Raffy Palmeiro, the "liberal" media, and GOP corruption

[nickgutierrez]

If the media was after the GOP the way they've gone after Rafael Palmeiro, then the entire Bush administration would have gone down in flames right around April of 2003. And, quite frankly, rightfully so in both cases.

I'm watching the Cardinals-Marlins game right now, and they just played a clip of Palmeiro's remarks about his positive test and suspension, followed by a clip of his statement before Congress this past offseason where he adamantly denied the notion of steroid use. It was a very effective juxtaposition, and it showed the hypocrisy of his statement in a powerful manner.

Hearing that brought me back. I remember a clip, on Meet The Press, where Donald Rumsfeld made a statement that blatantly contradicted what he had previously said a year before.* Having been presented with the evidence of the contradiction, Rummy stumbled, stuttered, and just looked for all the world like a lost old man, trying to find his talking points in a situation where everything is going wrong. I smiled. It was, after all, a humorous clip if you can separate the lost old man on screen from the murderous thug that is in no small part responsible for the policy that has killed tens of thousands of people. Then I tried to come up with another example of this kind of event. I stopped smiling.

Sure, a news anchor or two, and a comedian who is the closest thing to a journalist as seems to exist nowadays, occasionally holds the administration's feet to the fire. But the same sort of journalistic fervor that is, rightfully, attacking Palmeiro is strangely lacking when it comes to the investigation of: the Valerie Plame affair, Jeff Gannon (remember him?), torture at Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay, the run-up to the Iraq war and why everything we were told was wrong, and a whole host of other crimes.

In a remarkable bit of free association, I came to link Raffy to another "strongman" in the news now, John Bolton, and his recess appointment to the UN. This recess appointment is an abuse of power, pure and simple, a way for the Bush administration to force a man who the Senate had not confirmed down the throats of the American people, the UN, and in turn the whole world. It may be, according to the letter of the law, a legitimate option, but it is, in no small way, a contradiction of the spirit of the law to simply appoint someone who had already been put in front of the Senate. Yet right now, on CNN, the focus isn't on this "controversial" appointment, as it should be, and not even on Palmeiro, where one could argue is a point of interest, but on a groom that disappeared from a cruise. Fox is still focused on a woman that disappeared a month ago. MSNBC is talking about OJ Simpson, of all the possible other topics. This is where Americans go to get their news, and their coverage of things that matter is sorely lacking.

The media is, at best, a raccoon, distracted enough by any available shiny object that it walks right into whatever trap happens to be lying in front of them. And while it is true that there are lots of shiny objects (and traps) around, that is no excuse for the media to ignore the huge amount of real food** that is strewn about the figurative landscape. They eat enough to survive, and that's all they need to do in an environment with no natural predators.

This is where we come in. It becomes our job to keep the food as close to the raccoons as possible, so that they don't become overly obsessed with the shiny things that abound. If there arises another shining moment of hypocrisy that matches Raffy in front of Congress, or Rummy on Meet The Press, it's going to be up to us to make sure the media stays on it. So let's stay on them.



(* What were the dates of Rummy's MTP appearances, both the one where he made the initial statement and the one where he contradicted himself.

** Kind of an embarrassing question, but I've tried to search for it on Google and couldn't find a substantial answer: what is it that raccoons eat primarily? Is the general "food" useful enough, or would something else be more effective?)

[nickgutierrez]

1. Kick

:kick: