If Mike Morrell really took the blame for editing the talking points on that memo in 2012, he would take more responsibility for the whole security mess in Benghazi and resign in disgrace.
The Chicago way...either you become gainfully employed with the perp’s legitimate business or you become disappeared.
Chutzpah
Businesses have to abide by anti-trust laws..How on earth is this different except that it is worse because we are talking about the very security of our nation and our people here. How many others are involved in this kind of revolving door between the major news media and the White House? I hear that it is common. And the media has focused attention on an old decadent, immoral, sick man who owns a sports team! PLEASE WAKE UP, America!
The issue is not that CBS had a conflict of interest . . . the issue is that journalism in generalhadhas a conflict of interest.Yes, of course CBS and the Rhodes brothers have a conflict of interest - but, a conflict with whose interest??? Whose interest are we supposing that the head of CBS represents??? Whose interest are we to suppose ABC represents? And NBC?
The question answers itself - we are supposing that they represent the public interest. And they do have a fiduciary responsibility to the public, in that they use hundreds of local monopolies on “the public airways” and represent to the government that they are operating "in the public interest as a public trustee.” But the reality is that journalism in general has been corrupted with power, and represents its own interest exclusively.What, does the First Amendment give journalism too much power? No, it was the wire service that did it. The wire service in general, and the Associated Press most particularly. It did so because, by its very nature, the wire service functions as a virtual meeting of all its members.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsThe fact that there is even any difficulty in visualizing how the interest of journalism diverges from the public interest is a manifestation of the propaganda power which has corrupted journalism, and thereby corrupted public discourse. Of course journalism has different interests from those of the public at large. “To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” And to the journalist, everything looks like corruption to be exposed. But note well, the hammer doesn’t think that the hammer is a nail - and journalism doesn’t think that a conflict of interest inside of journalism can possibly be a problem any more than you think that room-temperature water can be dry.
It is a small (in the broader context) scandal that CBS is stonewalling its own conflict with the public interest. The real scandal is that CBS will get away with it because NBC and ABC, and the newspapers will not call BS on CBS. Any more than they did when Dan Rather doubled down on Burkett's fraudulent “Texas Air National Guard Memos.”All very well. But why, you might ask, are journalists “liberal?” They aren’t - they are “objective.” Of course, claiming to be objective (as opposed to trying conscientiously to be objective, and saying so) is proof positive that you are not objective about yourself - or anything else. The other objection to the claim of journalistic political objectivity is the fact that politicians can align themselves with the “everything is a nail” perspective of journalism - and some of them do. Politicians who criticize everyone whom the journalists criticize, without exception, get favorable labeling and positive PR from journalists.