Cheney Story Reveals the Worst Instincts of the Media
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in MediaThe Cheney shooting story has gotten out of control. I’m not one to bash the mainstream media as I think most newsmen and women do an admirable job in what is a tough career, but this is ridiculous. So it took 18 hours for the White House to tell the press corps about the shooting? It’s not like Cheney himself was shot. The event had nothing to do with the running of the country. It’s not a big story.
But that isn’t stopping the media from hyperventilating. And I think that’s because this story provides such rich soil for allegory�which is always more fun than merely reporting the facts. The reporters and news editors may claim their reaction is purely an objective search for the truth. But the political commentators reveal what’s really going on in the mind of the media.
David Ignatius says the shooting demonstrates the White House’s arrogance of power. Michael Duffy thinks it reveals how horribly cut off Cheney is from us real people. While Joe Conason sees the incident as another sign of this administration’s great incompetence.
But wait, it’s not just administration critics that are getting into the game. Administration boosters are also playing. But they’re portraying this as evidence of the American media’s dangerous liberalism. Tony Blankley and Michelle Malkin have written nearly identical commentaries claming the media are populated with careerist liberal hacks and are ignorantly unconcerned with the radical Muslim danger.
Here’s what I think. I think if administration critics want to blast this administration, there are plenty of real and substantive reasons to do so without resorting to pointless allegory. As for the likes of Blankley and Malkin, I think most of us would be a lot more inclined to listen to your critiques of the media if you yourselves weren’t so blindly and unceasingly partisan.
An event like this really makes me wonder what the face of American media will look like in 10 years. It’s as if the entire corps of professional journalists have decided to behave like bloggers, erupting in spasms over a titillating but generally meaningless event. Makes you wonder if we need to put objectivity on life support.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 15th, 2006 and is filed under Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
I agree with you, but only up to a point.
This is my point of disagreement: someone like Malkin isn’t part of the supposedly “objective” media, she is in fact a spokeperson for a particular side. As such, partisanship is the name of her game, as it should not be (but unfortunately is) for the mainstream media, who pretend to be objective but are in fact partisan also.
But we at least know upfront that someone like Malkin is partisan, and can factor this into our evaluation of whatever she says or writes. This is true of all partisans, on both sides. Whether or not a partisan’s arguments hold water–be they critiques of the media, or critiques of an administration–doesn’t rest on whether or not the person is partisan, it rests on the strength of the arguments themselves.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Man, I could not agree more, and now the democrates are demanding that Cheney appear before the press. WHY!! They already know everything about the incident. I’m sick of seeing the Cheney headlines all over Google news, I have to brows to actually get real news now. This wole incident actually caused me to have a dream that I interviewd for a job at a compan that ran a lot of online parody news sites. That is what I must think of this, all just one big parody now.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
I can’t understand how anyone thinks the Vice Presiden shoting someone who is so badly injured that he is in ICU and has had a heart attack as a result of his wounds isn’t a legitimate news story.
February 15th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Blue: it’s a story. But it doesn’t deserve all the attention it’s getting.
Neo: I may not have expressed my point as clearly as I intended. I was not using Blankley and Malkin as evidence of media bias (they’re supposed to be opinionated) but rather to show how people from all sides are captializing on this story to make points that aren’t really part of the story. Yes, I think the media’s reaction demonstrates bias against the Vice President but does that mean the media are careerist hacks or unconcerned with Islamic radicalism? Blankley and Malkin take it all too far in just the same way the more-liberal columnists are taking it too far in the other direction.
February 15th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
I want to know why he wasn’t interviewed by the police.
When you wait overnight to talk to the police you can no longer prove you weren’t drinking at the time.
And since swiveling 180 to shot is such a bone headed thing to do, the first thing you think of was “he must have been drinking”.
Incompetent or drunk, take your pick.
February 15th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
What did Cheney think would happen if he waited 18 hours before he had a private citizen tell the American public about the whole affair? Did he think this story would go away? The Vice President is a lot of things but stupid isn’t one of them. He has no one to blame for the media circus but himself.
February 15th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Alan,
I agree with you to a certain extent, and the reason is that there are MUCH more important things going on right now that the media could be focusing on. For instance, if you want to talk about Cheney, why not focus on the recent Libby statements? Or, you could focus on any one of the thousand things that this administration has done badly for the past 5 years or so. I’m pretty sure this blow-up is due to getting ratings and attention, which is why I’m not real excited about the mainstream media. I suppose if something nefarious happened during the hunting trip, we should all know, but let’s wait until there is something to actually report.
