In a recent Occasional Planet post, Susan Cunningham writes:

“We can blame the NRA all we want, but the enemy, as Pogo said, is ourselves. We are a violent society and always have been. From the European invasion and occupation of the Americas 500 years ago to the “war on terror” around the world today, we must love violence or we would stop it.”

Just as so many people in the United States are fixated on violence, many of us are also addicted to corruption and deceit. We often try to deny it, but our lifestyle patterns clearly indicate that this is what we do. Self-dealing and cover-up by the federal government is the basic theme of Sharyl Attkisson’s new book, Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington.

It is important to note that quite a few Americans, perhaps a majority, are not prone to violence. They prefer to live their lives peacefully and to solve conflicts in a non-violent way. Similarly, most Americans are basically honest and prefer to play by the rules. However, there are enough Americans who prefer to twist the rules and bend the truth to make it an endemic problem rather than an occasional act of malfeasance. That is the essential problem with Attkisson’s book. She is a former national correspondent for CBS News who, in recent years, was doing a considerable amount of investigative journalism. Regrettably for her, CBS became less and less interested in her stories to the point where in early 2014 she decided to leave “Black Rock” and avoid the harassment of editors and supervisors.

Her investigations cover a wide span of issues, from gun-running to drug dealers in Mexico, to Benghazi, to the initial fiasco of electric cars in the United States. Though her reporting is far more sophisticated and refined than local news, much of what she presents seems to be of the “you won’t believe what I found” variety. She tries to be fair in her bashing; including the George W. Bush Administration; the Obama Administration; corporate moguls; labor unions. However, because most of her frustration emanated from what she saw as the resistance of corporate CBS to run stories critical of agencies within and actions by the Obama administration, most of what she reports is criticism of the current administration.

My problem with her bashing of the Obama Administration is that she seems to be totally blind to the concept of “shit happens.” Yes, the Obama Administration did not do a good job of rolling out the web site for the Affordable Care Act, and the Justice Department seems to have engaged in unwarranted surveillance of the Associated Press. Bluntly, it’s true that “mistakes were made,” putting the actions in the passive voice, as is commonly done. But this is what happens when we have a body politic in which it comes so naturally for so many people to engage in and accept corruption.

There are two particular problems and one opportunity that occurs when the focus is put on a semi-progressive administration like the Obama one. The problems are (a) In many regards, the Obama Administration is trying to serve the needs of the people, something that sets them apart from Republicans, and (b) Republican outlets such as Rush Limbaugh or Fox News will jump all over any malfeasance on the part of a Democratic Administration without any understanding of how malfeasance is just part of who we are. The opportunity that arises from Attkisson’s reporting on the Obama Administration is that in many cases (such as with the roll-out of the Affordable Care Act) there is an intense desire of individuals and agencies within the Administration to correct the errors. Indeed, this is what has happened in the past fifteen months since the initial roll-out of the ACA. We must keep in mind that the administration is dealing with a highly imperfect law, which, in many ways was shredded by (a) Republican opposition to addressing the health care needs of the more than forty million Americans who did not have health insurance, and (b) the timidity of the Obama Administration to pursue a Medicare-for-All program that would have eliminated many of the structural problems with the law, including minimal ability to contain costs.

Attkisson operates from the perspective of a journalist who feels that the primary principle that should exist in our society is freedom of the press. Yes, the concept is a virtue and is deeply embedded in our First Amendment. But when it comes to the well-being of the American people, freedom of the press is somewhat of a neutral principle. In itself, it does not improve or damage the quality of life that we all enjoy, particularly those who are most in need of an emphasis on justice and fairness. With all its flaws, the Obama Administration has a greater commitment to the well-being of all Americans than Republicans do. Attkisson’s reporting and writing does an excellent job of pointing out missteps by the Administration. As much as I appreciate her investigatory work, I think that it does not necessarily make us a better country. We need to combine her research and presentation with a further commitment to the principles of a progressive agenda.

The post Sharyl Attkisson book measures Obama and U.S. against a false standard appeared first on Occasional Planet.

An internal argument among progressives is whether MSNBC is an honest, objective source of broadcast news or whether it is just a liberal foil to Fox News. Somewhat like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, MSNBC gives us information about conservative travails and hypocrisy that we would not receive from the mainstream press. Regardless of which side of this argument you come down, there still is a special significance when clearly progressive arguments are made in the mainstream press. One of the best sources for this is the David Letterman Show on CBS.

On Wednesday, May 16, Letterman had NBC news anchor Brian Williams as his only talk guest (a rare gesture). Letterman asked him some “inside television news” questions at first, but then got on to issues such as the Bush taxes and Afghanistan. Below is the interview, which unfortunately cannot easily cut into “Brian Williams’s segments” and rather includes the entire show. But it’s funny, so bear with it. Among the highlights of the remarks are:

Praising Obama

Letterman: The day after the nine eleven attack, the number one priority in America – George Bush said that he wanted to get bin Laden, but instead he went into Iraq and Vice-President Cheney suggested. Halliburton was getting a little pay-off here.

Bin Laden is finally gunned down by Barack Obama, showing great courage and great intelligence. What more do you want to lead your country than that kind of courage and that kind of intelligence? [Considerable clapping; no booing from audience.]

Williams: While it’s true that two wars post 9-11 had our attention occupied elsewhere than the country, and while it’s true that every interview that I ever conducted with military officer whether they had stars or colonels and sergeants, on his uniform, they said, “We would like to kill him; we would like to find him, but it’s not our priority right now. We now find out interviewing everyone in that picture that of course it was a priority, but it was a new priority when President Obama came into office.

Letterman: It makes me angry that we can’t give this president anything. …. What more do we want this man to do for us, honest to God. And there you have it.

Letterman: What is at the core of those people disagree with gay marriage that clearly has the support of the administration?

Williams: Those opposed to gay marriage….. I can’t speak to them; a lot of them have religious objections. In Romney’s commencement speech at Liberty University he said that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Letterman: The Biblical references they have a problem with.

Praising Mainstream Press

Letterman: I see that our friends at CNN are having some ratings problems. I postulated that this means that people don’t want objective news the way you, Scott Pelley, or Diane Sawyer give it. They want the new that makes sense the way they see it so you have MSNBC, Fox, and so forth. They don’t want it objective.

Click image to play

Click image to play

David Letterman is not a political pundit nor does he pretend to be one.  But he is rational and has a sense of fairness.  Brian Williams played it straight which allowed Letterman to make strong arguments in favor of Obama, and at times a more liberal agenda than the president has.

Letterman’s audience is much greater than that of MSNBC or Fox.  More than once, he has presented the American public with the kind of sensitivity and logic that is needed.  Kudos to him; I only wish that his approach became contagious to others in the mainstream media.

The post When reason comes from the mainstream media, it means so much more appeared first on Occasional Planet.