Op-Ed Column: NBC’s Lame Gonzales Interview Lost in the Mix

Couric-Edwards vs. Williams-Gonzales
In Monday night’s “exclusive" interview with embattled (and Constitutionally challenged) Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NBC’s Pete Williams manages to make Larry King look like Edward R. Murrow.

Nevertheless, the Bush White House must have been tickled to wake Tuesday and find not the Pete Williams interview with Gonzales drawing fire but Katie Couric’s one-note sit down with John and Elizabeth Edwards. Though I doubt this surprised anyone in the administration. That Couric’s interview (whether one thought it egregious or not) attains the spotlight says much about our national media focus and how it shapes our citizens’ views of what matters most. And to be fair here, even sometimes how it shapes what those in the progressive media decide to cover in response. (Also in fairness, our chronically negligent national press corps, charged with covering the most criminal and incompetent presidential administration in our nation’s history, makes it extremely difficult to note every piece of lousy journalism and White House wrongdoing.)

As network news programs continue to rev up their emoti-thon narratives, with ever-increasing focus on first-person stories and personalities instead of substantive news and issues, it makes perfect sense that Pete Williams’ feckless interview with Mr. Gonzales is lost in the shuffle. It’s not that Couric’s interview with the Edwardses isn’t newsworthy or shouldn’t be covered and critiqued. But are John and Elizabeth Edwards’ thoughts on why they’re staying in the race and Couric’s handling of that discussion more important than whether our attorney general committed a federal crime and the conduct and quality of questions of his interviewer?

While members of the progressive media and everyday American commenters vociferously defended the Edwardses (ironically, possibly a boon to CBS, which consistently trails in the nightly news ratings), they, along with the mainstream media, have largely given NBC and Pete Williams a free pass on what must be one of the lamest interviews of a political figure under investigation for criminal activity. Even CJR Daily, Columbia Journalism Review’s online arm, which posted an article that defends Couric’s interview (without somehow noting its shortcomings), failed, as of yet, to cover the woeful Williams-Gonzales tête-à-tête. As has the reliable Media Matters and many of the usual suspects who provide sound media analysis.

And Here Comes the Softball
Please note: The following is commentary on the full NBC interview, which is found here. Above the transcript, it simply states, “Attorney General Alberto Gonzales spoke to NBC News’ Pete Williams in an exclusive interview on Monday about the controversy surrounding the firings of U.S. attorneys. The following is a transcript of their discussion.” Which initially led me, and I imagine many others, to believe this was what aired. The edited version, however, which did air during the newscast, manages to be even less informative and more beneficial to Gonzales because the ponderous absurdity of his stated defense is mostly excised; in addition, a juxtaposition of chronology not only makes his answers appear more credible in their clipped presentation but also portrays him in a more sympathetic light.

So what made the NBC interview such an embarrassment?

For starters, here’s Pete Williams introductory question: “Mr. Attorney General, what is it that you would like people to know about this controversy?” This classic softball allows Gonzales to largely frame the entire segment and, of course, he happily obliges. It might as well have been Jay Leno conducting the interview. (About the only thing missing is the obligatory humiliating high school yearbook photo, or, in Gonzales’ case, maybe an excerpt from the memo in which he called the definitions of torture stipulated in the Geneva Conventions “quaint” and “obsolete.”) Following this time-honored late-night talk show setup question, Williams then sits back and listens obediently, failing to interject with relevant context or factual information that contradicts Gonzales’ muddled, apocryphal narrative.

The attorney general starts by playing the victim: “Let me begin with the attacks on my credibility, which really have pained me and my family. You know, I have grown up — I grew up with nothing but my integrity. And someday, when I leave this office, I am confident that I will leave with my integrity.” (In the on-air version, Gonzales ends with these words. A noteworthy edit. Beginning this way makes him sound contemptuous of those who dare question his truth-telling ability; placed at the end, however, it has the effect of softening his words and correcting their ill-considered real-time deliverance, leaving viewers with the thought that, in addition to a desire to get to the bottom of things, he actually takes this stuff to heart. A generous edit, indeed.

This controversy, though, has nothing to do with attacks on Gonzales' credibility, which is merely ancillary to the matter at hand. His image, or attempt to inspire trust, is of little consequence in the eyes of the law. The issue is whether he broke it by firing U.S. attorneys for partisan reasons. But leave it to this attorney general, to George W. Bush’s attorney general, to put his personal feelings before the facts and accountability.

