Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiChuck Todd's Arguments Against Investigations
Todd: Look, let's take all of these stories in one big thing: really, the only important thing -- the most important thing -- the President has to focus on is getting the public's trust on the economy, and pushing health care. Cheney, the CIA, and in some respects Sotomayor are cable catnip --
Brzezinski: Yep.
Todd: It's news catnip - but they're sort of clouding the two most important issues the President's got to get his arms around this week: winning back trust of the middle on the economy and pushing health care through.
Brzezinski: I would completely agree with you, yet the questions are being raised by news organizations like the New York Times. Pat Buchanan, chime in, because as I've been reporting [sic], and I'll say it for Chuck's benefit here: speaking to a former intelligence official yesterday on the phone for quite some time, saying that this program that Cheney was apparently blocking the CIA from giving Congressional Committees information on, was not even a program -- it was not operational -- it was not even at the stage where you would tell Congress about it or talk to high administration level officials about it.
Is this much ado about nothing to get the attention off what needs to be done?
Buchanan: Well it's exactly what Chuck said, it's a massive distraction . . . . Let me ask Chuck this: it seems to me you got a real problem for the administration if you go forward at Holder's level --
Todd: Right.
Buchanan: and they appoint a Special Counsel, the first thing the CIA guys do is say is: yeah, we did it; we waterboarded them; and here's the authorization from these lawyers who said we could do it --- the lawyers come in and say we were asked for our opinion and Cheney was the guy who asked us, and the President told us to go ahead and do it. Aren't you right into the White House of the Bush administration as soon as you appoint that independent counsel?
Todd: And I think that's why, in the President's gut, he doesn't want to do this. They've made that clear they don't want to do this. I think that's what you see a lot of the West Wing -- they don't want to get into this because of what you're saying.
Ultimately, a lawyer gets paid to not tell you what the law is -- but to interpret the law, to tell you how far you can push things until you cross a line that a judge will say is illegal. That's what lawyers get paid to do: they get paid to interpret the law, and interpret the law in a way that allows you to stretch things.
You are on a slippery slope - this is a very dangerous aspect to go after, because these CIA guys will say, as you said Pat, we got the letter from these lawyers in the Bush Justice Department that said we can do this. You can't suddenly change the law retroactively because there's another interpretation of this. I'm sure there are a legal minds that will fight and say I don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems to me that's a legal and a political slippery slope.
This is about as typical a discussion as it gets among media stars as to why investigations are so very, very wrong and unfair and unwise. Still, this discussion in particular vividly highlights several important points worth noting about the role of the establishment media:
(1) In response to virtually every media criticism (at least the few they acknowledge), establishment journalists will insist that their role is to be steadfastly neutral. They simply report on the debates, not take sides or express opinions about them. Taking one side or the other is not their role. Only partisan ideologues do that.
Yet here is Chuck Todd -- who covers the White House for NBC News -- explicitly arguing against investigations, and adopting the Bush/right-wing mentality to do so. Investigations are a distraction from what matters. It's extremely unfair to hold lawyers accountable when they authorize criminal conduct. It's "dangerous" for one administration to investigate the prior one where that prior administration had its DOJ lawyers authorize what was being done.
Wouldn't the standard claim of establishment journalists maintain that Chuck Todd shouldn't have (or at least not express) opinions on these topics? Yet here he is -- as so many establishment journalists routinely do -- explicitly advocating against investigations of Bush-era crimes. Even more notably, the arguments in favor of such investigations merit no mention whatsoever. Would anyone listening to this discussion even have the slightest idea what the arguments are in favor of investigating and prosecuting?
The notion that these establishment journalists don't choose sides and are mere honest brokers of debates is, rather obviously, transparent fiction. What justifies Chuck Todd becoming an advocate in alliance with those who oppose investigations of Bush crimes? Isn't he supposed to be a reporter?
(2) Notice what, as always, is missing from this discussion: any reference to the fact that the conduct in question -- torture -- is illegal. What about the argument that numerous detainees died as a result of these methods? What about the argument that many interrogations plainly exceeded even the authorizations given by the DOJ? What about the argument that granting immunity to high-level political officials anytime they can find a low-level DOJ functionary to approve their behavior will destroy the rule of law?
