« Carnival of the Vanities #49... | Main | Around the club-house turn... »
August 27, 2003
The smell of herring...
What should we make of Wesley Clark's allegation that the White House tried to get CNN to fire him as a military analyst? From a report by FOX:
"The White House actually back in February apparently tried to get me knocked off CNN and they wanted to do this because they were afraid that I would raise issues with their conduct of the war," Clark told Newsradio 620 KTAR. "Apparently they called CNN. I don't have all the proof on this because they didn't call me. I've only heard rumors about it."
This certainly isn't the first time a politician--or at least a wannabe--has floated a rumor for political advantage. This is a classic red herring fallacy. While this fallacy drives logicians crazy, as a tool of political rhetoric it can be rather effective (depending upon intention and results). The allegation itself is news in our current media environment. Notice that FOX, and other news organizations, will be happy to run with this as long as they get a reaction. This is "buzz" as news.
Here's the reaction from the White House:
White House officials told Fox News that they are "adamant" that they "never tried to get Wesley Clark kicked off the air in any way, shape or form." Beyond that, the White House "won't respond to rumors."
It won't, but it did, which is an interesting rhetorical maneuver--an attempt at dismissal without dignification, which is like having your cake and eating it, too.
Is the White House telling the truth? I have no clue, but it wouldn't surprise me if the spokesman fibbed. If I were advising Bush, I'd have at least expressed my concern about Clark's relationship with CNN in regard to his opinions about Iraq policy and the prosecution of the war. There's also the issue of "equal time" to think about, considering we've known since at least February that Clark might run for president. I would not have suggested trying to get him fired, but that could have easily been the decision following those three concerns. (Here's a "But": Such a tactic can easily backfire. It is risky enough that I seriously doubt the WH tried to get him fired. They may have certainly expressed their concern to CNN--something that happens frequently and may be interpreted in multiple ways.)
Is Clark telling the truth? I have no clue, but it wouldn't surprise me if this rumor were based on the thinnest of evidence, i.e. some CNN flunky happens to make a comment within earshot of a Clark supporter who passes on the "intelligence." The Clark spinners then puff up this whisp of ether into a storm cloud.
I doubt we'll ever get to the truth of this situation. But, in terms of persuasion, the truth hardly matters. The allegation--the buzz--is now the news. It is a thing in itself. Proving it or disproving it will be quickly swept away in the flood of punditry and prognostication that may likely follow.
Some reporter somewhere might decide to do the long, difficult work it would take to run this down.
Naaaahh...
Posted by acline at August 27, 2003 11:00 AM | | Spotlight