ABC's "The Note" Embarrasses Itself on Behalf of Beltway Journalism

[babylonsister]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/abcs-the-note-embarrasses_b_153326.html


ABC's "The Note" Embarrasses Itself on Behalf of Beltway Journalism
Eric Boehlert


Doing its best to prop up the beyond soggy and now practically underwater Blago/Obama "scandal," The Note works feverishly to convince fellow journalists (news consumers are not the target audience here) that they didn't make fools of themselves hyping the non-story for weeks. That the released report showing Obama's team did nothing wrong simply vindicates the media's hyperventilating coverage.

The key takeaways from The Note's perspective seem to be that the press should feel good about its misleading work, and that the Obama team could have avoided the whole mess if it had simply confessed its sins. And oh yeah, this manufactured story's not over! It's going to "linger." (Sorta like Whitewater?)

In other words, The Note's Rick Klein knowingly concocts fiction and refuses to come clean about The Village's utterly shameful Blago coverage.

And we don't use the word "concocts" lightly. Read this passage :

To the extent that there's news in the report, it exists in part because Obama and company worked so hard before to convince the public that this president-elect would never be involved in something as parochial and tawdry as playing a role in choosing the next junior senator from Illinois.

Anyone see the irony? Klein claims Obama's message to voters was that he'd never be involved in something like Blago's dirty scheme and that's why this story remains "news." But guess what? Obama isn't involved in Blago's dirty scheme, yet the press claims this is news.

As we've noted before, when it wants to, the press can tell any story it wants.

[DJ13]

1. MSNBC's daytime producers must be subscribers of the Note

They're spending half of every hour continuing to imply theres more to this than there is.

[alsame]

2. Yes, they are. Earlier today I kept hearing about how we now

have to wait and see if the actual recordings differ from the Obama team's account of the conversations.

[Captain Hilts]

3. MSNBC broadcasts more disinformation....

this Blago story doesn't even make sense.

Obama and his team have no motivation to get involved with him.

[SoCalDem]

4. A responsible press would have realized that ANY senator, whose seat is suddenly open

WOULD BE EXPECTED TO CONFER WITH HIS/HER HOME STATE'S GOVERNOR...

99.9999% of the times, that governor would NOT be "under investigation" for the preceding 5 years, but in this case, he was/is..

That fact ALONE should have made it even MORE important for a laision to occur, following Obama's election.

OF COURSE HE WOULD HAVE, AND DOES HAVE AN "INTEREST" IN WHO SUCCEEDS HIM.

The whole episode was handled a bit clumsily at the beginning, but probably happened that way because of the whole investigation angle..

Could Obama have gone to the prosecutor before he talked to Blago? probably not..and had he done so, it would have leaked out, and that would have been picked apart by the news-hyenas too.

This scenario happens so rarely, there was no real template to follow, and states have different rules about how they replace senators.

If Obama had gone public with his "list", before giving it to Blago, he would have been called presumptuous and king-like..and could have pissed off an unstable governor...(Obama did not know when the prosecutor would put the hammer down).

By trying to remain "above it", he inadvertantly sent a message to Blago...the message being, Blago could choose whomever he wanted to..whenever he wanted to.

Looking back, it would have been preferable to go ahead and make public, a list that he (Obama) preferred, and to make a casual comment about the governor's legal troubles and how he hoped they would not influence his choice..and then referring all questions about the choicce...TO BLAGO..

The media-hyenas WANT this "scandal" to be attached to Obama, so there is always something they can "ask him about", whenever they run out of things to ask about..

What frosts my cake, is that Bush got a free pass from day one, and was never questioned about anything of much consequence...even though there was a whole encyclopedia-sized assortment of things they could have asked him about..and should have.

Obama is their "do-over".. their chance to appear tough and interested.

[gratuitous]

5. What if they'd been this skeptical of Bush?

Would we have launched two invasions, massacred thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, blew through a trillion dollars, and reduced ourselves to torturing sheep herders in the bogus name of national security? Well, perhaps not; but how does any of that stack up with the appearance of no impropriety on Obama's part? THIS is something that captures the media's attention!