60 Minutes and Clinton

A lot of people have suggested that 60 Minutes' attempt to let Freeh slam Clinton unrebutted is a result of the Dan Rather/TANG mess from last year. To some extent that may be true, but, really, since when did 60 Minutes need Republican prodding to run groundless attacks on Bill Clinton?

I think this is part and parcel of the ongoing Stockholm Syndrome that many liberals experience regarding the SCLM. Even as we decry it, even as we try to work the refs, even as we attack Judith-Fucking-Miller, we deep down expect them to be on our side - or at least on the side of truth, where we consider ourselves to be. But they're not. They fucking hated Clinton (both of them), the hate Gore, and they loved every miunute of Whitewater. And as Bob Somerby has pointed out a million times, it wasn't Rush and the Washington Times leading the charge, it was the Post and the New York Times.

So yes, they do get cowed by vocal Republicans, and yes, they have lost all contact with the purpose of reporting, but no, it's not a coincidence. Evidently, what it takes to reach the upper echelons of journalism in this day in age is homologous with toadying and being impressed with people like George W. Bush. I don't know how to fix it, but to fix something, you need to see how it's broken.