The title of this blog may seem like a premise for me to heap verbal abuse on the press. But it would be duplicitous of me to do so, since much of what I have learned comes from the press. There are many journalistic periodicals and newspapers that adhere to the highest code of fair and honest reporting and that provide thoughtful and in depth commentary. Unfortunately, cable news reporting sometimes fails to follow their example, catering instead to the viewing experience. Whether it is the sight of some news anchor bracing hurricane winds or taking position near billowing tear gas, we are taken live to the scene and held captive to our TV set. Sometimes I find myself anxiously anticipating the moment the news maker is blown off my screen or imagining John Stewart in a gas mask directing rioters and police in the street. I suppose this type of reporting has some value in a world where context no longer matters: it is sufficient just to be there vicariously, like a voyeur. Unfortunately, we live our lives in context.

My real problem with some cable news “shows” reaches to the core of their mission. I have labeled them “fable news” and question their relevance to the role of a free press in our tripartite system of government. When the relationship between the legislative and executive branches becomes stagnant or inept at solving problems, we debate them in the public forum where democracies ultimately live and either prosper or die. For us that public space for dialogue is at home, at work, in communities, and via social media. Much of that dialogue depends upon input from the free press. How the news is presented, how unbiased the commentary, how accurate the reporting are all critical to this ongoing dialogue. In our ideal America, we all assume that the press wants that same honest dialogue that we so desperately need. But is that what fable news wants? At times they make little effort to hide their bias and diligently report what they believe their viewer base wants to hear. Why they do so is made obvious by the manipulative information morsel introduced before the commercial break. It is designed to whet your appetite to hear more. They want you to “stay tuned” for their next offering of salacious, scandalous, frightening, repulsive, and/or provoking tidbit of little or no news value. The danger in this approach is that it conflicts with the traditional role of the so-called fourth estate. Fluff reporting may “make news” by creating controversy, but ignores the journalistic code of getting the story right. The latest example of fable news coverage is the characterization of the President’s major failure (at worst) or his “unartful” faux pa (at best) in last Friday’s briefing before the White House press corps. The President is quoted as saying he had no strategy for dealing with ISIS in Syria. The video clip of his statement to that effect has been run on every network ad nauseum, apparently because it supports the current politicized refrain of an incompetent Administration. The problem with this sound bite is that it was taken out of context. It has metastasized into a serious debate spawned by initially inaccurate reporting. The President was answering a specific question that addressed whether the Administration would bomb ISIS in Syria and, if so, whether he would seek support for Congress first. Everybody in that room knew that the President had authorized reconnaissance overflights to determine the feasibility of such a mission. His answer specified what was already obvious: the Administration had not yet concluded that a bombing mission would be effective and, if they did determine such a strategy, he would consult with Congress so that “the people’s elected officials” would have the opportunity to debate his strategy. There was no real news value in distorting the President’s message other than to support what some might think newsworthy, specifically, Administration incompetency. This theme seems to support what the polls show as a declining popular approval rating. Fable news wants to ride the tide of popular perception rather than report actual context or, for that matter, anything in depth. Many questions to paid consultants on these shows begin with “do you think the President’s failure to . . .” or “how would you grade the President’s response to . . .” These leading questions have been used to affix blame. They beg the question by assuming the President failed at something or needs to be graded like a naïve youth still in school and is therefore culpably or naively responsible for some undesirable outcome. They have been used to explain the existence of ISIS or the escalation of the Syrian civil war or the breakup of Iraq or delay of the Keystone Pipeline or the spike in immigrant children at our borders or IRS misguided implementation of tax law or whatever else can be made to support the incompetence narrative. This “piling on” is not truly newsworthy, since it is unsubstantiated. But it feeds the direction of the polls regarding the President’s approval rating. It is also embarrassing since it is more about the reporting of the news than its actual substance. The issues just enumerated can easily be made to illustrate my point. For example, here are a few facts that call this type of reporting into question:

