When you have someone that did something wrong, you pin them against the wall for having done something wrong. When you can't prove that they actually did do anything wrong, you pin them against the wall for not telling everyone what they did or leaving the appearance that they might have done something wrong.
Is the media bored? Or just exceedingly self-absorbed and/or petulent?
That's the most benign explanation I can come up with to explain the media's fascination with Dick Cheney's shooting incident. Don't get me wrong, it's interesting stuff. Possibly tragic, depending on what all comes of it. And I would expect the
New York Times to try to make hay of it and I'm not surprised that a
former press secretary or
two takes the opportunity to point out some pretty valid flaws in the handling of the situation.
But even so, I find the ominous tone of it all to be quite curious, to say the least. According the the
Judd clan, reporters are even asking if there will be federal charges filed or if Cheney will have to step down. Folks, if you have any reason to believe that this was anything accept an honest accident besides the belief that Cheney is just that evil, please step forward with it. If you can even think of a motive for why Cheney would intentionally shoot a donor and supporter, I'd like to hear it.
Absent that, there is a noticeable lack of meat to the story.
Cover-up? There was nothing to cover up. Fitzwater compares it to an incident where George H Bush collapsed. That kind of thing is significant because it affects the chain of command of our government. Had Cheney been accidentally shot, that would be Page 1 news. Right now this is news, but more of the entertainment variety. Even the likely lawsuit or settlement is probably more celebrity news than political news. If the man dies, of course, everything changes. If they bring Cheney up on charges (beyond a fine for not having all the right licensure), that changes things as well. But both of those appear to be unlikely and this, at present, is more interesting than hard newsworthy.
So all I can think of is that the media is really bored, really interested in stories (including non-story stories) that let the administration look bad, or so self-important as to be the most important thing to consider when someone is accidentally shot.
Reporters who are PO'ed that he didn't immediately hold a press conference before the ambulance had even reached a hospital?
Self-absorbed, self-important.
Reporters who are gleeful over any chance to ponder on-camera whether Cheney will be fired/impeached?
Partisans interested in anything that makes their opponents look bad.
That being said, the willingness of the media here to go after the Bush white house's members also has a lot to do with the fact that the Bush white house is one of the most closed-mouthed, about everything and everything, in recent history. They had "good" access under Reagan, more under Bush's dad, ridiculous amounts under Clinton, and then Bush closed it off again. And with the media as self-important as they are, it certainly didn't help the Bush Administration's image with them.
Well said.
There's a lot I could say about impeachment and the media... but for now all I can say is well said.
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