February 15th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Thoughts running through Dick Cheney’s mind at the time of the accident:
“I should tell the guys at the New York Times abut my latest blunder so they can continue to attack the Bush Administration mindlessly”
“I can’t wait to tell those wonderful completely objective media people who do NOT have a history of publishing false stories just to attack the Administration”
OR
“Gee, My friend has been hurt, perhaps I should get him to a hospital first and worry about what the opportunistic thugs at the New York Times think later. After all, they’ve sat on a story for a year before, surely 18 hours is nothing to them.”
February 15th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
It is not a meaningless event if the gentleman dies now, is it?
And it is not hard to read behind the lines, how that the doctor
admitted the man could have up to 200 pellets in him…
I think, as a former security man, that this issue is non-partisan
because it really becomes a matter of investigation of possible
improper use of a firearm and as i am sure you will admit, no one,
not even the vice-president, is above the law…
but i agree with you about the feeding frenzy of media in their
approach, but that has become a commonplace with every happening
and issue and rarely is something reported with honesty and courage.
it is as if we as a society had lost our sense of judgement, of right judgement, jurisprudence, and wisdom. we are in fine, the furthest we have ever been from the understanding of an abraham lincoln.
In my view, we all need to spiritually put on sackcloth and ashes
before there is to arrive new hope on the human horizon. May
Providence so help us.
Thankyou for the interesting blog.
Shane
February 15th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Oh yeah…spreading the drunk meme when there’s no way to ever prove it.
By the way, I’ve spoken with one of my friends who’ve hunted quail many times before and they say it’s a pretty dangerous sport. That doesn’t mean people are getting shot left and right, but it does mean it’s not as simple as just raise your shotgun and fire. At least this is what I’m being told by people who’ve done it.
Concerning your comments Alan, I think the media has a right to know this and they also have a right to question why they’re not being informed in a timely fashion. Cheney did, after all, shoot a man in the FACE (!), which is a very big deal even though it was an accident. And did you see McClellan make fun of David Gregory has just wanting to be on air? This game goes both ways, and even former Republican PR strategists have said this decision by the White House was boneheaded in the very least.
Also, to your point about the media, commentators don’t = media. They are the subjective branch of it, and that’s how they should be viewed, much like bloggers.
In any event, good piece.
February 15th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
I’m not a terribly experienced hunter, but I have hunted both quail and pheasant with groups of people, with dogs and without. It is dangerous depending on WHO you are hunting with. The responsibility always ultimately lies with the person who pulled the trigger — there is no getting around that. Dick Cheney realizes that. Cheney is a pretty seasoned hunter and that can cause one to slack on basic safety issues. Kind of like, how the fundamentals tend to disappear with professional basketball players - maybe.
February 15th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
OK. Well, it turns out Cheney was drinking after all, but it was only 1 beer . . . yada, yada, yada . . . he didn’t talk to authorities til the next morning . . . draw your own conclusions.
February 15th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Justin,
I’m not questioning the media’s right to ask questions, I’m questioning the media’s decision to place this story over all others.
As for commentators not equaling the media, no they don’t. But don’t you ever feel that, on certain stories, it’s all just commentary? I don’t think the opinions expressed in the commentaries critical of the administration are all too far from the personal opinions held by many in the media who are drumming this story so hard. My use of the commentaries was kind of a backdoor approach to figuring out why this is getting so much play. My conclusion: it makes a good allegory to express deeper held convictions about Cheney. The overreaction by the media also makes a good allegory for conservative commentators to claim the media is dangerously biased.
Maybe I should have entitled this: The Cheney Story: It’s All Allegory.
February 15th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Cheney got on FOX News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185013,00.html
“HUME: Now, what thought did you give then to how â€â€? you must have known that this was, whether it was a matter of state or not, is news. What thought did you give that evening to how this news should be transmitted?
CHENEY: Well, my first reaction, Brit, was not to think I needed to call the press. My first reaction is my friend Harry has been shot. And we’ve got to take care of him. That evening, there were other considerations, we need to make sure his family was taken care of, his wife was on the ranch. She wasn’t with us when it happened. We got her hooked up with the ambulance on way to the hospital with Harry. He has grown children. We wanted to make sure they were notified so they didn’t hear on television that their father had been shot. That was important, too.
We also didn’t know what the outcome here was going to be. We didn’t know for sure what kind of shape Harry was in. We had preliminary reports but â€â€? they wanted to do a CAT scan, for example, to see how â€â€? whether or not there was any internal damage. Whether or not any vital organ had been penetrated by any of the shot. We did not know until Sunday morning that we could be confident that everything was probably going to be OK.”
