As the final segment to cap off Thursday’s CBS Evening News, the network allowed former Face the Nation moderator Bob Schieffer go on a rambling commentary where he dubbed Trump “the ‘What If’ president.” The premise of his commentary was “what if” the Trump had listened to Obama about hiring Flynn, and didn’t make every other misstep he had since being elected. Schieffer appeared during CNN’s so-called Reliable Sources on Sunday to give commentary about his commentary.
“John McCain said ‘we have seen this movie before.’ So to you, what does this moment in time feel like,” fill-in host John Berman asked Schieffer. “Well, we have seen this movie before. And the parallels between this and Watergate are striking,” Schieffer responded. “You know, you saw the Richard Nixon tried to crush the investigation. He fired the special prosecutor. You saw much the same thing from President Trump over the last week.”
Schieffer did compliment the President for delivering a well thought out speech to a gathering of Middle Eastern leaders earlier in the day. “But again, today you saw a very different President Trump. He actually sounded presidential. You may agree or disagree with what he said, but he sounded like a president,” Schieffer said. “He laid out his vision, he called for help from those in the Muslim world. It was a much different kind of presentation.” He added that:
I think very few people would disagree with me when I say he helped himself today because he didn't sound like the guy at the end of the bar popping off. He sounded like someone who had actually thought about what he was going to say before he said it.
That didn’t seem to sit well with Berman, who appeared to scold the veteran journalist for using kind words with Trump. “You know Bob, though, that there will be people who look at that last comment you just made and said you’re normalizing the President,” he tut-tutted. “You're saying because he met this admittedly very low bar for not sounding foolish, in fact, he was in fact presidential.”
The CBS commentator noted he had concerns about Trump’s policies there but said: “Well, I'm not trying to normalize him in any way. I'm trying to do what reporters do, and that report and try to emphasize what I think was important here.”
Later on in the interview, Berman un-ironically questioned when reporters should start using the word “impeachment” in regards to Trump:
When you say he could go of the way of Nixon, that's a pretty dire path. For journalists right now, Bob, what's the challenge in terms of reporting that path? When is it the right time or is it too early to use the "I" word: Impeachment. Democrats will bring it up. Maxine Waters, someone like that, has been bringing it up for weeks and weeks and weeks. When is that question -- when should you probe it seriously?
Schieffer responded with “Our job is to not make conclusions about any of this. I mean at this point we're a long, long way from talking about impeachment.” Berman should relay that to the rest of CNN because in the last week or so that accusation has been whipping around. On Wednesday night, CNN Senior Political Commentator David Gergen declared “we’re in impeachment territory.” CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin had brazenly concluded that Trump was guilty of obstructing justice. CNN had gotten so out of control with their accusations that Republican Congressman Sean Duffy had to scold them live on air.
Berman also questioned Schieffer on the media’s liberal use of anonymous sources against the Trump administration, asking him to defend the practice and convince people to believe them. Schieffer fell back onto his “what if” argument, rhetorically asking “what if they quote 16 or 17 anonymous sources.” He and Berman wrote off honest worries about the heavy use of anonymous sources as pesky questions by people who don’t know how the verification process works.
But the Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell and Tim Graham had harsh criticism for the practice in their Tuesday column, declaring that “democracy dies in anonymous sourcing.” In their column they argue:
Earth to the Post: your new motto is “Democracy dies in darkness,” but anonymous sourcing is darkness. Every source who hides behind a wall as he tries to ruin other people’s careers is a self-serving coward with a personal or political ax to grind. Without knowing an identity, the public has no way of telling... anything. It’s idiotic for the press to demand transparency in government at the exact same time it rewards government officials who refuse to be transparent themselves.
That’s what is at stake here. They can quote 17 anonymous sources if they like but without knowing their motives and bent then it’s difficult to trust the reporting. Especially if their sources never send them an unclassified memo and only read certain parts to them, like what happened with the infamous Comey memo. And as we’ve seen with the claim that Comey had requested more resources for the Russia investigation before he was fired, anonymous sources can lie.
