The Whitehouse memo and CNN article betray a rather “cozy” relationship between government power and the “free and independent”institution charged with keeping that power in check, which undermines the public trust in its institutions.
When I learned of the memo, I wondered how Ian Sams, the Whitehouse spokesman, would have the chutzpah to advise the press, namely “CNN, The New York Times, Fox News, the Associated Press, CBS News, and others” on how to cover more properly government proceedings regarding… the Whitehouse itself! That just reeks of a conflict of interests. I mean, the press has already been casting doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings! Is it because Ian Sams is so arrogant as to believe, on some level, that the press corps constitutes a de facto public relations firm for the Biden Whitehouse? Actually, I can see how he might have developed that very notion.
Flipping over to Oliver Darcy’s, CNN reporter (not a columnist), article, one can see how he reports on the memo. Does he:
- mention that the press is a check on government power, AND that the Whitehouse is a large aspect of that power?
- mention how highly unusual such a memo is?
- mention that the Whitehouse is overstepping its jurisdiction with the memo?
- reproduce the memo in its entirety?
- conduct interviews with relevant authorities on the appropriateness of such a memo?
No. Instead, he writes:
“The White House sent a letter to top US news executives on Wednesday, urging them to intensify their scrutiny of House Republicans after Speaker Kevin McCarthy launched an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, despite having found no evidence of a crime.”
He opens with the common press refrain “no evidence of a crime.” Straight out of the chute, he shows how amenable he is to this exhortation from the very power he is supposed to be keeping in check.
“The correspondence comes one day after McCarthy announced that he had directed three House committees to begin an impeachment inquiry into Biden. House Republicans, most of whom have denied that disgraced former President Donald Trump committed any wrongdoing, have long sought to baselessly portray Biden as a corrupt, crime-ridden politician engaged in sinister activities.”
One day after? The Whitehouse is wasting no time here. Darcy, again— a reporter, not a columnist, frames the whole thing as “Trump: disgraced; GOP: hypocritical; Biden: innocent.” It’s all “just the facts!”
“While news organizations have published innumerable fact checks on the matter, they have also often failed to robustly call out the mis- and disinformation peddled by Republicans in their coverage, frustrating officials in the Biden White House who believe that the news media should be doing more to dispel lies that saturate the public discourse.”
Here, Darcy basically states his complete agreement and grants total validation for the existence of such an exhortation from the Whitehouse to the press. Stay independent there, reporter Darcy!
He goes on to quote some, but not all, of its contents:
“”Covering impeachment as a process story – Republicans say X, but the White House says Y – is a disservice to the American public who relies on the independent press to hold those in power accountable,” Sams wrote.”
How interesting— Sams is exhorting the press to maintain its independent check on those in power… hmmm… I can cut the irony with a knife! Maybe Sams believes subconsciously that the press is only a check on GOP power? Does Darcy note this irony? Nope. He’s too busy being in agreement with the memo, you know, as a responsible, independent news reporter.
Finally, he concludes his “objective and dispassionate” article, presumably written from the inside of President Biden’s colon, with this very subtle change to the claim with which he opened:
“The Republican House-led investigations into Biden have yet to provide any direct evidence that the president financially benefited from Hunter Biden’s career overseas.”
Did anyone notice? In the beginning, he said “no evidence!” Here, at the conclusion, he subtly adds a pivotal descriptor: no “direct evidence.” How very interesting…
Now, to compare with Trump’s actions…
It is no secret that Trump views Fox News as his personal PR firm. But he clearly sees the rest of major media as enemies. You know this. Yes, all the pundits at Fox play right into Trump’s lap. If one hates Trump, one will not enjoy Fox’s very protracted and prominently scheduled opinion segments. Although Fox does still offer pushback to Trump’s demands at times, I don’t wish to open up that can of worms tit for tat and am willing to “hand Fox media over to Trump and his followers.” Fox comprises one out of 3 cable networks and one out of… I don’t know… 10 major news outlets?
As I said, you don’t see Fox News as comparable to CNN at all. Doesn’t CNN et al hold themselves to a higher standard? Yet you wish to directly compare them when it suits you.
So, when Hannity, a pundit, not a reporter, stumped for Trump, how did CNN cover that blatant breach of decorum? As I pointed out earlier in this thread, it was none other than objective CNN reporter Oliver Darcy presenting us with this article:
You might notice a little difference in both tone and messaging.
