Torture is Not About "Winning the Afternoon," OK?
Reporting, though, is only part of the equation: The motto around the Politico newsroom is to "win the morning, win the afternoon"--by which editors mean that Politico's stories need to be the most talked-about and cited in that day's news cycle.
-- The New Republic, "The Scoop Factory," Feb. 2009.
I know this must be hard for the editors at the Politico to fathom, but there are actually some stories that come down the pike that are more important, and more complicated, than "winning the morning" or "winning the afternoon." The growing drumbeat of revelations about the torture of prisoners in American custody -- in a scheme that was cooked up and then rationalized at the highest levels of our government -- is nothing less than a moral test of who we are as a nation and where we want go from here. It doesn't lend itself to cute little "up" and "down" arrows, to dueling cable shouters "on the right" and "on the left," to all the little devices we in the media use to equate American politics on the soundbite level of sports' "Pardon the Interruption."
I was thinking about that last week as I was reading the latest thrust by the Politico-Drudge alliance, framing the torture story not as one as a failed test of the morals of the president we had just 96 days ago (his name was George W. Bush in case you've forgotten) and his administration, but as yet another new challenge for President Barack Obama. Their emphasis was that "Obama's attempt to project legal and moral clarity on coercive CIA interrogation methods has instead done the opposite -- creating confusion and political vulnerability over an issue that has inflamed both the left and right."
The article was off-base in so many ways it's hard to know where to begin. For what it matters, Obama has been very consistent on this topic from Day One, and I know, because I was the very first reporter to ask him about the notion of prosecuting Bush White House officials -- inspired specifically by the torture issue -- when the then-candidate visited the Daily News 12 months ago. What he said then is what he's saying now, that he wants his presidency to be forward looking but that no one is above the law. It's true that a key Obama aide, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, caused some confusion by saying something different in one interview...but ultimately, so what? Should one misstatement really distract us from the fundamental truths that a nation that was founded to promote life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness strayed so far from those ideals.
One of things that the Politicos and David Broders and other channelers of the Beltway zeitgeist seem so unable to fathom is quite simply that the torture issue is simply bigger than eben Obama's ability to control. Sure, he can influence some key aspects of it, as he did with last week's release of the Justice Department memos. But at the end of the day, it is not -- and should not be -- Obama's decision on whether to prosecute, but the deliberate and independent judgment of the Justice Department.
And an issue this big belongs to all of us, anyway. It belongs to our elected representatives, who must decide whether to press their own investigations and whether to impeach one of the torture memo authors, Jay Bybee,. now a federal appeals judge. It belongs to rand-and-file citizens to press our leaders to act. And of course it also belongs to those of us in the news media, who have the ability to investigate the facts that government, even a new government, might find uncomfortable to expose, and also to provide the moral framework and outraged tone that a story like this one deserves.
For the most part, we've failed so far. It was more than a little disheartening to learn of the crippling fear inside the newsroom of the New York Times, where editors and reporters were so afraid of offending, so afraid of anyone thinking that the newspaper was taking a side, that the news staffers refused to label globally outlawed practices such as waterboarding as "torture." On the same morning we learned about that wishy-washiness at our most influential newspaper, David Broder of the Washington Post was trying to argue that the torture story isn't about obeying the law, or about our national soul, but "cloaks an unworthy desire for vengeance." I believe what Broder is really saying is that it's impossible for him to believe that someone who lunches across from him at the Palm or the Capitol Grille is capable of what Frank Rich described as "the banality of evil," that someone who wears a nice tie or has a kid in Little League could condone or encourage unlawful, violent and sometimes even lethal acts -- acts which we are now learning were carried out to achieve the dubious political ends of our leaders.
Almost every flaw of our craft has been on display in the last week or two -- the pleading for a middle-of-the-road answer to a problem where there is no middle ground, the phony "he said, she said" journalism that gives a 50 percent voice to the advocates of American-bred torture, the use of unnecessary anonymous quotes to defend the indefensible, the need for an elite inside-the-Beltway clique to circle the wagons, to insist that aggressive prosecution is only for the crimes that "regular people" commit.
