Glenn started by asking a question of Chuck Todd, after which, Todd wanted Glenn to stop and let Todd explain exactly what he was doing on the Morning Joe show. Todd goes on,

CT: Well, let me first of all clarify for how you described the discussion on Morning Joe. I was asked a specific question about where the White House stood on this. And where the White House stands on this is my reporting. And that is what the conversation was based on. And then I was asked: why would they, what is their thinking behind this, and I was describing their thinking, and the thinking behind the political thinking on this -- which is, that politically, these things can turn into a distraction.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/07/16/

todd/index1.html

If Morning Joe is a talk show, or some kind of quasi-news program which can get the political director of NBC as a guest, they could have also had a spokesperson from the Obama administration, or Obama himself, answer this question. When we want to know what someone is thinking about something touchy, don’t we want to get it from the horse’s mouth in order to avoid any kind of misunderstandings? Reporters, I thought, usually want to speak to the thinkers and the deciders and get their views first hand, rather than try to make up what these important people think out of their own fallible understanding.

So, I have a question whether Todd should have quoted or otherwise begged off being able to represent what the White House has been thinking on this issue. He may have avoided some of the issues that he has raised by letting the President, or his representatives, speak for themselves.

When I think about this, I too, want to encourage Glenn to criticize Obama and his spokespeople for their views, rather than lay into the media stars for trying to do something, i.e., represent Obama’s views, for which they may not be prepared, even though they are represented to be “political directors” for news companies.

But, I want to say that Todd begs an important question. He was asked to explain the White House thinking on torture investigations and prosecutions. On his view, as he says the White House believes that, “…politically, these things can turn into a distraction.” Without doing an investigation into what Bush did and Obama is now doing about torture, he can’t really know that the White House is, in fact, thinking this.

We all have to ask ourselves whether Todd is representing the White House’s beliefs accurately. Did he talk to someone and is this what they said, and all of what they said? Is he reducing down a longer conversation? We could be skeptical that the White House is thinking this because Obama must be aware of the ideas that commenters here have been saying about how the prosecution of crimes can only consider legal issues instead of legal and political issues.

We all have to wonder whether it’s true that Obama and his staff believe what Todd represents them as believing. I’m sure Todd sourced his conclusions by talking to a lot of knowledgeable insiders, but it still is possible that the White House let Todd hear one thing about what they believe, though they believe something completely different. They could have lied to him. They could have been covering up much darker secrets that they don’t want Todd or anyone else to know. So, of course, they would want him to think that it’s all about political calculation.

We have to wonder whether Todd was justified in representing the White House’s beliefs this way. That is, does Todd or any of us have any good reason to think that this is an accurate and true representation of the White House’s views? This get’s back to whether it would have been better to have Obama speak for himself instead of having Todd try to channel him.

The underlying issue though, is whether Todd can say what the White House is thinking without investigating the facts about torture and American policy that Glenn and others have complained he has not done.

Isn’t G.G. just begging everyone to play together nicely?

And, isn’t C. Todd saying you can’t spend any time in this playground without giving up your lunch money to its bully…

Now, we can encourage G.G. because we’d like not to be picked on or beaten up when we’re out playing. But, aren’t we just attacking the messenger here in going after C. Todd?

Can we blame C.Todd for doing what he’s told, or being worried about having to admit he does? If the playground is run by a bully, as C. Todd acknowledges, then we should give him credit for pointing this out even in the oblique ways he chooses.

The question, though, isn’t primarily what we should do about the messengers, but what we can do about the bully.

Are we going to get anywhere by begging the bully to play by the rules when the bully is feeding off of everyone’s lunch money?

Playing by the rules will only appeal to the bully, or any of the rest of us, when doing so will get us farther than not.

So, it does seem unfair to beat up on C. Todd for not “telling truth to power” when the “rule of law,” “democracy,” or a “free press” will not make the bully do what bullies don’t want to do.