesDAMN RIGHT.
She has since said she can'
February 13, 2007 - 06:04 ET by motherbeltShe has since said she can't understand why she said that
Reminds me of that guy in the Clinton administration who testified that he lied in his own diary! LOL
Fitzgerald the slimeyliar
February 12, 2007 - 23:29 ET by SportPoliticsFitzgerald the slimeyliar - ISLL first to reveal Plame outside gov.
Russert the slimeyliar - I didn't want ISLL to go to jail
Plame the slimeyliar - I was undercover secret ops
Joe Wilson the slimeyliar - My wife never got me the job
and on and on and on.
Put all the above in jail or prison, and justice will be served. Don't forget David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell, and a few others.
theirway
[ Libby's attorneys say Russert knew about Plame from colleagues David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell. Mitchell said in an interview that she and other reporters knew Plame worked for the CIA but she later recanted that statement. Wells had hoped to play clips of Mitchell discussing her statements on the Don Imus morning show on MSNBC.
Fitzgerald successfully argued that the tapes not be played.
"We might as well take 'Wigmore on Evidence' and replace it with 'Imus on Evidence,'" Fitzgerald said, referencing the classic treatise on evidentiary law. "There's no Imus exception to the hearsay rule. This has no business in a federal court."
Wells has questioned Russert about other phone conversations he couldn't remember, inconsistencies between his current account and FBI notes of an agent's original interview with him, and the likelihood that he would've let such a high-ranking official off the phone without fishing for some news.
Suggesting that Russert was eager to see Libby face charges, Wells played a video of Russert discussing the impending indictment with Imus. Russert sounded giddy at times in the discussion, laughing and describing the anticipation as "like Christmas Eve." ]
So,in one case, the IMUS info not allowed, and in the next, it is. What a freakin' circus. I can just imagine the skumworks of the give and take in the charade to make and keep the truth fullyunknown to the jury, so they can base their judgements on their "feelings" in the case.
corruption, liars, bs artists, and delusional retards as prosecutors...welcome to the new brave USA
[ Defense attorneys got Woodward, Novak, Pincus, New York Times reporter David Sanger, Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler and Newsweek reporter Evan Thomas all to say they had talked to Libby about Wilson's allegations during the summer of 2003, but Libby had not disclosed Plame's identity or employment to them. ]
[ "I believe you're the third Pulitzer prize winner to testify this morning," Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald quipped when he began questioning Sanger. ]
Yes, and I believe you Fitz, are the equivalent of the duke rape case con artist prosecutor,and the insane demo freak of texas who went after Tom Delay.
It's high time some prosecutors got locked up in prison, along with the idiot judges we have overseeing this CRAP.
Where there's a Democrat, the
February 13, 2007 - 07:30 ET by gideonmjamesWhere there's a Democrat, there's ravening insanity, confusion, and every imaginable form of malice.
The prosecutor's office never should have responded to charges that DEMOCRAT senators brought to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the first place.
This was a political witch-hunt from day one.
Hearsay
February 13, 2007 - 07:45 ET by allanfUnfortunately Andrea's recorded statements are not hearsay or a recollection. They may not be accurate, but the accuracy should be assesed by a jury on the witness stand. If believed they lead to a presumption that Russert was aware of the status of Valerie Plame.
Fitzgerald would do well to try to understand Wigmore and not rely on a misinterpretation of the Johnson case.
This judge has created as strong grounds for reversal as one can have for a trial, denial of the right to confront witnesses.
Unfortunately, by the time a case as this is reversed, Libby will have already served his time, the Bush Administration will be out of office and LIbby's life will be ruined.
In the meantime the MSM will have gotten its headlines.
Russert gets smoked to ashes on the witness stand
February 13, 2007 - 03:37 ET by SportPoliticsRussert gets smoked to ashes on the witness stand. American Thinker describes the thrashing, and correctly relates at the end how the prosecutor has obstructed justice.
It's very nice to see how fat pig bug eyed chubpuss smileyfaced liar got hammered to death on the stand.
Russert has ZERO credibility in the matter. If his testimony was to bear weight of conviction against Libby, it's total vindication for Lewis now.
It's amazing how their star fasto bug eyed lying sack of crap cannot remember 2 FBI interviews, but only one in this matter. Now that's absolutely amazing. So somehow, we're supposed to expect a perfect Scooter memory, and convict if that fails, but blubbering fatpuss gets instant much more recent amnesia as star witness for the prosecution, and it's all good ? How the heck does one entirely forget a second FBI interview in this gigantic case ? Russert, now to save your own lying carcass, you'll have to come out as victim of some memory loss illness or disease. Not remembering that prior set of angry calls to some newspaper to defend Hillary, until "yournotes" proved you made them ( and their recording proved a lawsuit to whip you into admitting it ), was the last nail in your bs balloon, and that one didn't hit the duct tape across your memoryless yapper. Goodbye bugeyed lib liar.
