Carry the Water

Both Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, and Andrew Sullivan, express their frustration with a media that confuses the notion of "balance" - the idea that "both sides" of an issue should be presented equally - with fairness - the idea of honestly reporting facts. In the case of Sullivan, of course, the issue is torture:

The fact that the editors of the New York Times cannot reflect this core truth in its use of plain English is a scandal of journalistic cowardice, evasion and willful ignorance. It is entirely a function not of seeking the truth but of placating those in power and maintaining a fictitious illusion of "balance". The idea that the Bush administration's insistence for the first time in human history that waterboarding is legal and not torture - when it has itself used the torture technique - is to be weighed equally against the entire body of legal, historical and cultural evidence in deciding what to call torture is preposterous.

In the case of Carl Pope, the issue is global warming and "clean coal":

Few of the reporters who write these stories are themselves in doubt--I know because I talk to them all the time. But many media outlets insist on treating obvious truths as doubtful if someone can be found who doubts them. If there is a dispute about the facts, however self-interested or discredited a perspective may be, both sides get equal weight. A perfect example is George Will's February 15 column in the Washington Post, which contained several false claims about global warming--one being that the U.N. World Meteorological Organization has said that "there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade." In fact, according to the WMO, the past decade is the warmest on record. Asked for a retraction, however, the Post refused, contending that the column had been sufficiently fact-checked.

Look at Holdren's other examples. Apart from the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union, every state acquiring nuclear weapons (or on the verge of developing them) has done so using civilian nuclear power technology. Yet when nuclear power advocates deny a linkage with proliferation, their comments are reported seriously. Or consider the myth of "clean coal." The coal industry defines the term as "any technology to reduce pollutants associated with the burning of coal that was not in widespread use prior to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990." It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reducing CO2 at all.

But the media continue to report about clean coal as if it had something to do with protecting the climate. Journalists who know better are trapped by the idea that their job is to report a debate--not judge it or even referee by calling obvious fouls. For the media to refuse to describe what we have learned about the way the world works is one of those childish things it's now time to put away.

The discussions are interchangeable, and in each case the media's behavior is an insult to the idea of journalism.

The "dean" of political journalism, David Broder, proves the point in his Sunday Washington Post column, ridiculously titled "Stop Scapegoating".

But now Obama is being lobbied by politicians and voters who want something more -- the humiliation and/or punishment of those responsible for the policies of the past. They are looking for individual scalps -- or, at least, careers and reputations.

Their argument is that without identifying and punishing the perpetrators, there can be no accountability -- and therefore no deterrent lesson for future administrations. It is a plausible-sounding rationale, but it cloaks an unworthy desire for vengeance....

But having vowed to end the practices, Obama should use all the influence of his office to stop the retroactive search for scapegoats.

This is not another Sept. 11 situation, when nearly 3,000 Americans were killed. We had to investigate the flawed performances and gaps in the system and make the necessary repairs to reduce the chances of a deadly repetition.

The memos on torture represented a deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places -- the White House, the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department -- by the proper officials.

One administration later, a different group of individuals occupying the same offices has -- thankfully -- made the opposite decision. Do they now go back and investigate or indict their predecessors?

That way, inevitably, lies endless political warfare. It would set the precedent for turning all future policy disagreements into political or criminal vendettas. That way lies untold bitterness -- and injustice.

I'd make my case against Broder, but Ta-Nehisi Coates does so much better than I can hope:

Listen, there's a case to be made against pushing forward on torture--mostly a political one, that many commenters have made in this space. (Marc gives another one here.) But Broder isn't even serious enough to do that. He is a pug confusing a journeyman with the champ.

I'm always amazed at how people accrue these reputations in high places. Watching Broder fumble with the basic, rudimentary work of intellectual honesty is like watching a Harvard physicist fumble with basic Algebra. And yet somehow, much, much worse.

Nothing to see here. Keep moving on.

Just to be clear: I am not necessarily in favor of a "truth commission" or getting bogged down in prosecutions.  But only as a result of circumstance, where we cannot really afford more distraction with so many crises bearing down on America.  But to call torture a policy difference is vulgar and stupid.  Torture is illegal, plain and simple.  It's an outrageous violation of law and moral values, not to mention a glaring act of cowardice, as is their failure to admit to it.  This is not about politics, it's about the rule of law, above which no man stands. Prosecutorial discretion may get Bush, Cheney and crew off the hook, but they do deserve to have their evil deeds exposed for all to see, to be shunned and disgraced and, if it made sense, to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. In the end, they're lucky they also destroyed the world's economy, fouled the environment, and radicalized the extreme right wing and marginalized their party, because the need to fix their mess is going to save their hides.