Today’s Washington journalists are like J. R. R. Tolkien’s ring wraiths, petty lords who wanted a few shiny golden Obama rings — only to end up as shrunken slaves to the One.
The Bob Woodward/Ron Fournier/Lanny Davis psychodrama is another small reminder that the Obama administration continues to assume that the press should be little more than a veritable Ministry of Truth. Its proper duty is to serve the White House and promote the progressive agenda of Barack Obama. Any were considered suspect who questioned whether those exalted ends should really be achieved by any means necessary — but they were so few and far between that it mattered little.
Woodward, Fournier, and Davis, in their surprise at the general paranoia of the Obama administration, must think that freelancing White House zealots are tarnishing the reputation of their president, who, given his own predilections, would otherwise not countenance such clumsy intimidation of journalists.
In fact, there are plenty of reasons to assume that Barack Obama has established the tenor and methodology of press relations from the very outset of his administration, characterized by expectations of unfailing support, coupled with a general vindictiveness toward his few critics among the press corps. In the past, Obama’s habit of leaking the divorce records of opponents, his calls for supporters to confront opponents and “get in their face,” petty threats in St. Louis by prosecutors against any who might say untrue things about Obama, and successful pressure to keep unpublished the Obama speech praising the radical Palestinian-American Rashid Khalidi were not even news, but usually written off as the normal pro-Obama zeal. Obama alone could not have elevated The View to a supposedly serious 60 Minutes–type news show — and reduced 60 Minutes to the inanity of The View.
The former White House communications director, Anita Dunn, once (among other astounding declarations) denounced Fox News as essentially an illegitimate news network, “Obviously [the president] will go on Fox because he engages with ideological opponents. He has done that before and he will do it again. . . . When he goes on Fox he understands he is not going on it as a news network at this point. He is going on it to debate the opposition.”
But that was not freelancing on Dunn’s part. Obama himself later went after Fox directly, in a manner that might be characterized as preemptive bullying: “I think what we really have to do is change some of the incentive structures so that people feel liberated to pursue some common ground. One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”
Note the key phrase “is not punished.” “Punish” is a favorite word of Barack Obama’s (as in “punish our enemies”), and he assumes both that his opponents have the same mindset that he does, and that there is a way to stop a news organization from doing something he does not like. You see, in the Chicago organizing mind of Barack Obama, elected officials never act on principle, but only adopt positions in relationship to the likelihood of being punished or not punished. And note too that “common ground” is always defined by Obama as his own ideological turf.
Presidential example filters down the chain of command. Have we forgotten that, in the first year of the Obama administration, Yosi Sergant, then “communications director” of the National Endowment for the Arts, in a conference call to artists who were to participate in government-subsidized programs, urged them to use their influence to further the Obama agenda? If the NEA was to be politicized, what federal agency would not be?
Do we remember “AttackWatch.com,” whose website offered “files” on potential Obama critics? Its spooky, pseudo-intelligence red-and-black format offered names and pictures, and asked readers to report critics with the invitation, “Have you seen or heard this attack?” “Yes/No.”
Long before Rahm Emanuel went after Chick-fil-A (“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values”), he had, as White House chief of staff, warned states and their congressional representatives that they would be punished should they criticize the president’s stimulus.