Pundits Play It Both Ways

I was watching ABC's "This Week" when Claire Shipman out-and-out called Al Gore a liar based on "just look(ing) at his face."  And then she had the audacity to complain about this:

But if I read one more time that if we'd only seen this Al Gore during the election -- this is the same Al Gore. That storyline was written every two months during the 2000 campaign.

Her mockery that Gore was obviously lying about not wanting to be a candidate again is precisely the storyline that was written, and precisely the attitude that led many to believe that Gore was an inauthentic braggart.  When journalists say "if only we'd seen this authentic Al Gore this time" they completely distance themselves from how they impacted that viewpoint and shaped that opinion.  Shipman deciding that this, in fact, is the same Al Gore, and that he's not to be trusted about not running, gives you a good example of why Gore said "I don't particularly enjoy politics."  Because the media is not just dishonest, but willingly so.

It's interesting that the panel on "This Week," including the great Robert Reich, accepted that Gore was obviously lying about his intentions as conventional wisdom.  But just as interesting is how nobody called George Stephanopoulos on his tautological assertion about what will impact Gore's decision to run for President:

GS: Two schools, here's what I've heard, tell me what's right, tell me what's wrong.  One says that if Senator Clinton runs, you're not going to be able to help yourself, you're going to have to get into the race.  The other is, you know, that you'll only get in if there's a vaccuum, if she chooses not to run.  Any truth to that?

GORE: (laughing) No.

You see what he did there?  Stephanopoulos basically said that Gore will only run either (a) if Hillary runs, or (b) if Hillary does not run.  This means that he cannot possibly be wrong WHETHER GORE RUNS OR NOT.  The circumstances of the race (Hillary running/not running, Gore running/not running) will determine the narrative he can then graft on top.  Boy George was so proud of this fallacy that he repeated it later in the show.

The media does this all the time, routinely contradicting themselves or offering up scenarios where they cannot be wrong.  Neil Cavuto, not exactly someone who cares about consistency, also playing it both ways:

On Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto complained that "the media is all over" the alleged Haditha killings but that there has been "virtually no coverage of the daily savage attacks by insurgents on Iraqi civilians and our troops." Onscreen text during the segment read: "Blatant Bias?" But Cavuto has previously alleged that "all you see in the media out of Iraq are the insurgent activity, our soldiers getting killed or hurt." In fact, he recently asked if "beheadings and roadside bombs, suicide attacks" in Iraq are "being blown out of proportion by the media." Onscreen text during this segment read: "Media Bias?"

In Cavuto's world, the media is either biased if they report about insurgent attacks (to the exclusion of the "good news"), or biased if they DON'T report about insurgent attacks (to focus on incidents like Haditha).  Either way he gets to make the argument he wants.

It's important to recognize these moments by the so-called pundits, who innoculate themselves from making bold predictions by instead making predictions they can control, and then claiming they don't have any power to control events.  This is a key component to the development of the all-hallowed media narrative, which doesn't have to be true in order to survive.