Our media class literally believes that high executive branch officials have the right to break the law. For that reason, they cannot even recognize illegality as an issue worth anyone's attention. Thus, all this "torture" and "lying to Congress" and violating oversight laws is just "cable catnip," political posturing that obscures what truly matters. So sayeth NBC News' White House correspondent.
(3) One aspect of journalistic corruption that receive less attention than it deserves is the servile attitude so many of them develop to those who control access to their beat. As a White House reporter, who dominates Todd's professional life and determines the access he needs? To whom does he spend much of his day speaking? Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Robert Gibbs, and their underlings ("the West Wing") -- the very Obama political advisers who, by all accounts, vigorously oppose any investigation of Bush crimes because they believe such investigations will be bad for Obama politically.
Todd doesn't cover them as a reporter, adversarially scrutinizing what they argue and do. Instead, he becomes their spokesman. He not only describes what they believe, but he adopts it and advocates it himself (Todd: "the only important thing -- the most important thing -- the President has to focus on is getting the public's trust on the economy and pushing health care . . . ."[investigations are] sort of clouding the two most important issues the President's got to get his arms around this week: winning back trust of the middle on the economy and pushing health care through").
If one wanted to be generous, one could say that a President's political strategists should be thinking in such terms -- about how to keep the President's approval ratings as high as possible. But that, quite obviously, isn't Chuck Todd's role. Yet the distinction disappears. That is how Chuck Todd thinks because it's how those on whom he depends think. He's not a journalist wanting to impose accountability or find out the truth of what our government did. Instead, he serves as an advocate for the agenda of the political strategists who determine his access.
(4) Before he opines on it again, can someone please explain to Chuck Todd the difference between (a) the role of a private lawyer hired by a client and (b) the duties and obligations of Justice Department lawyers generally and OLC lawyers specifically? George Bush and Dick Cheney treated the DOJ as though it were their personal law firm there to serve their personal interests, so that's how Chuck Todd apparently understands it. The role of OLC lawyers isn't to "allow you to stretch things."
The constitutional powers of the President are quite limited and one of his only explicit duties is he "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." "Faithfully executing " the law doesn't mean "stretching" the law and it certainly doesn't mean breaking the law. I'm aware that talk of what the Constitution and the law require is just cable catnip, but ignoring that produces some rather significant consequences. I'd like to ask Chuck Todd: if Bush had John Yoo write a memo opining that it was perfectly legal for Bush to deploy hit squads within the U.S. to assassinate American citizens without any due process, would it be wrong to investigate and prosecute that, too, on the ground that everyone had permission slips from a DOJ lawyer and that's just what lawyers do?
(5) Ever since it was first revealed that Dick Cheney ordered the CIA to conceal an intelligence program from Congress, there has been one anonymous leak after the next designed to defend what Cheney did. That's why I noted that laughable CNN "news article" earlier today: this is how our political debates are shaped.
Note how those anonymous claims now just become an unquestioned part of these discussions by "journalists." Some anonymous intelligence official chats on the phone with Brzezinski and makes a bunch of Cheney-defending assertions; she excitedly writes it all down and goes on the TV and repeats it as Truth (and, of course, calls what she's doing "reporting"). And now, all of that is just assumed to be true by these "journalists": there was no real program, it never got off the ground, Congress was briefed anyway, Cheney did nothing wrong, there were no briefing obligations at all. Therefore, there's nothing to see here.
Nobody even thinks to question or challenge that. It's just accepted as true. Therefore, all of this is just petty cable catnip obscuring what truly matters, decrees NBC "reporter" Chuck Todd.
(6) As I've noted many times before -- though it still never ceases to amaze me -- the most revealing fact about our political culture is that the group most opposed to investigations of high-level political officials happens to be the very same group that was supposed to lead the way in investigating: our journalist class. Thomas Jefferson said:
Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues of truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is freedom of the press. It is therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions.
That's now completely reversed. It's the establishment press that stands most stalwart against investigations. They believe, as Richard Cohen so memorably put it when railing against the Lewis Libby conviction, that "it is often best to keep the lights off." Few things explain better what has happened to our political class than the fact that (with some important exceptions) it is establishment journalists who are the most aggressive opponents of investigations of high-level government lawbreaking. Trying to prevent investigations of their friends, colleagues and bosses in political power is one of the few times they're willing so explicitly to turn themselves into advocates, as Chuck Todd did here.
