Party leader -- impeachable offense

Mark Amber on the press' responsibility to refuse to give credibility to the ridiculous accusations flying around the Sestak and Romanoff "quid pro quo" stories.

More potentially pernicious than liberal bias, than the false equivalences bias, than really just about any other bias that journalism that injects into a public discussion of a story, is the power that comes from merely selecting which subjects to cover. Whatever the collection of facts about White House officials attempting to influence primary elections is, it is not a scandal. It is not the type of story that journalists with credibility and experience should be selecting to cover. It's the type of story that journalists ought to resist covering, precisely because the act of giving it attention elevates the arguments that don't correspond with the truth. If journalism is good for anything, it is to provide what Republican Bruce Bartlett calls "quality control" over the narrative. Well, a big mess just slipped by.

Where the White House erred is obvious. In claiming to hold themselves to an ethereal, fairly impossible ethical standard, they are partly responsible for the casual criminalization of regular political discourse. In some ways, this White House has been more transparent and more committed to generally accepted ethical practices. Although Obama never promised to abstain from politics, he invited some of this scrutiny by refusing to delineate what he found acceptable and what he did not. But this is a venial sin compared to the transgressions of organized journalism.

The story has been given legs, it seems, because the disaster in the gulf is too monotonous and Obama's been in office for 18 months and Michelle hasn't yet been accused of firing the WH pastry chef for "political reasons."

But it is a ridiculous story. The president is the leader of his party. Of course, he makes political decisions on who to support in contentious primaries and it is generally the incumbent. True for Republican presidents. True for Democrats. There was no quid pro quo -- in Sestak's case, because nothing of value was offered, and in Romanoff's, the WH staff simply inquired into whether he was still interested in the jobs he'd previously applied for before deciding to run for the Senate.

Those in the media who know its not a story on its own merit, but shows that the Obama administration is politically sloppy-- and that this means something in the bigger picture -- are equally ridiculous. As Amber notes, they aren't very good at this thing because...they aren't very good at this thing. Opposite of the "Chicago style of politics" they're constantly accused of playing, they aren't very interested in strict party discipline. They're not thugs.

Of course, as Somerby points out, the fact that William Jefferson Clinton was involved just deepens the conspiracy for these D.C. pundits, and makes editors tingle, just a little bit, remembering the good ol' days.

As with the Richard Blumenthal epic storyline, our so-called liberal media is very good at throwing the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune at our liberal politicians who are unable to hold themselves entirely removed from the political fray, and aren't perfect. Standards to which Republican politicians are clearly not held. That is what gets disasters like George W. Bush elected.