Your Liberal Media, In a Nutshell

Every once in a while, an example of media stupidity comes along that helps illustrate their larger journalistic failures. Time magazine's Joe Klein has provided such an example.

A little over a week ago, Mr. Klein wrote an article for the magazine entitled 'The Tone-Deaf Democrats'. It was an article about how foolish Democrats were to be giving the Republicans a hard time on the latest FISA update, in which Dems are seeking to restore the basic oversight/warrant procedures that have been stripped from our spying laws since 9/11 (those monsters!!1!!). Democrats were 'stumbling on national security', a photo caption concluded. While pretending to be outraged about the administration's post-9/11 abuses, Klein mostly chastises the Democrats for not being cooperative enough with those nice Republicans whose abuses congressional leaders would like to correct.

The article also contained numerous factual inaccuracies. Klein wrote that the Democrats' bill "would give terrorists the same legal protections as Americans," huffing that this "is well beyond stupid." It might be stupid... if it were true. It's not; the bill does no such thing. He also writes at the end that "when the President takes the oath of office, he (or she) promises two things: to protect the Constitution and to protect the nation against enemies, foreign and domestic. If the Democrats can't find the proper balance between those two, they simply will not win the presidency." This is also-- wait for it-- not true. Here is the oath every President takes-

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That's it. Yes, we all want our leaders to keep us safe, but it's not in the oath.

Glenn Greenwald called Joe Klein out on this mess of a column, explaining point-by-point why he was wrong (shorter summary of said smackdown-- here). Greenwald even-- get this!-- read the bill to see what it actually does.

Greenwald kept at it, and eventually Klein (indirectly) responded on Time's blog, admitting that a) his sources on the story were mainly Republicans, b) he hadn't contacted the Democratic leadership to clarify matters, and c) he hadn't read the bill he was reporting on. You know, journalism.

He then goes on to (again) declare himself Mr. Bipartisan, by decreeing a good 'compromise' would be Republicans agreeing to "basket warrants" (a meaningless concept) while Democrats would agree to give retroactive immunity to the telecom companies who aided the administration's illegal program. This, he says, would help America "get past the cynicism and partisan mistrust cultivated by"... the same administration whose demands he's asking Democrats to capitulate to. Got it?

In his latest attempt at face-saving, Klein gives up all pretense of dignity, insisting that "I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right" in this debate... but apparently he felt confident enough in the matter to write a full-length column about it for Time f'ing Magazine. He states that, on this debate, "A court would probably have to make that determination if the House Democratic bill ever became law. But it won't." And with that, I assume Klein took his ball and went home (Time's editors are refusing to comment).

This, ladies and gentlemen, is your 'liberal media' in action. God bless America.

[UPDATE: I see Time has (finally) corrected the original story. And it's pretty half-assed.]