David Gregory vs. Glenn Greenwald: Lessons about So-Called Progressives

David Gregory asked Glenn Greenwald on Meet the Press today why Greenwald "shouldn't be charged with a crime" for publishing Edward Snowden's leaks about NSA snooping on American phone calls and Internet activities.   So this is how far we've come: a journalist doing precisely the job intended by the First Amendment, being a watchdog on the American government, is asked why he shouldn't be considered a criminal - and, most pathetically, by another so-called journalist.  John Adams, who signed the Alien and Sedition Acts that threw journalists into jail who criticized the President in the 1790s, would likely have approved of the question and answered it in the affirmative.  Thomas Jefferson no doubt would not.

But we shouldn't be surprised, and certainly not that this demonization of the press is going on in a Democratic, so-called progressive administration.   After all, Democrats as well as Republicans have sent our nation to war in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, twice in Iraq, and once in Afghanistan, without the Declaration of War required by our Constitution.   We're on the road to doing that again in Syria.  And Democrats as well as Republicans have trampled on the First Amendment for almost a hundred years, fining radio and television stations for broadcasting "objectionable" content, and arresting reporters trying to do their job during Occupy Wall Street.

You have but to look at MSNBC, the so-called progressive voice, to see how far and badly we've come.   In prime time, only Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes have been strongly and unambiguously supportive of Greenwald.  Lawrence O'Donnell, acknowledging the damage wiretapping did to Martin Luther King, Jr., says he's not too worried about the damage that can do today.   Chris Matthews is typically on all sides of this issue.

Only Ron Paul and Ran Paul - whom I wouldn't vote for because of their fiscal policies and positions on women's issues and immigration and other reasons - have come down hard on the right side of this issue.

Whatever happens, I hope no one votes for a Democrat as the lesser of two evils in the next election, because the evil they pose to our freedom and rights is too much to bear.   We can fight terrorists and totalitarians without becoming them ourselves.

See also The Fraudulent Hunt for Snowden

Michael Jackson, Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, and David Gregory

David Gregory asked Senior White House Advisor David Axelrod a question near the end of their interview on Meet the Press yesterday that bothered me for two reasons. Why, Gregory asked Axelrod, did President Obama not say anything publicly about the death of Michael Jackson, given that "some African-American leaders say the significance of this popular cultural icon was significant. I mean, before there was Barack Obama, before Tiger Woods and Oprah Winfrey there was Michael Jackson crossing over, breaking barriers."

First, I'm wondering why Gregory chose to attribute this astute obervation to "some African-American leaders," when it was first said by the Rev. Al Sharpton, in a powerful, impromptu statement in front of the Apollo Theater on Thursday, shortly after Jackson's death had been announced. "Way before Tiger Woods, way before Oprah Winfrey, way before Barack Obama, Michael did with music what they later did in sports and in politics and in television," Sharpton said to the crowd in front of him and watching on television.

At best, Gregory's attribution of the statement was needlessly vague. At worst, it verges on plagiarism, implying, with the "I mean," that Gregory came up with the specific names in the analysis. I don't like this kind of fuzzy attribution in student papers or on national news shows. Gregory should have clearly identified the statement as by its author, Al Sharpton.

But, more important, why indeed did Barack Obama not publicly and directly say something to the nation and the world about the impact of Michael Jackson? Axelrod's answer - that Obama had "written the family and has shared his feelings with the family" privately - did not really address Gregory's question. There is a world of difference between condolences privately given and a statement to the world about one of the people primarily responsible for "We Are the World," and so many other towering things in our popular culture.

Few things happen by accident in any White House, least of all this one. Obama and his advisors clearly thought it not appropriate for the President to comment publicly about Michael Jackson.

Why not?

I suspect this is another expression of the odd Puritanical streak we sometimes glimpse in Obama, related to his attack on television in favor of books for children, and perhaps his refusal to support gay marriage. Michael Jackson was no doubt a complex and controversial figure, accused of a serious crime. But he was acquitted, no further civil actions were brought against him, and this was not a time to cold shoulder his extraordinary accomplishments.

A President of the United States is a Chief Executive of many things. One of them is talking to the world about events in America of such significant cultural importance that they dominate world news for days. Obama loses points for not stepping up to this job and saying the right thing about Michael Jackson.

Give Shuster a Shot at MSNBC's 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

Politico.com reports that David Gregory, who will be taking the helm on Meet the Press, will be moving on from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, formerly Race to the White House, on MSNBC. David Shuster will be filling in for this week, or until a successor is announced.

First, I'll miss David Gregory on Pennsylvania Ave/Race - his show was one of the most crisp, informative on all of television, low in histrionics, high on the exposition and debate of useful opinions. In many ways, it's been my favorite on all of TV.

But David Gregory therefore certainly merits his promotion to Meet the Press, where his talent for cool, intelligent interview will well serve the classic show and the American people.