• ISIS is an offshoot of al Qaeda which immigrated to Iraq when our invasion became the pretext for Jihadist to join the fight against the great Satan. Its leader is a former inmate of one of our military jails; and many of ISIS’ cadres are former generals and officers in Hussein’s army whom we disenfranchised and prohibited from any future government role. Was our current President responsible for that invasion or the policies of exclusion implemented during our occupation of Iraq? If not, then he cannot be responsible for the creation of ISIS.
• The supposed failure of the President to back up his stated redline by bombing Syria was the result of two juxtaposed occurrences: Congress did not call for a vote on his request to authorize an attack, as is required under our Constitution; and Assad agreed to give up his chemical weapons (at the urging of Putin who likely sensed the threat to his hegemony in Syria). Given these circumstances what constitutional power would have allowed the President to wage war on Syria? And, if he had been given Congressional support, under what pretense would he execute his threat if Assad had already agreed to remove his chemical weapons? Would we simply have inserted ourselves into the middle of a civil war where most of the combatants were equally undesirable—including ISIS? The President did not bomb Syria because he was not given the authority and because he no longer had cause. Even if he had, it is not clear that bombing would have changed the course of the civil war. Arming and training the rebels earlier, a separate issue, might have had an impact. But the secular moderates were mostly civilians and their leaders, in many cases, were part of the Syrian diaspora and unfamiliar with the circumstances on the ground. It may be that we failed to help them in time of need; but it is not clear whether their fighting ability could have been raised to a level that would have turned the tide against the Baathist generals and seasoned fighters of ISIS. They may have turned over American weapons to ISIS faster than the Iraqi army. It is difficult to make the case that the President is responsible for the conduct of a civil war where there are so many bad actors actually participating in its escalation. Remember: hindsight is always 20:20. We would have done well if we had done more to help the moderate rebels. Whether that assistance would have turned the tide still remains questionable. In any case, using that supposed “failure” as an impetus for invading Syria now opens a much bigger Pandora’s Box.
• No serious analyst would remove Malicki from responsibility for the splintering of Iraq’s government. Even if he had agreed to allow 10 or 20 thousand American troops to remain in Iraq, those troops would not have had any more political sway over Malicki than the thousands of American Foreign Service workers who remained there in the largest American embassy compound in the world. Could the President have violated the agreement already made by a previous administration and used an occupying US military to force our will on a disagreeable Iraqi government? I think not.
• By law, approval of pipelines rests in those States traversed by these pipelines. In the case of the Keystone Pipeline, additional approval would be needed by the US State Department because it is designed to cross an international border. There are also Federal regulations regarding pipelines, including the EPA assessment, that are required by law. At this point, the Keystone Pipeline has obtained all regulatory approvals and a free pass from the EPA. It would be inappropriate and absurd for the State Department to approve of this pipeline before the States affected by it have made their assessment and approved its construction. This is not just a State’s rights issue, but a matter of natural law regarding eminent domain as interpreted in every State’s constitution. The Keystone Pipeline has NOT been approved in one of the States, because the Courts have ruled that its Governor’s use of eminent domain was unconstitutional. The Courts’ ruling has made some local farmers happy and, apparently, has served well the fable news theme about Administration incompetence and indecisiveness. One might understand why a Democratic President would be reticent about aggravating environmentalist before a decision is even warranted. But how would his approval of this pipeline allow its construction anyway without approval of the State? He cannot be blamed for a decision that would be irrelevant at this point because it is not yet a decision he can make.
• By now it should be obvious that the President did not create the violent and abusive circumstances in Central America that drove parents to send their children to America. The fact that smugglers misrepresented a Presidential executive order is not the fault of this Administration. That order only delayed the deportation of children who have lived in America for over 7 years (pending legislation to address the underlying issues). What more can the President do other than follow existing law and asks Congress for additional funds to address the unique challenge of processing children through our immigration corridor? The President is dealing with the hand given him and without any help from Congress. (Note: at this date, Congress still has not acted on the President’s request for funds.)
• The IRS fiasco was the result of tax law that has been misinterpreted by the IRS for decades. Their attempt to apply it in the current environment where so many alleged “non-profit” organizations appear to be political fundraising entities presents an unsolvable dilemma. Are these organizations “primarily” non-profit as the IRS was endeavoring to determine? Or are they “exclusively” non-profit as the law actually specified? Clearly, the latter question is easy to answer, whereas the former presents some difficulty. The IRS, under pressure from Congress, has clearly given up: they are abandoning attempts to weed out the bad actors, that is, political fundraising organizations parading as non-profits. (It should be noted that Congress could easily settle the issue by affirming the law as written. But that action would endanger a significant source of campaign funds, would it not?) Did the President’s policies or actions have anything to do with the IRS handling of this affair? No!

It is not my intent to give carte blanche support to presidential policy. As in every Administration, there have been legitimate failings. . (Think of Truman’s use of the atom bomb, of Eisenhower’s failure to sign the Geneva Treaty that would have precluded the Vietnam War, of Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs disaster, of Johnson’s conduct of the Vietnam War, of Nixon’s Watergate and his politicized extension of that War, of Reagan’s Iran/Contra affair, of Clinton’s impeachment, and of Bush’s lame justification for preemptive war in Iraq. The only recent President not on my list was the first Bush—perhaps because the one thing for which he was severely criticized was the right and courageous thing to do. Yes, that was his raising of the income tax. Remember “read my lips.”) Among the negatives on President Obama’s resume I would include the health care website fiasco and lack of an effective strategy beyond air support for the Libyan insurgency. The problem I’m addressing here, however, is with malfunctioning news teams that foment distrust of government for the sake of “making news” and servicing their sponsorship or corporate bottom line. The current fable news hype is about the likelihood of American combat troops on the ground in Iraq and possibly in Syria. If that does not bring viewers to the news broadcasts, maybe reports on the dangers of an Ebola epidemic or the imminent onslaught of terrorists from the Middle East wars will. The irresponsibility of fable news can be trivial and even harmless when it touches on wardrobe malfunctions and such. But when it purports to address serious matters that affect the governance of our country, the disservice it can render is unconscionable. Matters of state that require attention are made impenetrable for lack of factual reporting. Blame is attributed inappropriately, further obfuscating any possible solution. Irresponsibly promoting distrust in our elected officials can lead to distrust in government. And that distrust can foment either general apathy or violent revolt.

For the most part, I believe cable news wants to perform the press’s traditional role in our democracy which is informing and educating the electorate. Within the political sphere, their function can be critical in cutting through political jargon, talking points, official spin, and position papers to the core issues we need to understand. When functioning within their traditional role, we owe them a debt of gratitude. But for the practitioners of fable news, we need to change the channel. When you hear a leading question that presumes unsubstantiated judgment, change the channel. When a controversial sound bite is presented without context, change the channel. When facts are presented without offering credible sources, change the channel. When you are told the roof is falling, check the supporting beams. In other words, research the facts yourself if you have any anxiety about what has been reported. If you find out you have been duped, email the news broadcaster, his/her show, or the network. And, yes, change the channel. Maybe we can eliminate the “talking heads” spouting their nonsense and pompously reading scripts designed to gain viewer share. The issues I have referenced in this blog are real and deserve serious consideration, not self-serving fables. So I have to ask why . . . ?