Is the Plame/Libby/Rove controversy really news? Like Lewinsky and Watergate before it, we find the media- and its viewers- clamoring for scandal in an attempt at instant judgment of right or wrong on government policy. However complex events such as wars, economic decisions, and the like often take years for the results to be seen. Thus, the media often moves to replace such judgment with the simpler judgment on more benign issues like white lies and political manipulation.
It's like clockwork. A second term administration embroiled in allegations of lies, manipulation, and smear tactics. And of course, with the same precise predictability, reporters and pundits are stepping over each other to vilify, defend, or whatever it takes to be the newest flavor of Woodward, Bernstein, or Drudge. The Plame/Libby/Rove controversy- though it doesn't have its sexy Watergate-esque name yet- does now have the beginnings of the ever-familiar "life of its own." Unfortunately, when this happens, one of the most important questions the media should ask in perpetuity of any such scandal flies out the window:
Is this really news?
In the coming months you can bet that accolades, deifications, and self-congratulations will be handed out- from both sides of an ever more partisan media- to those who probed with such predictable queries as "Is the President's staff full of crooks?" and "How much was the liberal media involved in the witch hunt against the President?" These, however, are not the real tough questions. These questions have built-in audiences and built-in answers. The tough questions have as much to do with the media's responsibility as they do the government they cover.
- WATERGATE, IN FOUR ACTS -
Our fascination with this genre of political scandal started with Watergate decades ago. Nixon's scandal was the first in modern times to have more to do with the snowballing effect of mob opinion and ancillary cultural struggles than it did with the specific unsavory actions which brought it about. We judge Watergate through the prism of the rising anti-establishment counterculture at the time, not through any fear of the devastation Nixon and his administration would have caused had they not been caught committing essentially petty crimes.
You see, it is not about the crime. Rather, it is about the story. Hence, we were bound to repeat the same formula with Reagan (Iran-Contra), Clinton (Monica Lewinsky), and now George W. Bush. Reagan's scandal was the only one of the set that came anywhere near an indictment on actions and policy that could have been substantially dangerous to the fabric of the nation. Ironically, this was also the least culturally significant of the modern scandals. The cause and effect of policy bores people. The simpler he said/she said is a heck of a lot more exciting. And it's easy to find.
Though conveniently poor recollections and presidential pardons will never allow us to solidify much as fact, the one thing common sense tells us about any of these scandals is that guilt is much more predominant than innocence. While high-ranking American politicians are rarely megalomaniacal lunatics bent on undermining democracy, they do lie and smear. Often. Major victories for the survival of our nation- little events like World War II and trust-busting- were peppered with technically illegal deceit and fabrication in an attempt to cut through bureaucracy.
In modern times, however, we have a condition where at any point in time one-half of the nation clamors for the downfall of the current administration. The media, thusly, is more than happy to do the dirty work. They set the proverbial "speed trap at the bottom of the hill." The populace's desire for the story is pre-existing, the dishonesty and falsehoods are there for you- why not?