And what's to become of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? I'm watching David Shuster on the show right now, and he's doing a fine job. Indeed, though he had at least one misspeak in the two years we have just concluded of election coverage - regarding Chelsea Clinton's campaigning for Hillary - that wasn't the end of the world, and Shuster came back to do consistently excellent, top-notch reporting and hosting (of regular afternoon programs, and subbing for evening programs, like 1600). Shuster has shown himself tough, able to ask big politicians incisive questions, and do this with style and humor.

I don't know who else MSNBC is considering, but I say, give Shuster a shot at 1600 Pennsylvania MSNBC job.

The "Petulant, Irritable Grouch"

"He's a petulant, irritable grouch" ... Quick - Who could that be? I bet you don't need three guesses.

It was said about John McCain, in particular the tone of his response to the Wall Street crisis, by Steve McMahon on MSNBC's excellent Race to the White House with David Gregory yesterday.

McMahon may be a Democratic strategist, but his characterization has an unmistakable ring of truth. In addition to being funny, it gets at a serious difference in temperament between the two Presidential candidates. Obama has been cool, unruffled in the face of this crisis, sounding much like FDR in saying one of the most important things is not to panic, not succumb to financial fear. In contrast, McCain has been petty and carping, preferring to take shots against Obama.

Obama indeed raised the question of John McCain's temperament in his address at the Democratic convention. It's something that is not talked about often enough. But it gets precisely at what we most want in the person with a hand on who knows how many triggers in the White House. That would not be a "petulant, irritable grouch," even if that candidate did not have a record of poor judgment in just about every economic and foreign policy issue facing our country.

David Gregory's Race To The White House Off to Good Start on MSNBC

So, I finally got a chance in this hectic week to see David Gregory's new Race to the White House, which replaced Tucker Carlson's show at 6pm.

I thought Race to the White House was excellent. And I enjoyed it a lot more than Carlson's show.

It's interesting to analyze why.

After all, Carlson and Gregory both talk a lot about politics, and if Gregory has more experience as a reporter, Carlson certainly is at least as articulate, and a lot more humorous.

But Tucker Carlson's show always seemed somewhat listless, in contrast to Gregory's show which was bursting with energy.

Here are some of the reasons:

.Gregory's Race to the White House has sharp, colorful graphics and scenics ... the red-orange background is hot and welcoming. (In contrast, and in McLuhanesque terms*, Tucker Carlson's whole approach may have been too laid back and cool.)

.Mike Murphy, one of the panelists, has one of the sharpest wits going. He had me and most of the panelists laughing a dozen or more times tonight. Given that Murphy worked with Romney and McCain, that's saying a lot, at least for me.

.Rachel Maddow and Eugene Robinson were fine panelists, too. There may be a danger of over-exposing these two - they're on just about every hour on MSNBC - but, so far, they have something wise to say, and say it engagingly, on just about every show.

.Joe Scarborough was pretty good on the panel, too. Interesting thing about Joe - his Scarborough Country in the evening was often excruciating (I was a guest on the show several times, and even I couldn't save it). But Joe's been fine in the morning, and, fortunately for Race to White House, it looked like the Morning not the Evening Joe tonight...

I'm been thinking for a while (can't recall if wrote it) that MSNBC, not CNN, seems most likely to overtake Fox News in the next few years. The new lineup in general, and Race to the White House in particular, is a good first step.

========================
*More about McLuhan, and his distinction between hot and cool media, in my Digital McLuhan: A Guide to the Information Millennium

See also McLuhan as Micro-Blogger

one of my appearances on Scarborough Country

See also transcripts of this and my other appearances on Scarborough Country.

MSNBC Unfurls Excellent New Lineup - But Why are They Keeping Their Lame "Doc-Block"?

MSNBC announced the following changes in its schedule, to take effect this coming Monday, March 17 -

.David Gregory, NBC News' Chief White House Correspondent, will anchor Race for the White House, a new daily show airing from 6-7pm
.NBC News' Andrea Mitchell will anchor MSNBC each weekday afternoon from 1-2pm
.Countdown with Keith Olbermann, on at 8pm, will now re-air a second time at 10pm, in addition to a third time at 2am.
.MSNBC's "doc block" will now air weeknights from 11pm-2am.
.Live with Dan Abrams will re-launch as Verdict with Dan Abrams, from 9-10pm.
.Tucker Carlson's show is out, but he will continue on MSNBC as Senior Campaign Correspondent.

These all look like excellent moves. With the strength of NBC regulars Brian Williams and Tim Russert, along with Tom Brokaw on election nights, MSNBC has the best election coverage in the business. David Gregory joining the weeknight lineup of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Dan Abrams makes a lot of sense. And when you add to that the stature and savvy of political commentators like Patrick Buchanan and Joe Scarborough, MSNBC is unbeatable.

But there's one thing I've never understood about MSNBC, and still don't get in the new lineup: why is MSNBC alienating the audience for its political coverage with its "doc block"? I know that I have dialed away from MSNBC many times when I wanted to see politics, and MSNBC had yet another show about life behind some prison bars....

Moving the doc-block to 11pm is a step in the right direction. My suggestion: move it to three o'clock in the morning, or off the network altogether.

Especially in an election year, the "Doc Block" is not the way to go...