Testing The Washington Post's Limits
Oh, That Liberal Media!
The Washington Post has what it is pleased to call an "Analysis" on the front page, above the fold, today by Dana Milbank entitled "Tying Kerry to Terror Tests Rhetorical Limits." Its argument (and it is an argument, not an "analysis") is that it is a Bad Thing, Over the Top, Beyond the Pale, etc., that "President Bush and leading Republicans are increasingly charging that Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry and others in his party are giving comfort to terrorists and undermining the war in Iraq."
Milbank offers several examples of what he regards as the Republicans' beyond the pale rhetoric, such as President Bush's recent comment that Kerry's recent criticism of Allawi "can embolden the enemy" and a comment by Vice President Cheney, who Milbank said "tore into the Democratic nominee, calling him 'destructive' to the effort in Iraq and the struggle against terrorism. "
Milbank, however, never explains why this Republican rhetoric is worse, -- more out of bounds and over the top -- than the equally if not more harsh rhetoric coming from Kerry and the Democrats, who say Bush, "living in a fantasy world of spin," is a lying incompetent who has undermined the war on terror by his irrational, obsessive "diversion" into Iraq.
When the Republicans say the Democrats are undermining the war on terror, they are denounced on the front page (under the fig leaf of "Analysis") as "test[ing] the conventional bounds of political rhetoric." When the Democrats say Bush is undermining the war on terror by his obsession with Iraq, they are ... well, who knows? Milbank and the Post don't say.
But wait; there's more! And I'm not even referring to Milbank's quoting a former speechwriter for President Clinton, Jeff Shesol, for the apparently expert opinion that this rhetoric is "sharp and ugly" and that it results from "clearly a decision by the Republican hierarchy," or Nancy Pelosi's considered opinion that "[t]hese despicable comments cross the line from partisan politics to shameless fear tactics."
Take a look at this example of Republican perfidy, one of four bulleted items Milbank provides:
• On Saturday, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.) said at a GOP fundraiser: "I don't have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another, [but] I would think they would be more apt to go [for] somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops." Asked whether he believed al Qaeda would be more successful under a Kerry presidency, Hastert said: "That's my opinion, yes."
This tests the bounds of acceptable rhetoric? If so, then wasn't the journalist's query equally culpable?
Here's a more dramatic example of the same journalistic contribution to what at least Milbank (and presumably his editors) think is unacceptable (borderline unacceptable?) political rhetoric. In the opinion section of the same edition of the Post, Charles Krauthammer has a very powerful column doing exactly what Milbank's front page "Analysis" derides, criticizing the Kerry campaign for "saying the same thing" as the terrorists.
Interestingly, the hard copy of the paper, but not the online edition, has a highlighted pull quote that asks, "Why is the Kerry campaign echoing what terrorists are saying to countries standing with America?" Well, actually this may not be a pull quote, since that sentence does not appear in what Krauthammer wrote (though the point certainly does). Presumably it was written by a Post editor.
So, is the Post itself "test[ing] the conventional bounds of political rhetoric" by participating in what its front page "Analysis" regards as political excess?
Perhaps it should start labeling its "Analysis" articles Opinion.
thatliberalmedia.com |