What a shame. Although it is tragic that we must be talking about something like torture in the United States of America in 2009, this issue does offer modern journalism a chance to do something we have not done in at least a generation -- and that is to provide this nation, our readers and viewers, with moral clarity and leadership. There is still time to show that we've learned something from the fiasco of pre-Iraq war journalism, when a lack of aggressive reporting and a kowtowing to authority made us a co-conspirator in one major step into the abyss, when we launched a "pre-emptive war" against a nation not capable of attacking us. Now, there is no reason why every journalistic voice in this country can say it as simply as Fox News Channel's Shepherd Smith, that "we are America, we do not (expletive deleted) torture." Why not? I don't know any journalist who thinks there are two sides to freedom of the press, so why should freedom from torture be any different?
And then we can follow that up by proving we're still capable of what we once did best -- aggressive investigative reporting, fighting for more openness and transparency, and letting the chips fall where they may, regardless of who gets hurt...as long as people are held accountable. That won't solve all of journalism's woes -- it won't bring back our classified ads, to name just one -- but this is something that is in our control, where we can do the right thing. It starts with remembering that in every generation, there comes a story where there's no sitting on the fence -- and that this is our story.
And that there are actually a few things more important in this world than "who won the afternoon"?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Leon Panetta, the new CIA director under President Obama, has order that interrogations be done by the CIA using the Army Field Manual, which does not include water boarding. So water boarding and the like is already a thing of the past at the CIA. So this is not a big deal as far as I can see. The only folks who were water boarded were really bad people who frankly deserved it. And now we don't do that anymore, so hey, no harm, no foul.
Bull! We hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding american soldiers in WWII. It's torture, plain and simple. If you say they deserved it, then american troops in foreign lands can be tortured by their captors who believe in their hearts that "americans deserve it". Lots of harm, lots of fouls. Get a grip!
Is this supposed to be satirical? If not, it is breathtakingly amoral.
I suspect that if Obama does not prosecute, the Europeans will. Then Obama will face a new choice - extradite and outrage Republicans or refuse to extradite and destory all of his foreign policy goals.
Nah, (we) Europeans are great talkers, but awful doers. We won't prosecute, and frankly it isn't our place to do so.
Well said, well written. You are obviously among the diminishing number of practicing journalists out there, true to your profession, courageous in the face of political push back and loathe to become an instrument of government propaganda. Hang in there. The majority of the American people are with you.
Yes, it was well written. One of the things I despise most about modern journalism, and I have always loved to read newspapers. is the the kind of "he said, she said" reporting that the author refers to in this article. it uncovers no facts, gives all sides equal validity, and reduces the journalist to little more than a stenographer. The far right has pushed journalists into a box to report with such passivity by declaring all journalistic venues as "biased.".
"...those of us in the news media, who have the ability to investigate the facts that government, even a new government, might find uncomfortable to expose, and also to provide the moral framework and outraged tone that a story like this one deserves."
The media is too politcally correct on this one.
This is huge.
Great post.
Excellent summary! Like many, I've been regularly documenting on my blog example after example of how our establishment media is consistently failing the public on the torture story. So far, it's all fallen on deaf ears. It's absolutely mind boggling to many of us that most establishment "journalists" don't want to know the full story. And if they don't want to know the full story why in the world are they even in their profession?
While our media is now preoccupied with hyping the swine flu story, I hope that at some point soon, they will finally realize that more and more Americans are rightfully viewing them with the contempt they deserve for their deliberate obfuscation of this crucial story.
http://dem
release ALL the documents, the reason they back-off is everybody involved in the decision to allow torture is dirty, and they want to protect Nancy P. Play the tapes, if one is guilty, there all guilty, and they should all resign in shame (current admin.) Some of the people who approved of this behavior are still in Congress, are they above the law
No they are NOT all guilty! Just outnumbered!
Dennis Kucinich proposed a bill to impeach cheney 2 years ago! Then followed up with a bill to impeach bush as well. There were 30 co-sponsors, my Rep Mike Michaud among them.
30 against 435....isn
I don't agree that it reflects on us as Americans but it really reflects on us as Americans as to how we clean it up and make sure it doesn't happen again.
This was done in great secrecy, arrogance, inexperience in worldly affairs ( other than burecratic type ) and disdain for law and common decency. In other words, in an almost total vacumn of hands on experience of anything other than sports bars, frat parties and memo writing.
Because almost to a person these people avoided military or any other public service that would have allowed them to see and experience the rest of the world as it is instead of as they perceived it thru their "blood rose" colored glasses.
By codifying torture as legal, they made something that always happens in war in isolated incidences that can be taken care of once brought to light, into something that is now going to be every bit as bad as allowing Wall Street to drag the whole world into a recession.
They should be charged and tried as a capitol offense. If found guilty they should be executed the next day.