AMAZING, why, it is almost as if Cheney did what any reasonable person in the same situation would do. Meanwhile, the NYT is crapping its diaper because Cheney’s first thought was not “ALERT THE MEDIA!”. It was Front Page Center news on yesterday’s Times. What a bunch of opportunistic Op-Eding hack jobs. The worst part about that blatantly partisan excuse for toilet paper? I can’t even unwind with comics.
February 15th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Come up with a better reason why he did go to the police.
He’s admitted to one beer since my amazing Kresky (sp) imitation.
What are you trying to say here?
Ask your friends if they have ever seen anyone spin 180 and fire?
What are you talking about. He made a ‘breif’ stop at the hospital, but made it home in time for dinner and to ‘pour himself a cocktail’. I don’t even know anyone who has ‘cocktails’. Even you know you’re spouting GOP-BS.
February 15th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Well, hey, before the interview you were guessing. After the interview he said he had one beer. What’s changed exactly?
I did ask them and they say it happens all the time. People walk in a long line and walk the plum thickets, etc. So if you were to swing around 180 degrees, nobody would be behind you.
Listen, I’m not going to be able to convince you otherwise, and I don’t really want to. You’re going to think that Cheney was sauced. I’m not going to assume that.
Brian, the VP shot somebody in the FACE! Whether you like it or not, this is significant news and has nothing to do with whether or not the media is “partisan.” And by the way, Cheney only talked about this TODAY. So is the media going to speculate and wonder what went on? Well, duh…
And frankly, op-eds are just that…op-eds. They are not objective news reporting so they shouldn’t be treated as such. You’re smart enough to intellectually separate the two, so please do.
February 15th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
“And frankly, op-eds are just that…op-eds. They are not objective news reporting so they shouldn’t be treated as such. You’re smart enough to intellectually separate the two, so please do. ”
The subtle point was that even those news items not in the op-ed sections read like op-eds on a fairly regular basis.
I’ve no issue with the fact that its news, my problem is the media is asking why Cheney didn’t rush off to tell the NYT what happened immediately. You can report the news without saying “Cheney took too long for us, the people who sat on a story for a year untill we could release it when Bush’s numbers were going up because of successes in Iraq, Cheney is trying to hide something!”.
Remember Jimmy Carter and his killer rabbit? THAT certainly took more than 18 hours. Too much is being read into this. If your friend of 30 years accidentely gets shot by you, the VERY LAST thing on your mind is alerting the NYT. The fact the Hunter got hit in the FACE(!) is irrelevant, if he were hit in the CHEST(!) or the ARM(!) would it be any less sensationalized? Yeah, its certainly reportable news, but not front-page center calibur. Throw it in with the National Report, it isn’t like Cheney’s hunting accident has broad, sweeping national or international implications.
As to not alerting the authorities, who wants to bet the police have already been informed seeing as this was front page news? There were several persons at the scene of the accident according to several people’s recollection. Will Cheney face charges? Extremely likely. Will such charges prohibit Cheney from doing his job? I doubt it.
February 15th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Haha, yeah subtle…like a jackhammer. I still thinking your inflating any examples to suit your purposes. Some me examples and I’ll consider.
What? Man, you are REACHING.
And it’s not about alerting the NY Times. You keep saying that, and I realize you’re talking about the broader media, but it’s not Cheney’s personal responsibility to hold a press conference. However, his aides could have gathered the info in a timely fashion. Even former Republican press secretaries are saying this was a bad move. This ISN’T a partisan issue.
The FACE comment was simply a continuation of my purposeful capitalization of that word for comedic effect. That wasn’t the point I was making, but I realize it looked that way. And yes, even if Cheney shot somebody in the chest or the arm, it would still be front page news. Rule Of Thumb #234: If the VP shoots somebody, it’ll make the front page of many major newspapers in America.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. This incident has already been deemed an accident, so he’s not going to face any charges. And I thought they alerted the police pretty much immediately since anybody who is shot has to have a police report filed on them. So the police knew when the doctors knew. At least that’s my assumption.
February 15th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
The secret service alerted the police immediately. I assume it was the police’s decision and not Cheney’s to hold off on talking with him until the next morning, but I don’t know that for certain.
I’ve also read that, if the poor gentleman dies, Cheney could face manslaughter charges if a grand jury decides he was criminally negligent in his actions. This rarely happens in hunting acidents, however and, assuming we have all the facts, it seems unlikely it would happen here.
By God’s grace it won’t come to that and the gentleman will make a full recovery.
