Traditionally, journalists have sought the truth — even at risk to national security — to hold corrupt government officials accountable. But in the age of Trump, those roles have been reversed.
Now that the attorney general is investigating the biggest hoax in journalism history — Trump-Russia collusion — the media is shrinking from the light. The same media that traditionally exposed sensitive intelligence sources and methods has taken a cynical, protective posture, painting William Barr’s investigation of the Russia probe as “dangerous” to national security.
Barr is asking the questions today’s journalist-activists refuse to ask out of political self-interest. In a recent interview with CBS, Barr said that the media’s response to his investigation has been “strange” and “amusing.”
“Well, the media reaction is strange,” Barr said. “Normally the media would be interested in letting the sunshine in and finding out what the truth is. And usually the media doesn’t care that much about protecting intelligence sources and methods. But I do and I will.”
Barr: Asking questions journalists won’t
Before the mainstream media became the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, journalists cared about the truth. But in the era of Trump, the truth is measured by its political usefulness. If the truth helps Trump, then the media buries it. If a lie will hurt him, they amplify it.
So when President Donald Trump ordered Barr to declassify information related to the FBI’s spying of the Trump campaign, the mainstream media went into a defensive panic. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and MSNBC telegraphed the worries of Democrats and intelligence bureaucrats concerned that Barr would expose sensitive intelligence secrets, and painted the declassification order as nothing more than an attack by Trump on the exalted “intelligence community” and its unquestionable expertise.
It’s all very strange. Historically, the media has sought to expose shadowy government operations – over the objections of government officials — not protect them. One doesn’t have to go back far in history to find examples of journalists doing the opposite.
As Michael Barone notes, back in 2006, The New York Times provoked the anger of President George W. Bush when the paper exposed a successful counter-terrorism operation involving the Belgian-based Swift bank. The government was able to stop terrorist financing that was routed through the bank, but the Times justified its reporting as being in the “public interest.”
Of course, the media is no less careless with classified information today; it’s just that their notion of the “public interest” has shifted, as Barr notes.
“I’m amused by these people who make a living disclosing classified information, including the names of intelligence operatives, wringing their hands about whether I’m going to be responsible in protecting intelligence sources and methods,” he said.
Cynical media goes full partisan
The media’s sudden hand-wringing over protecting intelligence sources and methods is a cynical power play. It’s not like the media cared about keeping classified information secret when they breathlessly repeated every whisper and rumor about Russia collusion for two years.
National security isn’t the media’s real concern. If they cared about national security — or democracy, for that matter — they would welcome an investigation into the Trump-Russia probe, to make sure that no political candidate is subjected to the capricious power of the intelligence community ever again.
Instead, the media is working with the Democrats, and senior intelligence officials like John Brennan and James Comey, to smear Barr’s probe out of political expediency. What began as objecting to Barr’s use of the term “spying” to accurately describe the FBI’s counter-intelligence operations has become a full-blown effort to sweep what ought to be the biggest story in the media — that the FBI spied on a political campaign — under the rug.
The media never objected to the term “spying” until the FBI spied on the campaign of a president they hate. Now, the terminology is “politically loaded,” and Barr’s review of the Russia probe’s origins is an attempt to “weaponize the Justice Department.”
Looking forward
Far from asking the real questions, the media is deflecting by fixating on the Democrats’ continued obsession with Robert Mueller and fictional obstruction of justice. The same work that the media once did — exposing government wrongdoing, seeking transparency in the public interest — has been handed off to Barr and his Justice Department.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are now moving ahead with a vote to hold Barr in contempt next week, the latest escalation in the Dems’ smear campaign against the attorney general, who Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) called “the second most dangerous man in America.” As for Barr, he has indicated that he takes spying on a political campaign seriously, and he isn’t fazed by the Democrats’ circus act.
“I’ve been in the business as I’ve said for over 50 years, long before they were born, and I know how to handle classified information and I believe strongly in protecting intelligence sources and methods,” Barr said. “But at the same time, if there is information that can be shared with the American people without jeopardizing intelligence sources and methods, that decision should be made. And because I will be involved in finding out what the story was, I think I’m in the best position to make that decision.”
Is Barr dangerous? That depends on who you ask. James Comey, John Brennan, and Adam Schiff certainly seem concerned.
No comments: