CSotD: The Unicorn in the Rose Garden
Skip to comments
This Jim Morin cartoon actually popped up a couple of days ago, but political cartoons get a little latitude on the "of the Day" factor here, since they are, for the most part, intended to last at least a couple of days or maybe even a week.
I really like it because I remember Whitewater as an early low point for "journalism," which I put in quotation marks because so little actual journalism went into the coverage of Whitewater.
And here we are again. A Starr is reborn.
The best part about Whitewater for political cartoonists was that they could draw Bill and Hilary in a canoe going down rapids and then clock out and go have a beer.
For print journalists, it was an exercise in "on one hand and on the other" reporting, in which you assume that both sides of a controversy are equally valid and it's all a matter of opinion.
"The governor's critics accuse him of feeding unicorns with hay purchased from public funds. In a news conference, the governor said no hay was bought with public funds and he denied feeding unicorns."
Meanwhile, if the reporter bothered to ask someone if unicorns even exist, this would be the result:
"Dr. John Smith of Cornell's School of Veterinary Medicine said that the unicorn is a mythical beast, but David Jones, a cryptozoologist who has written extensively on unicorns, said the animals are very real but are often invisible."
In the case of Whitewater, I had reported on real estate before becoming a full-time general business writer, and the topic remained high on my radar. When, after months of hearings and accusations and this and that, TIME Magazine finally put together a report on what the Clintons were actually accused of, I read it with great interest.
There was nothing there.
Yeah, some underhanded stuff happened. There was deal-making. There was a lot of buddy-buddy stuff, a little arm-twisting.
In other words, it was a typical commercial real estate deal.
For the average person, whose experience in real estate is limited to buying a house or three, it sounded terrible. But residential real estate is regulated specifically because one party to the deal is a babe in the woods.
Commercial real estate assumes both parties know what is going on, and comparing the two is like comparing youth soccer with Australian Rules Football.
A reporter might not know that at the outset, but that's no excuse for not finding out. You're allowed to tackle people in footy, and you're allowed to apply a little back-slapping in commercial real estate.
And there's no "other hand" to report about. Take responsibility for the facts and quit being a weasel.
Which brings us to yesterday's "Fortune" story about "Fast and Furious," which documents the actual case itself, rather than simply playing stenographer and writing down what is being said on the one hand and on the other.
There is, according to their six month investigation, no "there" there.
It's a long story and nobody will read it, so here is the capsule:
Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.
Indeed, a six-month Fortune investigation reveals that the public case alleging that Voth and his colleagues walked guns is replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies. Fortune reviewed more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents and interviewed 39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case. Several, including Voth, are speaking out for the first time.
Somebody posted the link on Facebook yesterday, inviting people to read what "Fortune" had to say.
First comment began "Damning article for Holder and Obama …"
No. No, it's not. Not even vaguely. You couldn't read 100 words into it and come away with that conclusion.
But nobody is going to read it. Facts? I ain't got no facts. I don't need no facts. I don't have to read any stinking facts!
And, unfortunately, reports of unicorn sightings no longer result in happy endings.
Mike Peterson has posted his "Comic Strip of the Day" column every day since 2010. His opinions are his own, but we welcome comments either agreeing or in opposition.
Comments 1
Comments are closed.