* * * * *
Chuck Todd/Morning Joe video (excerpted clip begins at 2:15):
UPDATE: I just received an email from Chuck Todd which read in its entirety: "happy to chat . . . sorry you couldn't email me or track me down..." My reply:
I'm happy to chat, too -- if you want, we can do a podcast discussion which I'll happily append to what I wrote.
I think your words speak for themselves and I don't think discussing or critiquing them requires calling you first to ask your views. What you said was broadcast to many people as is and that won't change based on whatever comments you want to add after the fact.
Let me know if you want to do a podcast interview about what I wrote -- I'm happy to do it and I think readers would benefit from hearing from you directly.
I genuinely hope he accepts. I'll post any updates as they develop.
UPDATE II: Todd just emailed me and agreed to do a podcast interview to discuss these matters. It's scheduled for later this afternoon and should be posted here shortly thereafter.
43 Comments so far
Show AllNo time to read all the comments, but I'm sure they agree that Greenwald scores impressively with this article.
It's well to remember that our news media system is structured somewhat like our educational system: at the bottom are kindergarten and elementary school. At the top are graduate schools. The MSM (mainstream NEWS media, that is; maybe we should call it MSNM) is about at the elementary school level. The MSNM's main purpose is to amuse people with news so that they will buy the advertised products. Deep analysis like that longed for by Greenwald isn't their function and is beyond their capability. Many CD readers would lead happier lives if they would stop expecting graduate level thinking in elementary school.
I enjoy the MSNM as much as anyone. Don't knock elementary school; it's pretty hard to get into graduate school without going through the elementary grades. But for real insight, I look to people like Greenwald, not Todd. Fortunately, with the Internet (among other outlets), we can get Greenwald's take.
MSNBC/NBC are supporters and sponsors of America's Imperial Wars, so I am hardly surprised that these people, whether it's Chuck Todd, Mika Brzezinski, Joe Scarborough or Pat Buchanan, oppose investigations into these obvious war crimes.
Just remember that Mika Brzezinski's father, Zbigniew, continues to defend that he started the mujihadeen which morphed into the Taliban years later.
Expect MSNBC to take these law-breaking postitions. People who support war crimes also need to be put on trial for aiding such unlawful acts which would include Chuck Todd, Mika Brzezinski, Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan.
GE which owns NBC does not have a stellar record when it comes to environmental issues, workers rights, and polluting people's homes, and in other faraway lands.
GE is a digusting company and one in which the late President Ronald Reagan was a pitchman--if you are still wondering why that peacock network still likes to lick the Gipper's butthole, even in death.
The people at GE/NBC/MSNBC are nothing but vipers who would rip out your heart and sell it to the highest bidder! These people are inhumane without any, any, any, any, any, moral conscience.
The person who needs to be reading this is Chuck Todd. Did you send it to him? Has anyone yet?
Glenn is right on the money. I'm a lawyer also and for the life of me I can't see the slightest legal justification for torture, murder, illegal detention. This is the biggest mess of all time. John Yoo and other DOJ lawyers involved committed crimes, including war crimes. This is not a close question and it never has been. There is no good faith reliance on obviously flawed memos that say you can torture and kill people. Americans believe they are above all the laws, including their own. Beware the imperial presidency.
I don't know where Glenn Greenwald has been all these years, but "NEWS" reporters have been anything but, for quite some time. It's all been about spinning the corporate agenda for a couple of decades, at the very least. The "talking heads" as my wife calls them seldom if ever ask real questions or report real news, only reiterate corporate policy statements. I find no surprise at what Mr Todd said. General Electric, Disney, Viacom, News Corp et.al. have invested heavily creating these figure heads, along with pseudo-credentials. And at the end of the day, the average American will turn on the TV and watch some "reality show" rather than check to see what legislation came before their representatives or how each voted. Bottom line, people don't want to be informed, they want to be entertained.
Chuck Todd was the person who disinvited Dennis Kucinich from the Democratic Presidential debate in Nevada (Jan. 2008) after previously inviting him.
