Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Major Garrett Eviscerated For Committing Journalism

Major Garrett dares to ask Obama about Americans still held in Iran and liberal media freaks out

"You would think Garrett dropped the “N” word. Oh wait, that’s precisely what sometime comedian and 24-7 liberal nutbar Bill Maher asked on Twitter. “If U wanna 'strike a nerve' with POTUS, why not just scream the N word? That shld [should] get his attention," wrote Maher, who also called Garrett “a huge asshole.” Maher loves protecting the president by playing Secret Service, saying Obama’s detractors "hate him in a way they never hated before."

OK, Maher is a bomb-thrower. If he’s not provocative, no one watches. But journalists are supposed to know better.

CNN, sadly proves me wrong. CNN’s own Dana Bash called it “being disrespectful,” evoking her own experience “asking a tough question,” a network rarity usually reserved for conservatives.

Anchor Don Lemon pretended to speak for Obama, not that such a world view is anything new. In Lemon’s mind, Obama was thinking: “'Man, look here, are you out of your damn mind,'" said the anchor. Yes, how dare a journalist concern himself with the lives of those held hostage by terror sponsors? Especially when one of them is a journalist?

NBC "Today," co-host Savannah Guthrie praised the presser as “unplugged,” “unfiltered” and feisty. Perhaps because he was targeting CBS and not NBC.

Not that CBS had Garrett’s back either. "CBS This Morning" co-host Charlie Rose talked to Garrett and said “all of us have asked questions that we wished we had asked differently.” Then Rose asked if he had any “second thoughts.”

Thankfully, Garrett didn’t back down. In fact, he summed it up quite nicely. “Clearly it struck a nerve,” he told CBS anchor Contessa Brewer, according to The Hill.

Too bad Garrett’s one of the few with nerve to do so.


If you still think Garrett went overboard, here’s the actual quote, direct from CBS:

Major Garrett: As you well know, there are four Americans in Iran - three held on trumped up charges according to your administration, one, whereabouts unknown. Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content, with all of the fanfare around this [nuclear] deal to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for, in relation to these four Americans?

And last week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said under no circumstances should there be any relief for Iran in terms of ballistic missiles or conventional weapons. It was perceived that that was a last-minute capitulation in these negotiations, making the Pentagon feel you've left the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff hung out to dry. Could you comment?"
Well of course the faux-journalism elites would step in to stop this abuse of their POTUS!


Hugo Pelland said...

Hi Stan,

It's certainly bizarre, as the article puts it, that there would be such a strong response by fellow journalists to Major Garrett's question, but as Obama pointed out in his response, the question included the nonsensical notion that he is 'content' with having 4 Americans still imprisoned/missing. He later explained what he really meant and how he purposely crafted the question as to stir the pot. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-questioned-by-cbs-news-major-garrett-on-iran-hostages/
So it seems to me like he did a good job, but maybe a tad disrespectful with the wording, and Obama had a great response.

Now what I don't understand is this: where is that 'strong response by fellow journalist'?

- The Fox News article, linked to here, quotes Bill Maher, but he is a comedian so of course he exaggerates, for show.
- Next, the same article quotes Dana Bash, but she only said it was 'disrespectful'; ok fine, her opinion, nothing strong, who cares...
- Then, Don Lemon is quoted saying "Man, look here, are you out of your damn mind", which again means very little, probably something similar to Dana Bash's comment, but stronger. The problem is that there is no link here, so we cannot tell more...
- Next we have Savannah Guthrie commenting on the press conference; nothing else.
- Finally, we have Charlie Rose asking if Garrett had second thoughts regarding 'how' he phrased his question, and if he thought Obama was 'content'. Garrett gave good responses here again, similar to the other clip above. The lady anchor afterward asked if he got an answer to his question; again, good answer from Garrett appreciating that he is allowed to ask such question. And then they moved on...

So where is the drama except in the eye of the people at Fox News? Nothing warrants the headline "liberal media freaks out" or "all hell breaks loose". This is an example of an 'opinion' piece, thankfully, which exaggerate what the "evil" liberal media does in order to protect the narrative that they are biased... it's divisive for no good reason.

Honestly, I really thought this would be a good example of Liberals freaking out for no good reason. I was looking forward to agree with you Stan, especially after reading the Fox News headline, and watching the clip. Garrett's question was not bad at all so I was curious to see the reactions and wanted to get an idea of how ridiculous the other journalists were. But there is nothing here... and that is why I cannot debate these things. It takes so much time just to analyze 1 little segment like that.

Alright, I will keep trying :)

Stan said...

Interesting. How many times does one see a journalist be called onto national TV to have to justify to the entire nation having presenting a question to the president? I don't remember it ever happening before. In the old days, journalism was actually based on hard-nosed, aggressive pursuit of politicians; it was considered a separate, "Fourth Estate", a power outside political influence, and for the people, a power which relentlessly dogged politicians until the truth was pried loose.

Today, the MSM is a political "Information Ministry" propaganda arm of the Democrat Party with only a few exceptions. That's why a "Fifth Estate" has arisen, and why the Left is intent on silencing or marginalizing its influence on the nation by its assertion of freedom of information once again. What is done by the MSM today is usually the restriction of information flow regarding Leftist failures, embarrassments and atrocities. This is not hysteria, so much as silencing, censoring off-narrative political information.

The thrust of this bruhaha is not the obvious lack of progress, or even actual attention to, the hostages in Iran; it is purely about insulting the president, which one cannot do in today's USA. The presidential assumption of protection from such is a new feature, too.

Based on observations of actions, the president must be forced to attend to his business, if he doesn't care about it. The lack of any visible activity on the hostages is an behavior which correlates with either (a) inaction; or (b) an unnecessary secrecy of failed negotiations (yet it's not a threat to national security).

My personal belief is that there is inaction, because the president does not care. That conclusion is just as congruent with fact as is Obama's claim.

Again, no one in the Fourth Estate has Major's back; no one asserts his right, even duty, as a journalist to ask even embarrassing questions to public officials. This attitude of political compliance by the media is brand new starting in 2008. There is some progress here, because five years ago, Garrett would have been charged with racism, and his career would have been ruined. Perhaps his career might be in some jeapardy, even now.

In the past five years Obama has attacked the MSM - who were firmly protecting him - and even illegally spied on their computers (he did this to Congress, too). So the MSM has developed some scar tissue, but they remain stalwartly Lefist, despite their mistreatment. The media has relinquished the constant "racism" charges (blunted by overuse), but still protects Obama from both embarrassment and having to answer for his work.

An interesting contrast possibly: When an Iraqi journalist threw two shoes at George Bush at a news conference, Bush merely said, "That’s what people do in a free society, draw attention to themselves." That's not exactly a defense of Free Speech, but it is close.

One last bit of evidence about "caring" (and this has happened before): when the USSC bench legislated gay marriage, the White House immediately was doused in gay symbology; however, when US armed forces members were massacred on US soil, it took 5 days for Obama to bow to pressure to lower the flags on the White House. When he just doesn't care, nothing gets done unless he can be shamed into it.