I commented on this dust up last week. To recap:
- Politico’s Mike Allen wrote an article in which former VP Cheney did what former VP Cheney does: Trash Obama’s foreign policy; in this case, by claiming that Obama (in the aftermath of the underwear bomber) is “trying to pretend we are not at war.”
Andrew Sullivan proceeded to characterize Allen as Cheney’s “stenographer.”
I pointed out that Allen didn’t just relay Cheney’s remarks, he included an entire online page of rebuttal points, which frankly (in my reading) makes Cheney look like what Cheney is: bitter and spiteful and without merit.
Well, the bickering continues. Politico Editor-in-Chief John Harris defended his organization with this: “trying to get newsworthy people to say interesting things is part of what we do.”
Glenn Greenwald jumps in, writing: “Nobody I’ve heard objects to Politico’s act of telling its readers about the ‘interesting things’ Cheney has to say.” Greenwald’s gripe is with something else, namely that “Politico mindlessly reprints any and all claims Cheney wants to make, no matter how factually dubious or even blatantly false, without question or challenge.”
I’d have to review the weight of the evidence to see if the “without question or challenge” charge holds up over a range of Politico articles, however, the particular article that seems to have prompted this chain reaction does not warrant the charge. Once again: Immediately after Cheney’s tirade, there’s an entire online page of question and challenge, including the points that:
Obama spoke up on the failed underwear bomber much faster than Bush did on the failed shoe bomber
Obama and his administration have made it very clear in multiple public statements that we are at war
Republicans who would discredit Obama on this topic have focused recently on a statement the President made as a candidate two years ago — a statement that does not seem to convey an ounce of equivalence or weakness.
Does that not challenge Cheney’s remarks? Does that not raise questions about his claims? Yes and yes.
Sullivan, unlike Greenwald, is not ready to let go of the “trying to get newsworthy people to say interesting things” defense. The Atlantic blogger wants to know: “did Allen call Cheney up after the undie-bomber in order to goad a comment out of him, or did Cheney contact him since he is the usual outlet for the Cheneyites”?
Honestly, what the blank does it matter? I’ll grant that my time in journalism pails in comparison to Sullivan’s, but I know all too well what my newspaper editors in the late 80’s would have asked of me, if I had a prominent source known for colorful comments. They would have asked: “Has he contacted you? If not, please give him a call and get his perspective.” And as far as I can tell, that still happens every day in newsrooms across the country; it is still part and parcel of the journalism trade.
Disclaimers: I don’t know why I’m captivated by this debate or why I’m compelled to chime in. I don’t have a stake in Politico. I don’t owe them anything. Frankly, for all I know, they f— things up as much if not more than any news organization. And, as noted above, I have not weighed the balance of their Cheney coverage, so perhaps there are other articles where the organization has published a Cheney tirade but failed to queston or challenge that tirade.
Those disclaimers notwithsanding, allow me to reiterate this point: The particular article that seems to have triggered this round of criticism does not warrant said criticism. That particular article is balanced, for anyone who takes the time to read both pages. So if that particular article is the purported straw that broke the critics’ patience with Politico, then the critics (Sullivan, Greenwald, et.al.) need to find a different straw. Otherwise, they continue to undermine their own argument.