February 15th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Meanwhile, somewhere in Iraq there is a giant puddle of gore resulting from torture — makes sense coming from an administration that shoots people in THE FACE! My God, I’m going to make a Republicans Gone Wild video. Accident my ass, it’s karma, psychic inertia. Dick Cheney is a war-profiteering international criminal. He weilds a shot gun with the same cavalier arrogance that he weilds his own power and interests. Shoot first, look second. Isn’t that the same thing we’ve done in Iraq? But I don’t hear anyone saying, oopps accident, this was the “worst day of my life.” Dick Cheney is the walking political truth: If your going to shoot one guy in the face, you’d be better off shooting thousands of guys in the face. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Cheney meant to shoot his friend, but I would put the BAC at over .08. Yeah, I had one beer at lunch too — hunting — in Texas — with old lawyer friend — no press around - one very big beer. That one-beer-at-lunch-or-dinner bit is a good one that every Texas Highway patrol officer hears five times a shift — right before the guy pokes himself in the eye trying to touch his nose. I’m fairly certain it is at these drunken Texas quail (or whatever moves) safaris that our foreign policy is hatched out. But here is the question that no one is asking: Why is Dick Cheney hunting? I’d like to go hunting, fishing, basically vacationing. My wife would really, really like it. But I have to work and I haven’t even gotten the country into a war. This is a big story because of the Gotham City quality. Dick Cheney, who has been characterized (rightly or wrongly, accurately or inaccurately) in the media has just shot a guy in the Face! Think about getting shot in the Face, now think about getting shot in the Face by the Dick Cheney — the second one has a kind of poetic, satirical quality to it. Boom, story.
February 16th, 2006 at 8:23 am
One point I would like to add to this story. I’m a hunter, been all my life, along with my entire family. No has ever had an accident. But my real concern is sending elderly men out in the field with weapons. I don’t even want an 80 yo behind the wheel of a car, let alone swinging a gun in my direction. You can not tell me that men in their 70’s and 80’s have the same response time as people who are not elderly. This is not to mention that their eyesight is often weak. There is a time when everyone, regardless of the medical and security teams he has following him around, should hang up certain hobbies. you hit 70, time to hang up the old shot gun, and looking into building models of boats or gardening.
February 16th, 2006 at 9:07 am
This commentary does a great job of reflecting the Republican spin. The Republicans are trying to play this as an issue not of the Vice President’s actions, but of the press’s actions. Statements like “now the Democrates (sic) are demanding that Cheney appear before the press.” are another reflection of that. I see so many comments along the lines that the press is demanding that Cheney appear before them, or that he needs to apologize to Whittington. This is Republican spin, so when Cheney goes on Fox News and apologizes to Whittington, the White House can say “look, you got what you wanted.” But I notice it’s interesting that I never see quotes from the press on either of those issues. Who says they’re demanding that Cheney appear before them?
The fact is that ever since the shooting, the Cheney camp has been telling one misleading (to be polite) story after another. They decided that Katherine Armstrong should be the one to call the press since she was an eyewitness and an “expert” hunter. So she calls the press and gets virtually the entire story wrong. Compare her saying that Whittington was joking, that he was more stunned than anything else, and that everyone gets “peppered” now and then to Cheney’s account that Whittington was covered in blood, had only one eye open and was unresponsive when he talked to him. As well as the fact that the shot penetrated his chest through layers of clothing.
The same with the “he didn’t notify anyone because he was so concerned.” As another commenter noted, he went back to the ranch and had dinner and a cocktail. The story has now migrated from no alcohol, to a beer at lunch, to a beer at lunch and a cocktail with dinner. Do you honestly mean to tell me the Clinton’s would have been cut any slack under the same circumstances? The White House witholds information, refuses to let the police talk to Cheney until the next day and keeps changing its story. But we’re not supposed to speculate about him drinking because we don’t have the facts. We can’t do anything but speculate, because of the way the White House has manipulated the story.
Cheney wasn’t at the hospital holding the guy’s hand. He reported to the White House what happened. No one’s saying he had to personally call the press. But there’s plenty of people on staff who’s job it is to call the press, and they didn’t. This shouldn’t be as big of a story as it is. But the White House has brought this on itself by continually dissembling. Blaming the media because the “the political commentators reveal what’s really going on” in their minds is just weak.
If a police investigator is interviewing a witness, and there are several little untruths in his story, he has every reason to believe he might be lying about the bigger story. What exactly is the press supposed to do, when the White House spokespeople are clearly lying to their face? Jusat say “well, we don’t want to raise a stink, because it will make us look partisan?” The did that in the runup to Iraq, and look where that got us.
The bottom line is if you don’t want the press getting outraged, don’t lie to their face.
Oh, and it wopuld be nice if Cheney apologized for having his spokespeople blame Whittington for the accident.