Dennis met all the publicly disclosed criteria for participation. (That was until NBC changed those criteria at the last moment to force him out).
The real reason for the rejection was Kucinich's position on Yucca Mountain (GE is in the nuclear business) and Iraq (GE is one of the largest defense contractors).
Glenn - thanks so much for pointing this out - I was listening to Todd at the time - what a putz!
He says "sorry you couldn't email me or track me down" WHY?? He said it! track him down for what!
CHUCK TODD IS A CORPORATE TOM WHOSE LIVELY HOOD DEPENDS ON SPINNING CORPORATE BS.IF HE EVER DELIVERED SUBSTANTIAL
NEWS AND FACTS WE WOULD NEVER SEE HIS FACE ON SCREEN AGAIN.
AND WHILE USING THE TERM POOL OF REPORTERS IT'S SAFE TO SAY
THAT THERE WOULD BE MANY IN THAT POOL AS WELL IF THEY TOLD THE
TRUTH.
Chuck used to be a good reporter back in his CSPAN days. I always looked forward to his reports on members of Congress for Congressional Quarterly (?). But I think it's obvious what happened. He got courted by the big media sell outs on MSNBC's Morning Joe. The worst being Mika and Andrea Mitchell. Mika's father is the "liberal" master architect of the New World Order, Zbigniew Brezinski. The Grand Chess Game he wrote in the 90s outlines the neocons plan for control of the worlds resources and the reorganizing of the current paradigm power structure. He mirrors the Rockefellers and Rothchilds and in the end is just another elitist Bankster type ruining the world.And Chuck is impressed. Ive seen Andrea Mitchel flirting with Chuck on camera and he seems starstruck, envious and most sycophantic...of course Andrea's husband is none other than Alan Greenspan. Chuck mustve been to some parties at their house and is now pretty much bought and paid for. TIME TO BUY YOUR SOUL BACK, CHUCK!!!!!!!
It's actually "The Grand Chessboard", but that's nothing. Time to pick up your copy of "The Supercilious Risk Tournament of Central Asia".
With the rise in media alternatives, fantasts like MSNBC, CNN and the NYT have found added reason to lie. They have lost most of their standing as purveyors of information, and the more dirt comes out, the worse their complicity will look.
I should think a quick 180-degree turn would be better, but I don't see any takers in the moneyed press.
"... they get paid to interpret the law, and interpret the law in a way that allows you to stretch things.
You are on a slippery slope... You can't suddenly change the law retroactively because there's another interpretation of this."
Chuck, there is no slope here. It is as flat as the Serengeti It wasn't a stretch or an interpretation. It was the completely insane idea that the President, as the unitary executive and commander in chief, can do ANYTHING he deems necessary to defend us, up to and including killing us to defend us. Some crack head lawyer replaced every court, every treaty and every principle to assert, retroactively, that torture - and anything else - was legal so long as the Great Father in Washington declared it was for our own good. Hard to imagine that we would want to push back on that.
Oh, and I didn't know that Chuck was a reporter. You learn something new every day. I thought he was GE's mouthpiece.
I think most (all?) of these top echelon "reporters" give whores a bad name. Whores are honest about what they do; they don't cast themselves as being a Mother Theresa.
Isn't Mr. Todd's position very similar to Obama's on this issue? Just asking.
Yet another example of the corporate media propaganda machine and another reason I do not watch TV news. But hey this is good for a laugh.
It is pretty strange when the "serious" news is so idiotic and comical, and shows like the Daily Show and Colbert are supposed to be comical yet are more serious. Forgive the cliche, but how Orwellian.
THANK YOU, MR. GREENWALD, FOR DOING REAL JOURNALISM. I will email the White House in a moment to express my support for investigations by the DOJ.
When someone defend someone in the wrong, they are guilty as that inhuman person. Torture is certainly unhuman. Lying is a disgrace of public office. So all thes ass kissers are wrong.
What's most galling and absurd, as Greenwald points out, is the Big Media notion that members of the Executive Branch can get away with anything as long as some appointee in the DOJ tells them it's legal.
