Right to Know

Dan Abbett

All the media agree. Yes, even members of the new media and some conservative publications agree, Vice President Dick Cheney should have put out a press release immediately after the hunting accident in which he peppered a friend with birdshot.

Because he chose instead to release the information the following day, the insinuation of some sort of cover-up of the accident has now taken on the trite form of, “what did the vice president know and when did he know it?”

The position of “Vice President of the United States,” is not a trivial one. Certainly, issues in which the vice president is involved, especially accidentally shooting someone, is going to be news.

There is clearly a right of the people to know what occurred in such a circumstance but that right does not include the right of the press to make specific demands with regard to the release of such information. The mainstream media does not share that opinion and that is the point. The media is not an elected body. They represent no constituency other than the organizations for which they work and they have no entitlement to information.

NBC White House correspondent David Gregory doesn’t seem to understand this fine point however, as he grilled White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan for “answers,” as though Mr. McClellan were a witness at a Senate hearing.

The actions of the White House Press Corps and their leading questions attempting to infer scandal, almost certainly played a role in the decision as to how Mr. Cheney would release the incident to the press. Given the predictable behavior of the media to “jump to conclusions,” the vice president was wise to be the first to have all the facts before the administration bashing frenzy by the media began.

What is on display is a selfish, contemptible, agenda driven pool of piranha, bent on the destruction of the Bush Administration. To gnaw and gnash at every exposed fiber of an episode that has resulted in personal tragedy for both parties, is the clearest indication yet as to the depths to what was once a news organization has descended.

We read the news to obtain facts and information on which to base our decisions, not for propaganda designed to shape those decisions to fit an ideological agenda.

There seemed to be casual acceptance as the late night talk shows made jokes about the physical trauma suffered by Harry Whittington and the emotional trauma that the vice president had to endure, knowing he had accidentally shot his friend. Add to this the conspiracy speculations from everything that the vice president was intoxicated to musings that the act was intentional to take the focus away from NSA surveillance and the entire episode drops well below the level of disgust.

Using this disgusting display by the mainstream press, as a filter through which to view that which is presented as news, puts media bias in a clearer focus. One can only wonder, had the situation been reversed and it had been the vice president that had been shot, would there now be a cheer emanating from media gallery?

As Iran edges ever closer to developing nuclear weapons, as intimidation from angry Muslim masses threatens to actually strip away “freedom of the press” and Europe succumbs to Sharia Law, the only thing our press finds worthwhile is exploiting a very unfortunate accident. Not a glowing statement to an organization that has the power to influence what is presented as news.

Email: danabbett1@charter.net