February 16th, 2006 at 9:39 am
The Clintons get in trouble? HA! BillyBob can get his ass kicked in Kosovo and noone starts chanting “Clinton lied. People Died.”. Clinton can screw women, lie about it, and then have Democrats, constantly with face-on-ass action proclaim it was a little mistake.
When you’re a Democrat, you can race-bait all the damn day long and noone in your party will ever call you out on it. You can be guilty of vehicular manslaughter and the people in my idiot commonwealth will still elect you Senator for decades to come. And where is the media in all this? Chanting the standard Democrat rhetoric. Why do you think I spend so much time getting news from the blogosphere? Because the paper is currently about as objective and accurate as Ted Kennedy on Thirsty Thursday.
February 16th, 2006 at 10:46 am
“Because the paper is currently about as objective and accurate as Ted Kennedy on Thirsty Thursday. ” hehehe, you sooo funny B in MA.
John, when I told my 93 year old grandfather @ your comment, he asked me to write, “Looky here you little bastard. You won’t be questioning my aim or response time when I shoot you in the ass.” So there you have it –
February 16th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
What’s worse than not letting the media in on the event until days later? Not talking to the cops until the next morning because you needed time to sober up. Seriously, I’m sorry but the whole “I only had one beer” thing is a classic that everyone has used - me included. I think they broke for lunch at around noon, and then resumed the hunt at around 4. That’s a pretty long lunch. Can anyone guess what was going on at lunch that took 4 hours? They weren’t sitting around drinking iced tea or coffee for 4 hours.
Don’t get me wrong. I feel bad for everyone involved, even Cheney. It sucks to make bad choices that end with bad consequences. And I’m sure Cheney feels terrible about it. (I’m assuming he is a “normal” person who feels the “normal” range of human emotions). I suppose I’m not terribly surprised that he (and the administration) would be interested in keeping certain facts quiet.
I guess my point still remains that while I understand that this is a newsworthy event, and while I personally believe that there has been a cover-up of certain facts (how big of a cover-up we’ll never know, partly because we’ll never know what Cheney’s BAC was), I still think there are much more important issues that are happening in our world than this. I would probably equate this (possibly) drunken hunting incident with Clinton getting BJ’s in the oval office: These things showcase a lack of character and integrity and poor judgment, but I’m still more concerned about warrantless wiretaps and Iran, for two examples.
February 16th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
dos,
seriously, do you think the 93 yo grandfather has the right reaction time to yield a weapon and make quick decisions? Should he be in the millitary? The fact is that along with being drunk, age slows reaction time. Does your 93 yo grandfather still drive a car? Why do you think it is that you don’t see a whole lot of octogenarians behind the wheel? I do think questioning his blood alcohol is relevaant, but it is a “when did you stop beating your wife question.” The question should be did they drink at lunch, if they say no, then the answer, with little other option, is no. A lot of hunters drink while they hunt, and no incidents, some hunters don’t drink and they do have an accident. The alcohol bit is irrelevant.
February 16th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
The alcohol bit is very relevant. And, they did drink at lunch. The only question is how much? Listen, all these little facts added together could mean criminal recklessness or negligence, which could lead to charges. It looks like Harry is going to make it, but if he died for some reason, there would be an automatic investigation (required for hunting accident fatalities), and there could be charges. Also, some states have consumtion laws, which prohibit hunters from having any alcohol in their systems while hunting. (I doubt Texas is one of them, but that’s just a wild guess).
The point about the drinking is BIG because that implies that there was a cover-up since Cheney never spoke to ANY authorities until the next morning when he would have been completely sober. You may not care about it, John, but these are the little things (like lying under oath about having an affair) that tend to be parlayed into much bigger things.
February 16th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Likely timeline:
Morning:
Wake-Up
Prepare for Hunting trip.
Noon:
Drink a beer WITH LUNCH
Go out to Armstrong Ranch
3PM:
Start Hunting
5:30 PM:
Accidental shooting incident, rush Whittington to hospital, spend rest of night informing family members and keeping updated
Next morning:
Call police at reasonable hour.
No need to project anything dubious in the middle there, Texas is a big place and Cheney and his friends were probably just trying to unwind on their NON-OFFICIAL weekend trip that turned tragic.
February 16th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
John - there probably should be greater oversight on a local level that old people haven’t lost their senses to a degree that makes them dangerous to hunt with or drive a car. As for my particular old bastard, I can assure you that his reaction time is that of a super human — a wrinkly mean ole’ bastard super human. Should he be in the military? He thinks he IS in the military. His reaction time is fine, better than mine. It is his dementia that scare me.