"Yes, the president now admits he broke into the home and raped that woman when he was stinking drunk, but he did have a memo from Jay Bybee at DOJ advising him that was legal, so I think further investigation or prosecution of the matter is a worthless distraction."
"Sure the vice president secretly arranged to sell long-range nuclear missiles to North Korea without telling Congress, but since his plans never worked out, why should he be investigated? Besides, he had a memo from John Yoo at Justice telling him it was all completely legal, so why even get into it?"
Somehow, incredibly, the Big Media flapjaws like Pat "Hitler Meant No Harm" Buchanan weren't quite as forgiving and circumspect when the issue was Clinton's penis or any statements made thereof. Then it was a gravely serious matter that must be thoroughly investigated or the Republic would surely fall.
Of course, I have been told that one reason the Todd's in the White House Steno Pool so aggressively play this 'don't go after BushCo' game has to do with Turdblossom's stacks of secret files on them. Like J. Edgar Hoover, Rove has been said to intimidate reporters by threatening to release embarrassing information of their adulterous affairs, falsified personal histories, or sexual proclivities, or turn over evidence of their illegal activities, such as smoking pot or snorting coke, to the police. And if Bush's vicious psychopathic 'Brain' can't nail them directly, he'll go after their families. It's who he is, and he's still on the job, according to rumor.
"Yes, the president now admits he broke into the home and raped that woman when he was stinking drunk, but he did have a memo from Jay Bybee at DOJ advising him that was legal..."
Square that with your Obama's vote to retroactively legalize the illegal spying activities of Bush & Co. (FISA) When Bush did it was illegal. Obama voted to give him cover. Bush didn't rape a woman but he broke the law and Obama helped to provide him with the "memo" he needed to make it legal. Any thoughts?
What's bothering me is that I think this Cheney secret program stuff is a total distraction. These people lied and falsified this country, not mention other the countrys, into a really nasty, long war. As part of this war they may have thought about assassinations? Of course they did. Besides, missiles and bombs are just assassination by other, less precise , more deadly, and easier means. SOP.
The death, dismemberment and displacement the Bush administration presided over is a criminal legacy way beyond some maybe operational program.
We need a truth commission to turn on the lights, and reveal this legacy. Not a pen-light, a spotlight.
So...will homocidal, looting and lying be the new precidential Presidential values? We ALWAYS hold elected officials to a 'higher' standard but no human can possibly crawl as low as these thugs.
What we need is a national poll asking the following question:
What should Dick Cheney's punishment be for authorizing the illegal torture that resulted in the death of many detainees?
(1) Hanging
(2) Firing squad
(3) Gas chamber
(4) Leathal injection
(5) Electric chair
(6) All of the above
(Such a poll would be about as fair as the trials of the other terrorist suspects.)
bystander,
when it comes to dealing with Cheney and his pals, I'm strictly a capitalist. This crook has brand name! Millions of people want to give him "what for" with vigor. So I say we make money out of him. I posted this before but it's something to think about. Put him in one of those things they put the "sinners" back in early colonial days. Everybody gets to throw a rotton vegetable at him and cuss him out for a $100 a pop. We make about $240,000 a day for as long as he lasts and can use it for war reparations, health care, social security or whatever. They made (make) a lot of money off of us. We should turn the tables. Hey Paulson, it's not personal, just business, as all good capitalists say.
I choose number 6. It would make a great 5 part miniseries. Week 1 they hang him. Week 2 they take the corpse, tie it to a post and give him a volley in the chest. Week 3 they take the corpse to San Quentin, strap it into the gas chamber. Etc. etc etc.
Sioux Rose
MORDECHAI: I can't believe I am laughing at this. Politics by, for, and about the dark side does strange things to us peace-lovers!
Sioux Rose
All good posts. Anyone else notice this Todd quote, "You can't suddenly change the law retroactively." Seems to me that was exactly what was done in rendering legal the FISA program after the ILLEGAL facts of its trespass against the privacy rights of citizens was exposed. And it also seems to me that certain rulings by courts pertaining to torture and/or the status of "illegal enemy combatants" were also ignored, bypassed, or sent back for a "do-over" until a remote semblance of legality was established to protect the amoral policies of the Bush Junta. Again, AFTER the fact.
