This afternoon I went home for lunch to eat some great leftovers from our big Friday night dinner this past weekend. Being the political junkie that I am, I had the television on White House spokesman Scott McClellan's daily press briefing. McClellan opened with some prepared statements about the economy. He then opened the floor to questions.
For the next twenty minutes, the only questions he got were about Vice President Cheney's accidental shooting of an old friend during a hunting trip this past Saturday. Everyone agrees that the shooting was accidental, most likely the result of the friend standing where he shouldn't have. Everyone agrees that there was no crime. Lastly, and most importantly, the friend is doing well. Despite all that, the media peppered McClellan with questions about the incident, mostly about when the White House knew about it and why they didn't inform the press of it until the next afternoon.
This is such a tempest in a teapot. I make no secret that I voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004, neither of which vote I regret today. At the same time, I'll admit that there are credible arguments one could make against the administration. I, for one, think that Bush has been irresponsible in not vetoing some of the reckless Congressional spending and that he has not been nearly tough enough on immigration. Those are certainly not my only complaints and I'm sure that some of my liberal friends who may be reading this are just chomping at the bit thinking of all their complaints.
Just today, the media could have asked McClellan about more pressing issues, like the latest "news" on Hurricane Katrina (yawn) or the president's reaction to former Vice President Al Gore bashing America over its treatment of Muslims in a speech in one of the most intolerant countries in the world, Saudi Arabia. They instead were upset that the administration didn't go public about the incident sooner.
I'm not sure why the media was making this into such a big deal. I'm thinking that they are constantly in a post-Watergate "gotcha" mode and wanted to expose a coverup where none actually existed. The other scenario is that the press sees itself as being so important that it must know everything all the time and that nothing happens unless the mainstream media reports it. This reminds me of a few years ago when a major sports reporter told his viewers that a particular pro athlete had filed his retirement papers earlier that morning. The reporter than said that the athlete would make it official in a press conference a few hours later. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the retirement became official when the athlete filed his official papers, not when he told the press about it. That was obviously a different case, but it's quite indicative of the media's collective sense of self-importance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
the guy did have a heart attack today
and peter benchley needs a death triangle
So if two consenting adults (though I suspect Mr. Whittington didn't consent to getting shot in the face. Monica, on the other hand....) are involved in an incident which doesn't affect the American people, you're saying it shouldn't be an issue for the media to deal with?
noahdaddy- First of all, welcome back to town. Regarding Clinton and Monica, there was a certain right to know as the president lied under oath during a legal proceeding. While it may not have risen to the level of a crime and that it was in any case politically dumb for the Republicans to impeach him, he committed an act about which you as a trial attorney would certainly have raised holy hell if you were on the other side of the table. With Cheney, there was no crime. The proper legal authorities seemingly agree, both on the underlying act as well as any duty to report the incident to them. The media is merely upset that a small town paper got the story first, thereby undermining their sense of self-importance.
This site is one of the best I have ever seen, wish I had one like this.
»
Post a Comment