Bring out the Comfy Chair

GG is rightfully going after Chris Wallace for his Gannon-esque questioning of Pres. Bush.

Here's the Wallace softball on interrogation [i.e. torture] and surveillance of al Qaeda [i.e. everyone who communicates with people overseas]:

WALLACE: …are you ever puzzled by all of the concern in this country about protecting of rights of people who want to kill us?

Even Pres. Bush balked at the slant in that question. I'd be tempted to give the President some credit for his reaction, but then - this is the man has regular sit downs with sycophants like Wallace while shunning actual journalists like Carole Coleman.

Compare this question with something that E pointed out to me from Sunday's Parade.

Get this: Parade "interviewed" the CIA director. Yeah, they even called the segment "Inside the CIA."

Their in-depth interview with CIA Director Gen. Mike Hayden (tastefully squeezed between opinions on government's role in baseball and "Is our election process too long?") covered a full three questions:

• What is our greatest challenge today in collecting and evaluating intelligence?
• Do you agree with those people who say that the CIA failed to see the rise of Islamic terrorism?
• Some charge that the CIA has used interrogation tactics that amount to torture. What’s your response?

I mean, Larry King would be embarrassed to ask these questions, especially the last one.

Unsurprisingly, Gen. Hayden offers boilerplate doublespeak:

The CIA’s terrorist detention program has been run according to U.S. law, which prohibits torture. It’s been subjected to repeated legal and policy reviews, and Congressional oversight committees also have been briefed. It’s involved fewer than 100 hardened terrorists, less than one-third of whom required any special form of questioning. Our methods have been legal and safe, producing intelligence that has disrupted terrorist operations and saved innocent lives.

In other words:

• What we did was not classified as torture at the time.
• We're sure it was legal because we asked ourselves repeatedly to make sure.
• We informed Congress members who could be jailed for revealing what we told them.
• Anything done to 20-30 people couldn't possibly be illegal.
• We believe what we did was legal, safe, and effective – and you should, too.

Gen. Hayden is not asked to respond to any of the specific (and very damning) allegations of misconduct – just "what's your side of it, you poor beleaguered public servant?"

It's too simplistic to make a connection between the conduct of two media companies owned by Rupert Murdoch. But it's abundantly clear that when an employer is an uncritical supporter of those in power, true journalism cannot be expected from those in their employ.