There is a striking parallel between the sychophants of media and their cousins on Wall St. What they hold in common is the embrace of a truly alternative reality wherein stealing = business, and lying = patriotism. Every ideal and semblance of integrity has utterly broken down. Another poster pointed out how many making "the news" and setting public policy come from Ivy League Universities. Perhaps the moral rot that exalts Mammon above all other things truly begins there?
Exactamundo..
Here is a quote they seem to have forgotten..
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"
And the rules..
from the Constitution, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is:
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Sioux Rose,
Nice job pointing out the hypocrisy of saying it's fine to retroactively change a law (FISA) to grant immunity to lawbreakers, however it not fair to "suddenly change the law retroactively" if it gets the political establishment into hot water. Good call.
Sioux Rose you must see "The Century of the Self" if you haven't already done so. It deals with how Edward Bernays used the theories of his uncle, Sigmund Freud to manipulate public opinion and encourage people to switch from only consuming things they need into becoming docile "happiness machines" that desire things they absolutely don't need and fall for such lines as "change" and "hope" which have absolutely nothing to do with the pols mouthing them.
Sioux Rose
RIC: Thank you for the acknowledgement. You're one sharp cookie. As for that DVD, is it something I could get from Netflix? I don't have TV and our library is a right wing born again joke. I suppose I could purchase the set on Amazon?
Last night I watched one of my favorite movies of all time, "My Dinner with Andre." I hadn't seen it since college. It's a remarkable film in my view because it asks the pertinent, potentially timeless questions.
It would be great if CD sponsored a weekend "workshop" that showed some of these films and we could meet and have coffee or wine/beer and discuss the subjects. Some of us could probably provide workshops. I would devote my time to one gratis. Others who have strong backgrounds in history, economics, psychology, etc can also provide lectures. I think we have a major talent pool right here.
We could raise $ for CD and support Kathy's "Main Street Party," and brainstorm about strategies for saving our nation.
Thanks Sioux Rose. It would be very good if CD could help us organize some workshops, that's a very good idea. You are right about CD being a pool of major talent starting with you my friend. BFK's Main St. Party is also an idea that I like.
There are many very good films out there. About the "Century of the Self" I doubt you can get it at a rental store. You can watch it or download it for free at: http://www.archive.org
/details/AdaCurtisCenturyoftheSelf_0 (sorry had to break it up)
Another movie I strongly recommend is Zeitgeist Addendum you can watch it for free at: http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=5r6-o1lpJHU (sorry had to break it up- again) Zeitgeist deals with the Federal Reserve scam and features John Perkins who wrote Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
Or you can Google the titles and get the links. I know you are busy and always working. Maybe you can just jot the names down and save them for a literal rainy day (I am sure in Florida you do get them) See ya on the threads- Ric
Did anyone else notice that Buchanan states, baldly, that Cheney and Bush are responsible for the torture policies - and that's why they shouldn't be investigated?
He's absolutely right, of course: if those policies are investigated, a giant political can of worms hits the fan. That's why the Obamites don't want them investigated: they might have to hold someone accountable.
They might also have to give up the powers that the Bushies usurped. Why would they want that?
As long as they refuse to investigate and prosecute, they are just as much neocons as the Bushies, only with prettier speeches.
Oregoncharles
GG..
I also do not fully understand why you would waste your time on Chuck Todd unless you just enjoy exposing him for what he really is. Chuck is a mouthpiece, he is NOT a journalist. He either reads from the script given to him by the White House or his masters @ corporate media HQ. That makes him a reporter.
Both he and Stephanopolis disturbed me to no end during the presidential campaigns by dismissing candidates as "not viable" and thereby excluding them from debate.
Specifically Kucinich..
In my mind Chuck and Joe are MSNBC's version of Fox Noise, as they come off like so much "media catnip" and a distraction from the investigative journalism needed to get to the bottom of all the illegal activities of the Bush administration.
But I do appreciate your efforts to shine a bright light on all the rogues and charlatans.
