The Bob Etheridge street mugging story seems poised to join the coverage of Van Jones and ACORN as another depressing example of the mainstream media’s abandonment of objectivity, responsibility and ethical priorities.
Today, the day after a video surfaced showing North Carolina Congressman Bob Etheridge grabbing, restraining, and wrapping his hand around the neck of a young man who dared to ask him a question on a Washington D.C. sidewalk, “The Daily Beast’s” #4 story was the revelation that former Ebay CEO and current G.O.P. candidate for governor of California once shoved an Ebay subordinate in a moment of anger and paid six figures in damages. The story about a sitting U.S. Congressman assaulting a U.S. citizen without provocation on a public street doesn’t appear anywhere in the liberal-leaning news aggregation site’s news summary.
Meanwhile, The Washington Post relegated coverage of the Etheridge attack to its blogs, most of which made the focus of their coverage the “mystery” of the assaulted student’s identity and that of his companion. This theme was picked up elsewhere too: Who were these guys? Were they Republican operatives? Right Wing hit men disguised as students? Was this a plot?
Here is the complete list of people who could have been the victims of Etheridge ‘s assault whose identity and motives would change his culpability: nobody. It doesn’t matter if the student Etheridge assaulted was really Karl Rove on his knees, or Ann Coulter in a mask, or Lindsay Lohan in a desperate cry for help. It doesn’t make one bit of difference. A U.S. Congressman assaulted a citizen in public. That is all that matters, and the fact that so many journalists want to make the story something else shows either unforgivable bias—Is it really worth abandoning journalistic integrity to protect the Democratic majority in the House?—or frightening ethical blindness.
It may be the latter. In his Post blog, “The Fix,” Chris Cilliza opines that other candidates can learn from what he calls Etheridge’s “gaffe.” (If a young black man committed that “gaffe” on the Washington street in front of the Capitol, he would end up in jail.) The “lesson”: “When a politician opens his or her mouth is this age of journalism — and activism — they must assume that anything they say will be made public at some point. Any other approach borders on political folly.” That’s right, Cilliza regards a congressman manhandling a stranger as no different from a verbal faux pas; indeed, all the examples he cites as parallels to the Etheridge incident involved politicians saying something that created an uproar. This is no more nor less than an attempt to erase reality, Big Brother style. Etheridge didn’t say something impolitic. He did something no civilized person should do, and something that is infinitely worse when done by an elected leader and lawmaker. You know: rough up someone on the street. Have you heard? It’s against the law. It’s also not nice, mature, responsible, or fair.
Not that many journalists seem to comprehend that. On one public events radio talk show last night, I heard a political commentator say this: “A politician has to know not to do something like this when a camera is running.” So are we to presume that it is acceptable for a Congressman to attack a young man in public as long as nobody films it? These are the values on display by our “expert” political analysts.
The story itself was immediately pigeon-holed as a “conservative story”, in an apparent alliance of the Democrats and the “objective” media (Translation: the media outlets that habitually slant left while condemning Fox as bias for slanting right.) Story after story, on cable news and on-line, began with something like, “The right wing blogosphere is buzzing over a viral video that shows Congressman Bob Etheridge in a dust-up with an unidentified “student” in D.C.” Why is a Democratic congressman engaging in an assault a “conservative” story? What does the political affiliation of a congressman who does something like this have to do with anything? The man’s an arrogant, mean, bully and thug who disgraced his office, in public, on camera. The objectivity and competence of any media outlet or political commentator who isn’t “buzzing” is suspect.
It isn’t, as numerous stories have said, a “gotcha.” If the Democrats won’t condemn this kind of conduct, what does that tell us? Do they think assaulting citizens is just a “gaffe”? Do they think that only citizens who agree with their policies deserve respect and the protection of the laws? Well, you decide: here is the response of the Democratic National Committee:
“Motives matter, and I think you can see who was behind this,” said DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse just now. “This was a Republican party tracking operation. If it wasn’t a party tracker or intern, why is the face blurred and why is the source hidden? You know if it had been a right wing blog, they’d identify themselves and they’d be booking this person on TV all day. Republicans know if they admit their involvement in this game of gotcha it will undermine their credibility. One minute this guy is interviewing a member of Congress on camera and the next a video is released with his face blurred out? If that doesn’t tell you this is a Republican Party hatchet job nothing will.”
That’s right: it was the Republicans’ fault that Bob Etheridge assaulted a young man on the street.
Unbelievable. The Democrats have officially crossed “accountability” off the list of required ethical values for national leadership.
Most of the rest of the Etheridge coverage now makes his apology the “story;” a couple of columnists and bloggers actually praised him for not making the typical equivocal, “I’m sorry if I offended anyone” non-apology apology. Talk about a “dog bites man” angle: what choice did Etheridge have? A video showed him engaging in an unprovoked assault and battery. Political Damage Control 101 dictates that a full apology be issued as soon as possible, even if privately Etheridge is thinking that he should have killed the little bastard. That he apologized is not the story. The story is that a sitting U.S. Congressman behaved this way.
The other story is that Democrats and the mainstream media doesn’t believe that such conduct should disqualify an individual from holding one of the highest elected offices in the land. We can only hope North Carolina voters have a better understanding of the ethical obligations of leadership.
