When the hosts of MSNBC’s Morning Joe program
asked why President Trump had congratulated Russian president Vladimir Putin on
being reelected, former CIA director John Brennan pulled no punches. In answering the question that implied Trump
may be afraid of Putin, Brennan said, “The Russians may have something on him personally.”
The Russians, he said, “have had long experience
of Mr. Trump, and may have things they could expose.”
If it were anyone else we would
dismiss it as a partisan cheap shot; but coming as it did from a career
intelligence officer who served for 4-years as the head of the American
intelligence establishment, this had to be more than a baseless conjecture.
By the end of the day, Brennan
admitted his wild charge was not based on any actual information or intelligence
revealed to him during the course of his duties but just a willingness to
assume the worst about Trump. In a
written response to questions from the New
York Times, he said, “I do not know if the Russians have something on
Donald Trump that they could use as blackmail.”
In a world in which journalists
treated unfounded assumptions as just that, rather than headline news, Brennan’s
charges would have been dismissed. But though
the Times knew the accusation was
baseless by the time it published its article on the subject, the paper buried
the lead. The headline on the story was “Ex-Chief
of the C.I.A. Suggests Putin May Have Compromising Information on Trump.” Brennan’s walking back of his charge didn’t
appear until the eleventh paragraph of the story.
This encapsulates most of the media’s
coverage of the entire Russian-collusion investigation over the last year, in
which speculation about Trump’s guilt is always assumed to be true even if
proof is never forthcoming.
The case of the Brennan smear is,
however, instructive in that it shows how coverage of Trump and Russia works. When Brennan spoke of the Russians’ having
something on Trump, not one member of the panel asked the former Obama staffer whether
his opinion was rooted in actual knowledge rather than pure speculation. Nor did many others ask that question over the
course of a day in which Brennan’s comment was among the most discussed stories. That fits a pattern that applies to every
stage of the Russian-collusion investigation.
More than a year into the Trump
presidency and the appointment of Robert Mueller to lead a special investigation
into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, information about the subject is
still scarce. Speculation about the
dearth of knowledge regarding what happened or what exactly Mueller has discovered
is understandable. But in most of the
media, that lack of information hasn’t stopped both reporters and commentators
from jumping to conclusions about Trump’s being in big trouble every time even
the smallest tidbit about the probe is aired.
Until Mueller finishes his work and issues a report, we won’t know what
he has found.
What we do know is that President
Trump does appear to have a soft spot for the Putin regime and seems unwilling
to listen to the counsel of those who urge him to be more guarded in his
statements about the subject. Is that
enough, as Brennan seems to think, to fuel a charge that he might be under some
sort of pressure from Russia? The
obvious answer is no. Trump has been
consistent throughout his campaign about believing in better relations with
Russia and for his lack of outrage about its foreign mischief making.
Yet you don’t have to be a Russian agent
of influence to back policies or gestures that are favorable to Putin. After all, President Obama made the same
foolish gesture for which Trump has been lambasted: calling to congratulate the
authoritarian leader after winning a rigged election in which his victory was
foreordained. Obama began his first term
with a comical effort to “reset” relations and continued to defend Russia. Obama mocked Mitt Romney for declaring Russia
to be America’s prime geostrategic foe in their 2012 foreign-policy debate. Don’t forget the infamous hot-mic moment, when
Obama told Putin’s puppet Dmitry Medvedev to tell “Vladimir” that he [Obama] could
be more “flexible” in bowing to Russian demands after he was reelected.
None of that constituted proof that
Obama was in thrall to Putin. His belief
in showing weakness to Russia was sincere. But Trump’s sporadic continuation of this
imprudent policy — for which Brennan was at least partially responsible — is assumed
without proof as being prima facie evidence of treason, even though Trump has
also done some things, such as his arming of Ukraine, to offend Putin.
Theoretically, Brennan could be right;
but to assume without proof that the only possible motive for a policy choice
is a criminal connection isn’t journalism. At best, it’s a highly partisan talking point.
At worst, it’s a smear.
It used to be that partisan
assumptions fueled by pure speculation and unaccompanied by proof didn’t pass the
‘smell test’ at any major network or newspaper. The fact that political smears of this sort
have now become not only possible but also normal says a lot about the way
animus for the Trump Administration has distorted much of the media’s judgment
and coverage.
If liberals want to know why
conservatives no longer trust the mainstream media about Trump even when the facts
are on their side, they need look no further than the way the media covered
Brennan’s unfounded accusation.
Rev.
Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain
(Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel
No comments:
Post a Comment