It humors me to see them squirm.
imo
http://opinionsandreasons.blogspot.com/
They do the bidding of whomever is in power in exchange for access. It really is all about preserving their standing in the pecking order as opposed to asking challenging questions or investigating. By sticking to the script, they might as well be reading one--the whitehouse press releases- since all they are are mouthpieces. Aside from a handful, there is no honor in the Mainstream profession anymore, they are just a bunch of opportunists, echoing the proper buzzwords and talking points. They did the same thing under Bush--so any investigation of how the Bush administration got away with it--reflects on the media who never deviated from the whitehouse power base script.
Todd: I'm sure there are a legal minds that will fight and say I don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems to me that's a legal and a political slippery slope.
-hey, you finally got something right: YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!
NBC . . . Nothing But Corruption. CHUCK Todd. Back in the day, he would have been CHARLES Todd. Now, however, in the Age of George Wanker Bush, he's Chuck, just one of the guys, one of the putos, crapping on your head and calling it "journalism".
Mr. Greenwald,
Why waste your time writing about corporate media prostitutes like Chuck Todd who are paid large salaries to distort political issues and sanitize them so people will not ask critical questions? They are paid to dumb down the issues to an audience that is more interested in who wins American Idol or Dancing With the Stars than critical political issues that directly affect their lives. And these media prostitutes like Todd and Erin Burnett know it so they can cloak their bullshit in false, eloquent rhetoric, and come across as brilliant thinkers to fellow ass kissers like Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, and Pat Buchanan. These people are one big happy harem, and they have no intention of deviating from the corporate line.
Mr. Greenwald,
Please continue writing about these corporate media prostitutes like Chris Todd. You are a brilliant reporter and more than capable of debating these shills and shredding their "arguments". Well done and keep up your award-winning good work!
Many of us who regularly read and post on CD already are aware of the bullshit the MSM peddles, so this article is nothing new to us. Nonetheless, we still appreciate the great articles that Mr. Greenwald writes.
Gracchus, Greenwald's article was published by Salon. It would seem that your argument is with the administrators at CD for posting it here.
q
quickstepper,
A couple of posts down I mentioned that it most likely was posted on Salon and other sites. Many writers who publish articles send them to many sites. I don't side with Administrators, and perhaps I am expressing my own preference for new articles with new information and insights instead of information I already know. It is not to say I am ungrateful for the work Mr. Greenwald publishes. Quite the contrary - I really enjoy reading his articles, and hope to see more of them. And I am glad that CD includes them.
I know that. Greenwald is preaching to the choir on CD. Let's hope he gets more play outside and eventually into the mainstream. If he doesn't expose the manipulation by the media who is? This may not be news to us but it may be to the sheeple. Maybe a little will tricke out, especially when they do the podcast.
Todd is speaking to the sheepled masses and presenting the arguments of the PTB. We need good reporters like Greenwald to expose their lies and present the other side of the arguments.
Greenwald: "Even more notably, the arguments in favor of such investigations merit no mention whatsoever. Would anyone listening to this discussion even have the slightest idea what the arguments are in favor of investigating and prosecuting?"
Who is going to present the other side of the arguments? Greenwald et al.
UPDATE: It shouldn't be exclusively about the "Many of us who regularly read and post on CD" Greenwald's mission is greater than that.
I agree with you. It is good that we have conscientious writers like Greenwald to expose charlatan journalist corporate mouthpieces like Todd. And I would hope that Greenwald's message goes far beyond those of us who read and post at CD.
Perhaps Greenwald's article appears on other sites like Salon. I would hope that it appears on sites with many newer readers. But given readers who regularly post here on CD, I am not sure it would get as much readership and facilitate extensive discussion as it might on another newer site. Anyway, I have said enough. Good day.
"It's the establishment press that stands most stalwart against investigations."
The key word there is "establishment". The MSM no longer does "journalism" in any meaningful sense and the adversarial relationship to the ruling class that Jefferson expected - and that in fact existed until several decades ago - disapeared about the time that the entire MSM was absorbed into a handful of mega-corporations and the beancounters began acting as newsroom editors. Combine that with fact that the Villagers are an incestuous bunch - after all, how uncomfortable would it get at all their little dinner parties if journalists started "investigating" politicians? I'll be interested to see how Todd defends his assessment of "what's important" since clearly, the rule of law doesn't qualify.
Most of what Todd says, unfortunately, is an accurate reading of the only way these agendas play out in the U.S.