Fitzgerald, hang your head in shame, and go home, where we don't have to see your lousy incoherent work ever again. It's so bad, no doubt the liberals will soon accuse you of working for Rove and Libby, secretly.
Prosecuting maggots like Patr
February 13, 2007 - 07:22 ET by gideonmjamesProsecuting maggots like Patrick Fitzgerald and Kevin Ryan should burn in hell for their militant, multi-million dollar witch-hunts over INSANE non-crimes while they neglected cases against REAL criminals who have committed REAL crimes.
Any prosecutor who goes after "spittin' on the sidewalk" crimes while murderers, rapists, and drug dealers roam the streets and have major cases pending should be disbarred for life.
Some people even feel that
February 13, 2007 - 07:28 ET by sarcasmoSome people even feel that way about prosecutors who go after consensual 'crimes' like drug dealing while killer/rapists who are known by the state to target children (see Jessica Lunsford case) freely walk the streets, but political types really hate it when we point out obvious facts...
JMR
Patrick Fitzgerald went all o
February 13, 2007 - 07:08 ET by gideonmjamesPatrick Fitzgerald went all over the political landscape sniffin' crotches until he found one he liked. Then he couldn't find any evidence against Libby for the original charge. HE should be put in prison, not Libby.
We have devolved to a gover
February 13, 2007 - 08:02 ET by Right2thePointWe have devolved to a government that does not govern and a justice system that seems to have no justice.
At this point the only thing Fritz has going for him is a DC jury.
The only question left is how much more will this house of cards have to crash and burn before even they will not be able to carry the water.
The MSM is coming up poking their own eye out with a stick, not one of their more preferred games in my estimation.
The Russert Potato has hit the Potato Masher like some stuff hits the fan.
Andrea is going to get a out of jury site first trial run to see if she is spun dry.
I can understand that she doesn't understand the language since she is married to Alan Greenspan of gobblespeak fame. I find it amazing she can even put together a sentence that the MSM can abide by to transmit out to the huddled masses.
Let your heart not be heavy, we can all be nuked tomorrow to put us out of our slow grinding misery.
bake the potato
February 13, 2007 - 08:21 ET by foolnomore"My Goodness" , Tim ,you can go around speaking evil,hearing no evil (dem's only) see'n what you what(dem's only),, how do sleep at night??
,just what will say when you meet your "Maker"?? you twit
the name of this case should
February 13, 2007 - 08:47 ET by buddycthe name of this case should changed from usa v libby to nbc v libby.
even imus (russert's pal) said he did not believe russert when russert said that he learned of palme from novaks column. he said if gregory knew and mitchell knew then russert knew.
mitchell originally said she knew and it was common knowledge with reporters then tried to repudidiate that comment. that is very very strange.
i had no idea how badly nbc hates republicans until this trial. i knew it was bad but not enough to commit perjury to send an innocent person to prison.
The MSM wanted the Plame 'outing' investigated. They got it.
February 13, 2007 - 10:32 ET by acaiguanaThe MSM wanted the Plame 'outing' investigated. They got it.
It was going to be a 'perp' walk for Rove. Remember?
Suddenly, the MSM is on trial here. It looks to the average Joe (that would be me) that 1) there was no crime. 2) Libby was a busy guy caught up in important stuff and got nailed in the 'process'. 3) Now the MSM is trying to avoid being shown just exactly how much at stake they have in this mess.
So, being an average Joe, I'm trying to figure out what Libby did. I guess he said he didn't tell one guy Plame was Wilson's wife when that guy knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but didn't know her name was Plame so he blames Libby for thinking he told Libby who Plame (who he didn't know) was at the CIA which he didn't understand.
And its all Libby's fault of course for not disclosing to the Grand Jury something when Russert gets away with not disclosing to the court something.
So when is a wife a name?
When is Libby to Blame?
Who wants to play the Plame Game?
These people actually worked for the CIA and Wilson got an assignment for which he was totally unqualified to carry out, as far as I can see.
But there's no 'club'. Nosireee. No club at all.
Just don't join if you are 'Republican' or 'Conservative'.
Where's the Civil Rights Act when ya need it?
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Didn't you know all those in
February 13, 2007 - 12:34 ET by sembyDidn't you know all those in the press are ABOVE the law;
Russert is in big trouble; if had these people carrying his water for him!
they didn't have sex
February 13, 2007 - 13:32 ET by foolnomoreNo, this group of "m.s.m" does have a job to do,
which is to forget about the facts, from the 90's,
shred the truth, to fit the ex-pillager ,en'cheater!
Discount everything this" President" attempts to do