Today,
Washington Post reporter Peter Baker was the answer-man on the
Post Political Hour, a one hour forum to take readers questions on the "latest buzz in politics." While he had several interesting comments...check that, rationalizations...something he said near the end of the hour struck me simply because it was something we've all known for a long time. I was just surprised to see someone at the paper admitting it:
Peter Baker: I don't think the news media helps Republicans diffuse their problems, I think it lets them explain their point of view on them, just as we also explain the point of view of the critics who disagree. I don't think there's been any shortage in our paper at least of stories quoting people disagreeing with President Bush...
Did you catch that? They let the GOP explain their position, but the Post explains our positions for us. An inadvertent moment of truthiness...even so, he didn't answer the question.
And what was the question that Mr. Baker was responding to?
Have you noticed how the major news media have helped the Republicans diffuse many of their problems. The scandals are bipartisan-they all do it. The issue is not whether we are a nation of laws or whether we have a right to privacy. The issue is whether we should listen to terrorists. It's not a civil war in Iraq; it's a messy start to democracy.
Somebody on the Jon Stewart show, I think, asked how can we have unbiased reporting of the facts when the fact are biased against Bush.
Mr. Baker seemed to be suffering from a classic case of whooooosh-point-missed. And in offering his weak response, he did tell the truth about today's version of journalism...everyone has a point of view, the facts be damned...and that they let the Republicans spread their own spin, while the paper interprets our positions. All things considered, I must say to Mr. Baker that the short answer to that reader's question would have been, "yes."
When Mr. Baker was asked about the Abramoff scandal and the continual insistence that it's a bipartisan affair, he said:
But for all the consternation among some on the left, I'm not convinced that this is the case here. The coverage I've seen has made pretty clear that Tom DeLay, Scooter Libby, Jack Abramoff and so on are Republicans. Is anyone really unclear on this? There is a school of thought, though, that the Abramoff scandal, to cite one, also tells us something broader about the system and how lobbying, money and politics have transformed Washington over the years. And so while some Democrats would like us to simply pound away at Republicans, we try to both present as full a picture as possible.
Indeed, Mr. Baker. But what you and your paper fail to grasp (or report) is the fact that the system that was "transformed" was done so by the Republican architects of the "K Street" plan. The party in power, the party directly involved in criminal indictments and investigations, the party that created the system should be who is pounded on. That's the full picture.
And when asked about Senator Kerry being in Davos when announcing the filibuster try, Mr. Baker's responses made me wonder if he was angling for the job of ombudsman. First he said:
The words certainly excited Kerry's political base, but the timing and circumstances only exposed him to a lot of ridicule and undercut the message. It's hard to figure what was going on there. I assume there's a back story that might explain it but I haven't seen it yet.
And when it was pointed out that Kerry was at an economic conference, Mr. Baker said:
Yes, he was at the forum, I didn't mean to leave any other impression. But it did play into the obvious symbolism.
Didn't he? I'd like to ask him, then why didn't you say so when the question was asked? What "impression" were you going for exactly?
Let me finish with Mr. Baker's thoughts on the scandals surrounding this administration and the GOP:
It's hard, though, to remember a period when the president's top aide was under investigation, the House majority leader was forced to step down under indictment for money laundering, the Senate majority leader was battling an insider trading investigation, the vice president's chief of staff was forced to resign under indictment for obstruction of justice and a pair of lobbying partners pleaded guilty to an extraordinary corruption of government.
Perhaps it's hard to remember such a time because such a time has never existed. But I suppose saying so just wouldn't have seemed fair...