This will cure the problem for the immediate future.
That this actually needs to be pointed out to the news media is appalling. Where are my serious journalists from the Vietnam-Watergate era? Oh, right. They were run out of town or tossed off the air (like Dan Rather) by their bosses -- who toed the Bush administration's line because they didn't want whatever business they had before Congress disturbed.
Reporters need to feed their families too. Maybe the death of the current news industry isn't such a bad thing, as it will leave room for a more aggressive form of journalistic investigation when the profession realizes that this is what the people want -- and for which we will actually pay if you prove you are worth it to us.
There is not one person who is giving Obama a hard time for his refusal to prosecute who isn't also calling for Bush to be in prison.
That Bush and Cheney should be in prison for torture and murder IS the point that all of us agree on.
The only problem to complicate the entire issue is President Obama. Why?
Because of his Pelosi styled treatment of this torture mess.
If Obama was not obstructing justice, but rather moving forward with prosecutions there would be none of the criticism that seems to be so troubling to the author. The criticism of Obama is not from Republicans (as they have more to lose in any investigation) but from Democrats and liberals who are far more upset about Bush torture abuses than Obama seems to be.
There is no winning or losing afternoons or mornings. There is the rule of law, there is torture, and there are those who are trying to avoid dealing with it. And right now, Obama is wrong so he is getting heat for his refusal to deal with Bush. He deserves more.
Wrong. Not all believe Bush/Cheney should be in prison. Far from all. I do, and you do, but that's not enough.
That said, I understand (but don't necessarily condone) Obama's position and stance on this. I've come to realize that one president calling for indictment of a former one is a politically very dangerous thing to do, and could very well galvanize fence-sitters who'd now see him as overly harsh/cruel. Say what you will, being president IS special, not legally or morally but politically.
You believe they should be in prison????
Hmmmmm
David Broder should have gone away (or been forced out) years ago. Far too "clubby" to be a real journalist -- Broder is as fake a "journalist" as it is possible to be.
As for Mr. Bunch's mourning for lost advertising revenues -- the "traditional media" gave up any legitimate claim to revenues of any sort a long time ago (during the hue and cry over a Clinton intern, the fawning support for an illegal, ill-conceived, and immoral war, the "he said, she said" over a long brain-dead woman who was used solely as a marker to advance ultra-right-wing issues, the constant sucking-up to a preppy Yalie who clearly was not up to the job, the -- I don't know, maybe the torture?) Good riddance -- and don't let the door hit you on your way out --
Best regards, and have a GREAT day --
jwa1313
The problem is that all stories about national politics (at least those that get widely disseminated) originate with the inside-the-beltway reporters and pundits who don't have a clue about what the rest of us think, or what we want from our government. They only talk to, and listen to, each other.
The John Yoo, Dick Cheney, Jay Bybee "side" of this argument is that these actions "worked!" They kept us safe! That's like saying that you can murder your husband for the insurance money because it works!
Torture is illegal, and claiming effectiveness is a diversion to keep these scumballs out of jail. I thought the press had overcome some of its wide-eyed stupidity, but I guess it's still with us. Let's have a panel on the efficacy of torture -- both sides. How amoral can you get?
Aye!
The bigger picture here seems to be silent on the tongues of the media and the blogs. THE REASON THE TORTURING TOOK PLACE WAS TO FALSELY JUSTIFY THE WAR IN IRAQ.
This needs to be the topic of conversation along with the torture memos. Shine a light on the lies!
Talk about hitting the nail squarely upon its head. Thank you. Excellent op/ed
I agree Mr. Smerconish is like his buddies on the far right talk radio, Laura "Tokyo Rose" Ingraham, Sean "Himmler" Hannity, Bill "Maque de Sade" Oreilly, to name only a few, have no catchy nick name for this torture advocate Smerconish, but am sure on judgment day him and his fellow torture advocates will face jesus, be in awe and shock when jesus tells them I know you not for ignoring the poor, hungry, naked those sick and in prison {Abu Ghraib, Quantanamo, Bagrham, secret CIA torture prisons, rendition torture by third party surrogates}, and God the father will not look upon them as they go to the lake of fire to debate for all eternity how the end justified the means with the likes of Hitler & cronies, Stalin & cronies, Mao & cronies to name just three, am sure many more torture advocates will have the fate to debate that hot topic for all eternity on how nationalism, patriotism, justified their views on how to be inhumane, and how end always justifies the means in ones poltiical views!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
