Andrew Sullivan loves to equate MSNBC and Fox News. They’re both “propaganda channels” that “poison our discourse,” according to Sullivan. This is, well, silly. But I would hope that, at the very least, this week's revelation of the Obama Administration’s justification for assassinating Americans abroad starts to change his view. Put simply, if MNSBC is the propaganda wing of the Obama Administration, he needs to hire himself some new mouthpieces.
First, it must be noted that it was NBC News’ Michael Isikoff who broke the story late Monday night. Within hours of posting the story, he appeared on MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show” to discuss the white paper; Maddow introduced the segment by explaining the lengths news organizations and the ACLU have been going to in an effort to access to the legal memo authorizing these drone strikes. Referring to the Obama Administration’s insistence that the program is legal, she said, “We know you think it’s legal. Why do you think it’s legal?”
The discussion continued on MSNBC throughout Tuesday. On the midday show “The Cycle,” the panelists erupted in a fierce debate over the wisdom and legality of Obama’s drone program. “The point here is that there’s this sort of shadow government, almost,” host Steve Kornacki warned. “It’s taking place behind the scenes, and that’s where the Obama Administration has wanted it to be.”
And then to Sully's favorite, Ed Schultz (whom he has intimated is a propagandist unworthy of comparison to even Pat Buchanan). As such, he must have been pounding the table in defense of Obama’s authority, and decrying critics as right-wing Nazi-loving fascists, right?
SCHUTLZ: I have to say, as an American citizen, we are all entitled to due process under the law. And this document gives the president the ability to act as judge, jury and executioner. I’m troubled by it. It doesn`t meet the moral or the Constitutional standard that we expect of any administration.
And I have to say that liberals have come certainly a long way to crying about the FISA court and the Patriot Act and listening in on conversations to literally taking out innocent people around the world. We’re losing the moral high ground by doing this.
And even more troubling is that there are people in Washington who are ominously silent and not questioning this process and willing to stand behind the legal opinion of the Justice Department. This is President Obama’s legacy right now. It is dangerous.
And I have to say that liberals have come certainly a long way to crying about the FISA court and the Patriot Act and listening in on conversations to literally taking out innocent people around the world. We’re losing the moral high ground by doing this.
And even more troubling is that there are people in Washington who are ominously silent and not questioning this process and willing to stand behind the legal opinion of the Justice Department. This is President Obama’s legacy right now. It is dangerous.
[…]
There is no due process here whatsoever.
[…]
Well, I think Democratic senators need to step out and answer if this was the Bush administration, would they be so silent.
In short, MSNBC is pretty damn outraged about the Obama Administration’s insistence that it can kill any American, anywhere, whom it deems (through a secretive process) to be a threat. Now let’s compare that to Fox News’ reaction to the biggest terrorism-related scandals of the Bush Administration, shall we?
Here are just a few examples of Fox defending Bush’s wiretapping program immediately after the New York Times revealed it (transcripts via Lexis):
HANNITY: You know, Victoria, it seems to me that the left wants it both ways. They want to be able to blame Bush any time anything happens but, on the other hand, they're not allowing him to take what seem to be clearly, obvious, commonsensical-type steps to ensure that we monitor these people that we know are out there because we already know what their intentions are. […] There's no evidence that any law was violated in any kind. It seems like, once again, the anti-Bush "New York Times" wants to create a conspiracy where there is none. [12/16/05]
FRED BARNES: Now, I think this was an easy call for Bush. He had to choose between protecting America's national security and worrying about the privacy of somebody linked to al Qaeda, who's on the phone to some al Qaeda official overseas. I mean, that's an easy call, I think, and the president made the right one. And, and, and the civil libertarians may not, but then they've forgotten about 9/11, and (INAUDIBLE) and the fact that we are at war, or they don't care about it. [12/17/05]
KRAUTHAMMER: [Bush] wins on this. And he waived the legalities when he painted it as us and them, who do you care about? He is weak on the legalities, but I think you could make a plausible argument that you might accept it on the basis of authorization of use of force on the war against al Qaeda. It's not that strong an argument, but politically, it wins hands down. [12/19/05]
On torture, Fox hosts were big fans. Hannity repeatedly defended Bush’s torture program. Bill O’Reilly could hardly have been more enthusiastic. And Fox hosts didn’t see why Abu Ghraib was such a big deal either.
So when the Obama Administration declares power to assassinate American citizens whenever an unspecified member of the Administration declares, on some unknown piece of evidence, that the person is a threat, MSNBC hosts immediately and harshly criticize both the policy and the secrecy behind it. When the Bush Administration is revealed to have illegally spied on U.S. citizens and tortured detainees, Fox hosts insist the programs are legal and that the whole thing is a left-wing plot.
But yeah, they’re totally the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment