Today the New York Times leads with the 9/11 Commission’s interview with Bush/Cheney. It was completely vacuous. We learn the meeting was cordial. We learn about seating arrangements, locations and the seats. We learn from Thomas H. Kean, the chair of the Commission that there was information they learned that they did not have, but it was what they expected. He also tells us about the “sharp” questions (”very sharp, but very fair”) from the panel - is he describing cheese?
The president and vice president answered all the questions, waiting until there were no more. They were “consistent with their previous accounts and with recent testimony to the commission.” The panel “found the president and the vice president forthcoming and candid.”
This is a reasonable summary of a long front page article, one that would merit little notice except for the media, and the subject matter (lessons to be learned from the 9/11 terrorist attacks).
The media describes this as “historic,” “extraordinary,” and numerous other words showing that it is a momentous occasion. That they had nothing to report about the actual content bothered them little. That they could report the well known public contradictions and false assertions of Bush and Cheney in the harmonious and grand terms used above, that also bothered them little. That the panel would use such terms, absolutely discrediting their questioning, honesty or both was not worth noting. As if to emphasize the complete abandonment of mainstream journalist objectivity, the Times also runs an article titled “Just How ‘Historic’ Can an Oval Office Interview Be if It’s Not Recorded?” which pretends that the issue is a lack of pictures, not content and a critical stance: “Throughout the day, the torrent of words used on cable news shows to describe the meeting (’exceptionally rare,’ ‘extraordinary,’ ‘historic’) clashed almost comically with the meager visual images.”
As to the subject matter, I originally intended to call this “Much Ado About Nothing,” but that would have been a mistake. Not only does this have a lot to do (or should have a lot to do) with improving our national security, but it also is about honoring those that lost their lives or loved ones in the September 11th terrorist attack. I cannot imagine the horror, disgust and rage that family members of those that died, or the sometimes permanently injured public servants that tried to save them, must feel in seeing this sham. It is an insult in the extreme, made more egregious by the fact that they have had to fight the Bush Administration and its allies hard to even get the Commission. Yesterday was much ado about nothing. We would do well to remember that for American security, and honoring those living and dead impacted by the terrorism, in all too many cases, it was about everything.
Post a Comment