Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
kovie
Published Letters: 1149
Perhaps most of today's US journalists really do believe that they've been doing an excellent job and that aside from the rare lapse in judgement or honest mistake, they have nothing to be ashamed about. Realize that the descent of the US media to today's low levels of professionalism began well before Bush took office.
It was certainly going on during the Clinton years, with all the credulous reporting of all those phony scandals cooked up by the Scaife-funded Arkansas Project, and increasing emphasis on fluff like Clinton's weight, Hillary's hairstyles and Gore's stiffness.
So it's been going on for at least 14 years, and likely longer, and it makes sense that journalists actually believe that they're doing nothing wrong, because they've been doing it for years, and living in a self-referential and self-reinforcing bubble, they are no subject to the sorts of criticisms that are likely to change how they operate or view themselves.
None of this excuses their behavior, of course, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if they're going to be the last ones to grasp just how low they've sunk over the past few decades, to the point where simply taking quotes (which are often blatant and transparent lies) from sources and repeating them verbatim in their articles and on air qualifies as journalism, without any actual investigative work being done.
They will have their days of reckoning, I believe, and if they think that Judy Miller and one or two others were their sacrificial lambs, they're wrong. Sooner or later the media will start doing its job properly (most likely in the form of new and alternative outlets) and these stenographers will have to either shape up or become increasingly irrelevant. What happened to Gingrich, DeLay and Cunningham (as well as, of course, Miller) will happen to many of them as well.
Or so my sources tell me (hint: me, myself and I).
Glenn,
Given that we are headed for a period of intense congressional investigation of the Bush administration, and that much of its ability to do this effectively will depends upon its subpoena power, and that the effectiveness of this power will rest with the DC US Attorney's office's willingness to serve subpoenas forcefully, I expect a lot of attention to be paid to this particular district fairly soon.
As has been noted in blogs (but not so much in the MSM), the current DC USA, Tim Griffin, is not only a loyal Bushie, but one of Rove's former (and AFAIC current) top aides in his efforts to corrupt the DoJ to serve the administration's and GOP's political goals. So long as he remains in this position, congress will have an extremely hard time enforcing its oversight powers, since this is the district in which it would have to be legally enforced. Griffin was put in this position for precisely this reason, of course.
However, I've done some research and there might yet be hope here. It seems that Griffin was only sworn in late last September, after having been appointed to this position by Gonzales under that previously obscure provision in the Patriot Act revision bill passed late year that allowed unfilled USA positions to be filled by the AG, and not each district's chief justice, as was the previous procedure.
However, congress recently voted OVERWHELMINGLY to repeal this provision, and apparently it awaits being sent to Bush (for a certain veto, but with more than enough votes to override). Furthermore, this repeal is RETROACTIVE, meaning that congress can remove any USA who was named under this provision who has been in office for (I believe) 3 months or more.
Griffin was sworn in late last September, which is well over 3 months, so the minute this repeal becomes law, congress can and I'm sure will remove him from office. The question is how his replacement will be named, and who it will be. Once this repeal is law, the process will revert to the previous one, whereby a USA position that has gone unfilled for a certain period of time (I'm not sure what it is) can be filled by that district's chied justice.
I assume, though, that Bush would first be given a certain legally required amount of time to name Griffin's replacement, and then congress would have a certain amount of time to vote to confirm or reject the nomination, before the court would have the power to appoint his replacement. And since there's no way in the world that Bush and congress will agree to a replacement who would be acceptable to both, this is undoubtedly what would happen. We will also have to wait for this repeal to become law, and for congress to actually vote to remove Griffin. This will all take time and involve delays.
The chief justice for the DC District is Thomas Hogan, of sending Judy Miller to jail fame. He presided over the court (but not trial--that was Walton) during the Plame investigation and Libby trial, and appeared to be very supportive of Fitzgerald's efforts to get to the bottom of that matter. While a Reagan appointee, he appears to be a fair, honest and competent justice, and I'm hoping that he would name a like replacement for Griffin.
However, I'm not sure how much time must elapse before he can do this, nor who he would actually name as Griffin's replacement. The obvious choice would be Fitzgerald--and boy would that be poetic justice (pun fully intended) not to mention justice, period. One can certainly hope.
Glenn, do you know much about any of this, and care to comment? Clearly, having the right person in the DC USA position will be extremely important in what happens over the next two years, and likely well beyond. I'm surprised that more attention hasn't been paid to this "inside baseball" angle of the investigatory process and the USA scandal by the blogs, since so much will hinge on this.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