Transcript below:
CNN
Reliable Sources
May 21, 2017
11:2418 AM EasternJOHN BERMAN: Joining me now to help put this in perspective, legendary reporter, former host of Face the Nation and a political contributor to CBS News, Bob Schieffer. Thanks so much for being with us. In a commentary this week titled "The ‘What If’ President" based on an interview you did with John McCain and what he said, he said-- excuse me, that “we have seen this movie before,” Bob. John McCain said “we have seen this movie before.” So to you, what does this moment in time feel like?
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, we have seen this movie before. And the parallels between this and Watergate are striking. You know, you saw the Richard Nixon tried to crush the investigation. He fired the special prosecutor. You saw much the same thing from President Trump over the last week. But again, today you saw a very different President Trump. He actually sounded presidential. You may agree or disagree with what he said, but he sounded like a president. He laid out his vision, he called for help from those in the Muslim world. It was a much different kind of presentation.
I mean the President doesn't pay much attention to advice from others, but I would think if he just pay attention to himself today. This went over very well, mainly because he stayed on script. No tweets today. But a dignified speech.
BERMAN: No tweets of any real interest in the last few days, in fact, Bob. By asking the question or calling this the “what if presidency,” are you suggesting that this crisis that he was in or is in even before this trip to Saudi Arabia is of his own making? And by noting today that he gave a speech which was a coherent foreign policy, are you noting that he could unmake this crisis also?
SCHIEFFER: I think very few people would disagree with me when I say he helped himself today because he didn't sound like the guy at the end of the bar popping off. He sounded like someone who had actually thought about what he was going to say before he said it.
BERMAN: You know Bob, though, that there will be people who look at that last comment you just made and said you’re normalizing the President. You're saying because he met this admittedly very low bar for not sounding foolish, in fact, he was in fact presidential. What would you say to criticism like that?
SCHIEFFER: Well, I'm not trying to normalize him in any way. I'm trying to do what reporters do, and that report and try to emphasize what I think was important here. I have many questions about this policy. For one thing, is he going to set off an arms race in the Middle East? Is Russia going to now begin selling arms to Iran? There are many things you can say about this.
…
11:31:15 AM
BERMAN: When you say he could go of the way of Nixon, that's a pretty dire path. For journalists right now, Bob, what's the challenge in terms of reporting that path? When is it the right time or is it too early to use the "I" word: Impeachment. Democrats will bring it up. Maxine Waters, someone like that, has been bringing it up for weeks and weeks and weeks. When is that question -- when should you probe it seriously?
SCHIEFFER: Well, I think our role is simply to keep asking questions and report what we find. I mean, you've had The New York Times and The Washington Post doing a terrific job. I mean they're competing against one another in one of the great newspaper competitions of all time, and they're both the better for it. Our job is to not make conclusions about any of this. I mean at this point we're a long, long way from talking about impeachment. We just need to keep reporting what's happening here.
BERMAN: What about anonymous sources, this is something that anyone who complains about the contents of a news story will always point to if they don't like what's in the news story. They'll say, “well, it was said by an anonymous source.” Why should viewers trust anonymous sources?
SCHIEFFER: But what if they quote 16 or 17 anonymous sources. I did an interview the other day with Ashley Parker of The Washington Post, and I said you're now quoting as many as 20 sources. She says to me, “you know, whenever you do an anonymous source story,” and this is absolutely true, “the official who's the butt of that -- what that anonymous source is always says, well, you just caught somebody who had bad digestion or was mad about something or other. That doesn't reflect what's going on here.”
Well, when you start saying we talked to 17 anonymous sources, that's why these newspapers are doing this now. They want to make sure that they know people understand they're not just quoting one disgruntled person, they're quoting a number of people.
…
