What if the media itself is the problem?

(As I write this, at least one other Republican Senator is wavering on whether to vote for calling witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.)

Senator Lamar Alexander announced that he won’t vote for witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump.  He called the current impeachment proceedings “highly partisan” and that it is “tearing the country apart”.  He also feels that the highly partisan nature of the impeachment, both on the House and Senate sides, sets a bad precedent for the future.  The reports are that, without Senator Alexander, there may not be enough votes to call for witnesses.

“tearing the country apart”.  He’s only half right.  It isn’t the current process that’s tearing the country apart.  It’s the overwhelmingly misleading news reports and “analysis” that are failing to fully inform The People of the flaws and one-sided nature of the House proceedings that led to two textually-vague articles of impeachment.

The “press” has sometimes been called “the 4th estate” because, as an organ that implements a Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom, the press has incredible power.  It can shape both national opinion and politics by how and what it reports to The People.  The problem is that the press has failed in its responsibility to exercise “due diligence” far too often since the establishment of The Republic.  Instead of acting as a check against government to ensure that governmental power is not being misused, it has used its own power to interfere with the workings of government.  It has too often had a knee-jerk reaction to a story without following up whether the story was true.  And it has failed to correct the record when it - the "press" - is proven wrong.

In the movie “All The President’s Men”, the executive editor of the WAPO – Ben Bradley – refuses to print any of the rumors about the Watergate incident until Woodward and Bernstein have confirmed those rumors with second sources.  As well as finding witnesses and second sources, they have documents with names on them as well as eye-witnesses to actual conversations that took place, conversations that discuss actual crimes.  Eventually, even some of the accused members of the Nixon staff pled guilty, meaning that they did it and they knew they did it.

Ever since Watergate, it seems that every reporter on the Washington “beat” is looking for the next “big breaking bombshell” story.  Something big enough to earn a Pulitzer.  Every unsourced (meaning “anonymous” and thus unverified and sometimes unverifiable) rumor is printed as fact.  Every “news agency” is looking for a story to scoop all of the other “news agencies”.   Far too often, the “scoop” ends up being a nothingburger, a lie, or a huge distortion.  Instead of truth, the press prints speculation disguised as opinion.  Reporters bury the lede in the 20th paragraph of a 21 paragraph story.

There is no more due diligence, no more requirements for a “second source”.  Ben Bradley may be rolling in his grave over the lack of verification in today’s “press”.

“Because that’s what I think” is an insufficient standard to formally accuse anyone of a crime.  In court, what you think is not evidence: what was done is evidence.  And if you didn’t actually see it happen, your testimony is worthless – and can be thrown out.  The courts require due diligence, and the presiding judge can stop the proceedings if he/she believes that the prosecution is gaming the system merely for a conviction.  But in the 21st century, a media opinion writer’s “here’s what I think” takes on the imprimatur of fact.  The press gets away with it because it is relying on its own history and standing as justification to publish, and because the Constitution says that that Congress shall make no law "...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

Freedom without responsibility: this should be the motto of today's press.

“The Newspaper Of Record” may have meant something in the early 20th century when the NYT was faced with printing facts to defeat the lies and deceptions of Hurst's “yellow sheets”.  And it may have meant something when the NYT and WAPO were fighting to publish the Pentagon Papers – actual printed evidence of corruption in the DOD - against the orders of the White House.  And it may have meant something during Watergate, when actual crimes were being investigated and “deep throat” was pointing Woodward and Bernstein toward actual corruption in the White House.

But something happened in 2008.  The election of Barack Obama changed everything.  The press had pushed “the chosen one” into the White House and were ready sell their souls and use all of their power to protect him and his administration.  The press knew about “Fast and Furious” and stayed silent.  They knew that the IRS was being used as a weapon against political enemies and stayed silent.  They knew of the numerous accusations of corruption in the Obama administration and stayed silent.  Why?  Because they had chosen Obama.  They were protecting “one of their own”.

Then along comes the most unlikely of candidates for President: Donald J. Trump, who is a creature of media.  He understands the media and how it can be used.  Trump begins to use one of the media's favorite social media platforms… and the mainstream media watches their carefully self-crafted reputation begin to crumble.  They use all of their power to try to stop Trump from being elected: everything from false accusations of sexual misconduct to replays of “locker room” talk to accusations of corruption in his past businesses.

