As with so many other confirmations of the reality of the 2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck, in which large segments of those entrusted with the integrity of our sacred American institutions decided to betray the nation by setting out to destroy a duly elected President by any means necessary, the Steve Scully scandal should not have been necessary to settle the point. That goal, plot, conspiracy, whatever term one chooses, has been a continuing fact from the beginning of Donald Trump’s term, and even before. The Democratic Party/”resistance”/mainstream news media alliance, what Ethics Alarms refers to as the Axis of Unethical Conduct, has continued its approach of the past four years, now even to the extreme of denying the President a level playing field in the Presidential debates.
It is indeed attempting to rig the election. President Trump was excoriated for describing the situation that way, and as with so much that he says, a greater facility with the nuances of the English language would serve him, and us, better. But he was not wrong, and no matter how the Axis howls with indignation, there is an ongoing effort to “rig” the election. No further proof was needed, but Scully’s conduct is that.
When CSPAN’s Steve Scully was chosen as the moderator of the second debate, it was in brazen defiance of the principles of fairness and an unforgivable example of creating the appearance of impropriety. Scully had been an intern for Joe Biden. The debate commission wasn’t even trying to appear objective. How difficult would it have been to find a moderator with no past ties to either candidate? C-Span, if it had any integrity, should have vetoed the selection. Scully should have declined.
Then, incredibly and jaw-droppingly stupidly, Scully sent a tweet to notorious Trump associate turned enemy—the President has a lot of those—Anthony Scaramucci, who was fired as White House communications director after what seemed like a minute and a half. When the tweet was found, Scully claimed he had been hacked, and C-Span backed him, as you can see above. Today, C-SPAN announced that Scully has been suspended indefinitely, because he lied. There was no hack. Why he hasn’t been fired, I do not know.
So the plot to employ a partisan journalist as a moderator in a critical Presidential debate was foiled. The critics of the moderator selection process were validated. The corruption surrounding the political process, aided and abetted by the news media, as it has been over and over again since November 2016, was illuminated. This time, unlike so many of the others, the usual denials are futile.
Scully released a fairly terrible apology:
“For several weeks, I was subjected to relentless criticism on social media and in conservative news outlets regarding my role as moderator for the second presidential debate, including attacks aimed directly at my family. This culminated on Thursday, October 8th when I heard President Trump go on national television twice and falsely attack me by name. Out of frustration, I sent a brief tweet addressed to Anthony Scaramucci. The next morning when I saw that this tweet had created a controversy, I falsely claimed that my Twitter account had been hacked. These were both errors in judgment for which I am totally responsible. I apologize. These actions have let down a lot of people, including my colleagues at C-SPAN, where I have worked for the past 30 years, professional colleagues in the media, and the team at the Commission on Presidential Debates. I ask for their forgiveness as I try to move forward in a moment of reflection and disappointment in myself.”
This is a Level 9 apology [ “Deceitful apologies, in which the wording of the apology is crafted to appear apologetic when it is not”] because it begins with an attempt to frame Scully’s actions as merely an excessive response to the unjust actions by others, and to gain unwarranted sympathy by doing so. Teh alleged professional journalist had a crucial job to do, and the argument that he violated the public trust because he was angry is irrelevant, except to show that he lacks the necessary character to be a trusted professional.
Scully regrets getting caught and wants to be forgiven. He shouldn’t be. He proved that he was untrustworthy. If he had the requisite integrity and accepted responsibility as he should, Scully would resign in disgrace because he disgraced his profession.
It is a disgraceful profession, however, and at this point actively interfering with democracy. If the Scully scandal doesn’t prove the point to the “Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias ” crowd, nothing will.