I feel like I need to write “I will not be so naive” on a blackboard 100 times to teach myself a lesson. At first, I thought there was no way Gen. David Petraeus would limit himself to just one media interview with Fox News, television’s most partisan news outlet. Why would a respected military leader who wants to appear objective and neutral limit himself to the scrutiny of a Republican network? I was wrong; Petraeus apparently didn’t care about the appearance of partisanship.
Then, I thought, Fox News would at least pretend to ask some of those seemingly-tough-but-actually-softball questions. As media competition goes, last night was a major “get” for the GOP’s network, and Fox News had to appreciate the fact that people would tune in for the exclusive. This was a chance to show some journalistic credibility, put the network’s best-foot forward, maybe even grow in stature (up from zero). The network has had years to practice the fine art of advancing a partisan agenda while pretending to be a professional journalistic enterprise. Last night was a chance to show these skills off.
But I was wrong about this, too.
Brit Hume’s exclusive one hour interview with Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker proved Fox News to be an even friendlier forum than expected. Hume opened the interview by asking Petraeus to give a “synopsis” of his testimony before the House today. Petraeus then proceeded on an uninterrupted 16 minute soliloquy, turning the Fox News “interview” into a powerpoint presentation on national TV. While Petraeus was presenting his charts, a Fox chyron read “A briefing for America.” After taking a commercial break, Hume allowed Crocker to give his own 10 minute uninterrupted speech. Hume never asked a critical question of either Petraeus or Crocker.
When Fox News announced over the weekend that Petraeus and Crocker would be on, the network said it would be an “exclusive interview.” But giving the two officials nearly a half-hour of scrutiny-free time isn’t an “interview”; it’s the “Petraeus and Crocker Show.”
The chyron read, “Briefing for America.” But we didn’t need another “briefing.” Petraeus and Crocker had just briefed Congress, before a national television audience, for six-and-a-half hours. The media’s job is to follow up on that briefing with scrutiny, analysis, fact-checking, etc. What’s the point of Fox News even existing if it just wants to make its programming a transparent commercial for the Bush administration?
Indeed, in one particularly striking instance, FNC’s Brit Hume seemed unsatisfied that Petraeus hadn’t described the war in Iraq as a war against al Qaeda, so he asked pointed questions until the General said what Fox News wanted him to say. It was almost embarrassing.
Alex Koppelman highlighted what happened when Hume actually asked a question, half-way into the hour-long “interview.”
“Gentlemen, in both your testimony today, you indicated that there had been this bottom-up reconciliation which was sort of unpredicted and much welcomed, but it seemed to be mostly in Sunni areas. And the situation with the Shia seem — and the possible misbehavior, difficulty, problems with Shia militias, and so on,” Hume began.
And when, with the end of Hume’s question still hanging, the camera panned to the faces of Crocker and Petraeus, both looked to be bracing themselves for the blow surely coming. Would Hume ask whether the Sunni reconciliation had come solely because of fear of the majority Shia? Or whether Shiite partisans dominate the Iraqi army and police force, turning them into sectarian militias and leading to the conclusions of the Jones report, which said that the national Iraqi police force should be disbanded altogether?
Not quite. Instead, Hume wanted to talk about the new bogeyman of the right — and Fox News — Iran. He blamed the Iranians for the aforementioned Shiite “misbehavior” and problems with Shiite militias saying, “with Iranian influence [that’s] always something you worry about when it comes to the Shiites,” then going on to ask, “You indicated that Iran would be a big winner, in its own eyes at least, if this all went badly in Iraq. Why should we not believe that as progress is made with the Sunni, that progress is made militarily, that Iran could simply rachet up its interference in Iraq to the point where it would in the end spoil whatever progress is being made?”
So, when Hume decided to actually ask questions, it was merely to advance far-right memes (Iraq war = al Qaeda war) and far-right dreams (war with Iran). I can think of a variety of labels for this, but “journalism” isn’t one of them.
In the broader sense, though, the point to take away isn’t that Hume is a hack and Fox News is a joke (though that’s obviously true). The point is that Petraeus and Crocker went on Fox News to bolster Republicans. As publius explained, it’s a rather transparent strategy.
The administration has long since recognized that they’ve lost the public on Iraq — not to mention virtually all Democrats. I’m sure they also understand that these people are permanently lost and there’s no getting them back.
At the same time though, they recognize that Democrats lack the numbers to stop them (particularly veto-override numbers). Thus, whether the war continues or ends — escalates or de-escalates — depends entirely on the will of Republicans. Bush cannot be stopped unless and until congressional Republicans defect en masse. […]
With legs still wobbly on the GOP side, the administration (and thus Petraeus, their dependant subordinate) have a single strategy — reassure the base. They just need to prevent the floor from collapsing while they run out the clock with the Dean Smith Four Corners offense. For that reason, Petraeus is going on outlets like Hugh Hewitt and Fox News.
Again, it’s not that he’s ducking questions — he’s a smart guy and I’m sure he’d do just fine with those scary, scary reporters. No, it’s that he’s been drafted to keep the floor from collapsing.
Stay tuned.