But Trump is elected President – against the full-throated opposition of the press.

Trump immediately starts “pulling back the covers”, “turning on the lights”, and Tweeting about what he’s finding… and the press realizes that they no longer have control or influence over the highest official in American government.  So, the press turns its eye toward the public.  It violates Bradlee’s “get verification before we print” standard… and quickly begins to lose the public’s confidence.  The harder the media fights to regain the public’s confidence by reporting false evils about Trump, the faster they continue to lose the public’s confidence.  They enlist members of Congress to assist them ...

… and here we are, nearing the end of a process that began with nothing more than rumor and innuendo, consisting of nothing more than rumor and innuendo, with a set of impeachment articles based on nothing more than rumor and innuendo.

With at least one Senator now walking away from demanding witnesses that the House never called, and with at least one other wavering, Trump will be acquitted.  The media will go absolutely nuts, accusing the Left of betraying them, of being unable to prove the unprovable, and to convict without hard evidence.

I have a strange feeling that this episode – the attempt to impeach the president without a prosecutable crime – may be a turning point.  Either some in the press will begin the process of self-examination and ask “why didn’t we do our own unbiased investigation” and return to printing fact-based, verified, and unbiased reports , or some in the press will go even deeper into recrimination and accusation, thus proving – even to their friends – that they are irredeemably biased and untrustworthy.

Either way, it’ll be good for the country.  I’m hoping that the current press destroys itself.  This could actually free the public to find fact-based media reporters who can point back and show how “the press” corrupted itself in its own chase for political power.

Dazed and Confused

I have news for the MSM and the Left: the reason that there is such “confusion and indecision” about impeachment is that there is no clear-cut path to a legitimate and identifiable Constitutional offense.  Most Americans may not have the elitist penchant for barely connected and remotely-related nuance, but they can tell when they’re hearing a used-car salesman trying to make a deal.  Meanwhile, the attempt to distract attention by claiming “Nothing to see here” only attracts attention and makes people want to look closer.

Democrats think that their base’s indignation at Trump’s extremely boorish behavior is sufficient reason to justify any action to remove him from office – or to at least inflict traditionally political wounds in an attempt to “teach him a lesson”.

But we’re dealing with Trump, who isn’t a traditional politician and who doesn’t have political ambitions.  The politicians who such deep-seated hate for Trump seem to forget that he already occupies the top spot in American politics – and he did it on the basis of his own popularity without "climbing the political ladder".

"Political wounds"? Why would Trump possibly care about being “politically wounded” when he still has full Constitutional authority over the Executive branch?

When the Constitutionally mandated basis for impeachment – high crimes and misdemeanors - needs to be twisted into a confusion of pretzel-logic “justifications” for a non-criminal offense...

When the actions taken by a President mirror previous actions taken by high government (and elected) officials still currently serving in the Government...

When the MSM stops being a voice for the people and starts being a voice for one political party…

…that’s when you begin to clearly see what lies ahead.

The Senate will now take the baton in this meaningless impeachment exercise based on "charges" that reflect nothing more than a deep dislike for the current President.  Every president has been accused of "abuse of power" by the opposition party when the opposition party disagrees with the President's exercise of his plenary powers.  The charge "abuse of power" is thus meaningless, and using it as a means to impeach a president reduces impeachment from a serious charge to a joke.

Meanwhile, and as The People stand by and watch without doing anything about it, the United States continues the downward race leading to an inevitable outcome: the eventual dissolution of the Republic.

The descent became even more obvious during Bush 41’s presidency and continued during the Clinton and Bush presidencies.  Then came Obama’s actions to “fundamentally change” the American experience and destroy the underpinning of both the American economy and the republic itself.  The hope was that Hillary would finish the job – but she lost the election to an unexpected interloper.

Trump is hated because he interrupted the “fundamental change” and gave some Americans a brief respite to look around and finally see what was happening.  But the process was already well underway and supported by a majority of Americans who were taught to think that America is evil and must be destroyed.

America is done.  It’s been done for a few decades.  The only difference is that the depth of the rot is only now being seen.  Too late, tho:  the rot goes too deep to be fixed.