Wake-up Call

Resist the Corporate State

Who’s the Boss? (evidently it’s Rahm)

leave a comment »

There are two things going on in the article below: a big issue about reliable, credible info and sources; and also the rather mind boggling soap opera in the press about Rahm Emanuel, most of which seems to have been solicited by him, and much of which defames the president who is his boss.

The only way this makes any sense is if Obama is by far the weaker personality and has his cojones ensnarled in Rahm’s web.  Frankly any second tier manager would have tossed Rahm out the door months ago. Since this hasn’t happened, we must question Obama’s ability to govern.  If you’re not sitting back on your heels, you ought to be.

Why do journalists expect to have credibility?

By Glenn Greenwald             Salon

…anonymity is used for petty, gossipy, manipulative purposes, such as when Rahm’s friends ran to subservient reporters such as Dana Milbank and Jason Horowitz to plant accountability-free hagiographies of the royal court official whose bidding they were doing.  All of this, on a daily basis, passes the scrutiny of multiple reporters and editors, who know that they are systematically breaching their own rules of journalistic credibility but obviously aren’t bothered by it in the least.  That’s why — despite the isolated good works of establishment journalists — they collectively neither have nor deserve credibility.

UPDATE:  One related point about the spate of “Obama-should-have-followed-Rahm’s-centrist-advice” articles that have appeared of late:  if you really think about it, it’s quite extraordinary to watch a Chief of Staff openly undermine the President by spawning numerous stories claiming that the President is failing because he’s been repeatedly rejecting his Chief of Staff’s advice.  It seems to me there’s one of two possible explanations for this episode:  (1) Rahm wants to protect his reputation at Obama’s expense by making clear he’s been opposed all along to Obama’s decisions, a treacherous act that ought to infuriate Obama to the point of firing him; or (2) these stories are being disseminated with Obama’s consent as a means of apologizing to official Washington for not having been centrist enough and vowing to be even more centrist in the future by listening more to Rahm (we know that what we did wrong was not listen enough to Rahm).  One can only speculate about which it is, but if I had to bet, my money would be on (2) (because of things like this and because these “Rahm-Was-Right” stories went on for weeks and Rahm is still very much around).

Of course, the reason we have to speculate about such matters is precisely because journalists suppress the identity of those who are doing this, leaving us with a bunch of unaccountable royal court gossip and intrigue, the authors of which are completely shielded by these “journalists.”  That’s why anonymity more often than not obfuscates rather than enlightens.


Written by laudyms

March 7, 2010 at 10:47 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: