Friday offered a good illustration of how the “news” is a manufactured product, an optional creation with a lot of room for spin in the “news judgment.” All three network morning shows brought on Gen. John Batiste to argue for Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation. Now conduct this imaginative exercise. A set of retired generals in the Clinton years comes out and demands that the Defense Secretary resign. Would they be salivated over by the newspapers and network bookers? Would they get on all three network morning shows to be asked about how the Clinton administration is a disaster? It’s more likely that the media would take the White House side: disloyal generals would be disdained as if they preferred a military junta run the country, or that they were Clinton-haters who despised the president because he dodged the draft in the Vietnam era.
This story is a story because 1) the president decided to go to war and risk casualties, which Clinton never wanted to risk, and 2) the media oppose the war and want it to be seen in history as a colossal mistake.
Some of the "news" here isn't even new: CBS's "60 Minutes" devoted a whole segment to the criticisms of retired Gen. Anthony Zinni -- in 2004, when it was expected to help out carping John Kerry.
