The Oshkosh Northwestern ran a follow-up story today on the “Impeach Obama” billboard, emphasizing that George Bush similarly had to deal with calls to impeach him. The clear implication of this article, which was atop page A3 and not marked as editorial analysis, was that the two cases are basically the same; presidents just have to deal with such annoyances.
This is the worst sort of reporting: the sort that purports to be about facts, but stops at the surface without digging down even an inch. As The Northwestern itself reported six days ago, the anonymous folks who put up the “Impeach Obama” billboard admit (through their lawyer) that they do not believe Obama has committed any impeachable offense. By contrast, those who called for the impeachment of George Bush had lots of legal reasons in mind. Here are just a few of the least controversial ones, pulled from democrats.com-
1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal “War of Aggression” against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.
2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.
4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.
Now, I did not support impeaching George Bush (largely because the left tended in their enthusiasm to mix political with legal grounds), but the difference between the Bush and Obama cases couldn’t be clearer. It’s the difference between acting sincerely with legal grounds in mind versus acting insincerely with no legal grounds in mind, simply to reinforce resentment.
I went to Journalism school and got a degree, and worked in the industry. The mainstream media in this country has never been all that good, but today it’s pathetic. They’ve even given up the pretext of giving you useful information (outside of traffic reports) and they’re just totally entertainment. . Tiger Woods?? who cares? Meanwhile, the nation is involved in three hot wars and going bankrupt because of its “defense” budget.
As an x-journalist, maybe you could tell me what you think the future of journalism might be like… if there is one. I’ve heard that a new paradigm might be the “stringer” model, where you would have a lot of untrained freelancers all vying to place real-time reports on the most influential blogs. How they plan to make a living – even to get paid – for that is another matter…
We’re living during a transitionary period in so many fields where technology has rendered the old ways of doing things obsolete and journalism is just one of those fields. Eventually, a new way will evolve where people get information and news gatherers get paid in some way. I don’t know what it will be. If we’re going to have a true democracy, then there needs to be an informed electorate. We don’t really have that now.