Ethics Alarms 
Dear Jack: Many would say that this is just another example of a left-partisan MSM trying to spin away a story that’s embarrassing to their side. Nor do I doubt that that’s a factor. But there’s more to it. While the press rooms and journalism schools are left-wired (and have been for a while) the open abandonment of any pretense of objectivity is relatively new. I submit that this occurred when they sensed they had the power to bring down George Bush’s presidency and replace him with either a Clinton or a minority wardheeler and stack Congress at the same time. It was the great window of opportunity in so many facets. It would represent the culmination of a progressive effort at dominance that had failed twice before. They also realized that another failure might spell the downfall of their cause forever. So they took the big gamble and have put all their resources into it. They also placed into the pot what was left of their scruples, realizing that they really had little to lose. The blogosphere is rapidly bringing on the end of old style journalism… without the support of a strong central government that would owe them its existence. What’s happening here (of which the Etheridge story is but a symptom) is occurring not only for ideological reasons, but largely for selfish ones. But, then again, this selfishness also lies at the heart OF that ideology. And that belief is one that Orwell predicted… that some animals are (inherently) more equal than others.
Sorry, it’s real simple. Assault and battery is just that. And our much-vaunted Constitution, quoted ad nauseum by our Washington representatives, should be applied ACROSS THE BOARD, regardless of race, status, etc., etc.
Who cares what prompted this assault? IT WAS AN ASSAULT. We should just excuse it because it MAY have been political baiting by someone from an opposing party? Please, people. If our elected representatives have no more restraint than this, and our justice system has no more sense of equality than this, we may as well just hang it up.
Bob Etheridge should have been taken to the local police precinct, had a mug shot taken, fingerprinted, and spent the night in jail. He should have been arraigned, had a lawyer present, and posted bail. He also should have had a trial date set.
And, he should be called before the Ethics Committee for his action. But what the hell. Other Members of Congress have been accused of bribery, election stealing and even MURDER and nothing so awful has happened to them…
By the way, wasn’t it Senator Preston Brooks who used his cane to hit Senator Charles Sumner in the head over differences on the slavery issue in the late 1850s? And wasn’t this the “senatorial crime” of the decade? How low have we fallen…
I’m embarrassed to say that I just viewed the video of Etheridge and the “interviewing student.” This is truly an outrage.
For the press to wonder who the “student interrogator” is is more than ridiculous… It is outright protection of a felon for political reasons (the felon, of course, being Etheridge). From my vantage point (having viewed the video), the “student” could have been George Stephanopolous — short, dark haired, well-groomed, relatively high-voiced, etc. Not that it matters.
Etheridge did indeed commit assault on this young man, who did nothing more than try to ask him a question.
Moreover, Etheridge, as an elected official, has of his own accord placed himself in a public position of power — which means he has an obligation to be available to answer questions about his positions, his voting, his opinions. Why in the world would a man who chose — and I emphasize “chose” — such a role have such an instantaneous negative and hostile response to a (white, well dressed) young man who simply asked him a question on the street? Would he have been happier if the young man had “CNN” emblazoned on his jacket and about 15 cameras running? Guess so, as CNN would clearly have asked the “soft” questions…
I am not a conspiracy-theorist, to say the least. But it is certainly puzzling to me that Etheridge would take such immediate offense by the question posed by a well-dressed college student who was clearly not of the major media.
And the push and the head-lock is absolutely, certainly, unequivocally assault. I am not a lawyer, but I do know my definitions. And presumably they apply across the board
As I said before: Fingerprint him, take his mugshot, arraign him, try him. For assault. Who the hell does he think he is? This country is too full of powerful, wealthy, famous people who think they are above the law. And unfortunately, they certainly seem to be, if the justice system, the press, and the Congress are any measure of the response to Etheridge’s behavior.
I could go on. And will at some point. But Etheridge is simply an abomination. I call upon the DC Police Department, the District Attorney’s Office, and every right-thinking attorney in the District of Columbia to do the correct thing about Etheridege’s act of violence against this young man. If no one does anything, then shame, shame, shame: cowards all.
I disagree with Mr. Pilling; I believe that objectivity by reporters began to decline when Woodard and Bernstein helped bring down Nixon. From that point on, every fledgling journalist I ever talked to wanted to be like them.
I think the mainstream media did ok on this one, except for the NYTimes, which seems to have relegated the serious incident to the on-line edition. Still, a NYT addict like me could find a critical piece by Jeff Zeleny on nytimes.com.
I’ve posted several links to msm pieces on http://EthicsBob.com.
I can’t agree, Bob. This is worse than tapping the shoe of an undercover agent in a men’s room—how long was THAT a top story? It’s worse that shouting out something during a speech, too. This is a crime. My wife has been trying to find out why no action has been taken—what it seems is that a mad dog Congressman is free to rough up anyone he likes in DC.
Ask yourself this: if this had been a white Republican and the questioner had been black, would the story have been treated so lightly?
Well, I agree with everything you say, except for “I can’t agree.” The story has been all over most of the media I follow, albeit handled disgustingly in the WP and MSNBC (as I wrote). Had it been a white Republican Chris Mathews and Chris Cilizza would haven’t been nearly so nice to him, and the NYT and WP would likely have given the story more prominence.
I’m not saying they’re impartial, just that by and large they’re doing their job. Sometimes very well, sometimes passably.
I guess I can accept “doing their job.” I just don’t think they’re doing it objectively or well.
So once again we’re in agreement. Cool.