Today’s papers and tomorrow’s history books

The Powerline Guys are correct that the deplorable treatment of Alberto Gonzalez by the Senate Committee, coupled with the thick distortion (by the NY Times and others) of the man, the whole issue of torture and his “connection” to Abu Ghraib, is about sullying the man’s reputation just enough to make his eventual nomination to the SCOTUS problematic, and of course to attach a “controversy” to him which can be used as a handy bludgeon. (Controversial Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, whose connection to the humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib is still being looked at….blah, blah, blah…).

But there is also a second reason the press so dutifully embraces this sort of destructive and dishonest reportage: by doing so, they’ve put absolute CRAP on record – at the “paper of record,” no less – and when historians write about the Bush Administration, about how “evil” or “inept” or “reactionary” it was, it will have loads and loads of news sources.

Works both ways, of course. Every glowing and idiotic piece on Hillary Clinton (I will never forget the creampuff interview with Clinton where the writer asserted she “carefully guided Rudy Giuliani through his dealings with the White House [after 9/11]” will eventually be used as part of the “historical record” of her wonderfulness.

Ick. Not Ickes…Just ick.

About Elizabeth Scalia