Though if he wants to go down that road, Williams should be there to point out that Gonzales’ credibility is far (as in light years) from above question – from architecting this administration’s “legal” defense of torture, to knowingly green-lighting the transport of detainees to countries where torture was certain to occur, to his recent admission (lost in all of this) that the FBI broke the law in obtaining personal information of Americans, to his days as then Governor Bush’s legal counsel in Texas, where, as journalist Lou Dubose of LA Weekly noted in 2004:

Bush presided over the executions of 150 men and two women, a record unmatched by any governor in modern American history. Journalist Alan Berlow sued and forced the state to release Bush's execution memoranda. In Atlantic Monthly and Slate, he laid out the 57 memos Gonzales prepared during the two years he served as counsel to the governor. They were the primary source of information Bush relied on to determine if someone were to live or die. "A close examination of the Gonzales memoranda," Berlow wrote in Slate, "suggests that Gov. Bush approved executions based on only the most cursory briefings on the issues in dispute. In fact, in these documents Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence."

If Gonzales did grow up with “nothing but his integrity” (to which, of course, no earthly being but he and his family and friends are privy), his record clearly shows that he subsequently chucked it overboard on his lapdog journey to the highest law enforcement position in the land.

Gonzales then tells Williams, “The United States attorneys that were asked — to resign — were appointed by this president, they serve, like me, at the pleasure of the president.”

False. Certainly Gonzales knows this isn’t the case. So it’s not only false but also a bald-faced lie. Williams, however, remains silent. The fact is, while they are appointed at the pleasure of the president, once they begin their duties, by law, they are to serve only the American people, in that they mete out justice according to sound legal judgments and our Constitution; moreover, they are prohibited from being fired for not producing partisan judgments, i.e., refusing to do the president’s or attorney general’s bidding. Since this point lies at the very heart of this case, Williams’ failure to correct Gonzales is all the more irresponsible. What’s more, by starting with this frame – that all presidential administrations do this (one of the first administration talking points as this scandal broke) – viewers are misled and misinformed from the outset. Again, to be clear, this is patently false. It’s against the law. It’s why we have presidents and not kings.

Then Gonzales says, “I asked for their resignation not for improper reasons. I would never have asked for their resignations to interfere with a public corruption case or in any way to interfere with an ongoing investigation. I just wouldn't do that. And if you look carefully at the documentations we've provided to Congress, there's no evidence of that.”

This begs – yelps - the question: OK, then what were the reasons behind the firings, Mr. Attorney General? It also should have compelled Williams to mention the case of Carol Lam (to whom Gonzales seems to be alluding), who was fired just after successfully prosecuting Representative Duke Cunningham, a California Republican who received $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors; at the time of her dismissal, she was in the middle of building a case against Dusty Foggo, the third-highest-ranking official at the CIA, who subsequently resigned and then, along with a defense contractor, was eventually indicted on 11 counts of conspiracy and money laundering.

Yet Williams’ silent partner act continues.

When he finally poses another question, it’s with the utmost deference: “Can you answer some of the questions that have come up over the weekend? As you know, there was a — an email that came out Friday night that showed that ten days before the firings there was a meeting in your office which you attended to discuss the firings. And yet when you talked to us here at the Justice Department two weeks ago, you said you were not involved in any discussions about the firings. Can you — can you explain what seems like a contradiction?”

Can you…can you, please, Mr. Attorney General? What “seems like a contradiction”? It is a contradiction. It’s this kind of questioning that makes the interview sound at times more like we're listening in on a defense attorney prepping his client for trial.

But by all means, let’s hear Gonzales’ explanation (a sizable excerpt follows because there’s no better way to truly grasp the absurdity of his argument without it):

Let — let me just say — a wise senator recently told me that when you say something that is either being misunderstood or can be misunderstood, you need to try to correct the record and make the record clear. Let me try to be more precise about my involvement.  When I said on March 13th that I wasn't involved, what I meant was that I — I had not been involved, was not involved in the deliberations over whether or not United States attorneys should resign.

After I became attorney general, I had Kyle Sampson coordinate a department review of the performance of United States attorneys. And I expected him to — to consult with appropriate Department of Justice officials who had information and knowledge about the performance of United States attorneys. From time to time, Mr. Sampson would tell me something that would confirm in my mind that that process was ongoing.

For example, I recall him mention to me that — inquiry from the White House about where were we in — in identifying underperformers? And there are other similar type reminders that occurred during this process that I’m going to discuss specifically with the Congress. I was never focused on specific concerns about United States attorneys as to whether or not they should be asked to resign. I was more focused on identify — or making sure that the White House was a prop — was appropriately advised of the progress of our review. And I was also concerned to ensure that the appropriate Department of Justice officials, people who know — knew about the performance of — of United States attorneys, that they were involved in the process.

Now, of course, ultimately at the end of the process or near the end of the process, the recommendations were — were presented to me. There had been a lot of work done to review the performance of the United States attorneys. And recommendations were presented to me that reflected the recommendations of Kyle Sampson and of others in the department. And so there was obviously a discussion with respect to that — that recommendation.

And, of course — having decided there will be changes, there was — there was a discussion about how do we implement this change? And so that is in — in essence — the context of my involvement and the substance of my comments on March 13th.

Williams’ only follow-up to this? “So you didn’t get into the decision about specifically which U.S. attorneys to include on this list until the very end?” If there was ever a follow-up that provided a clean getaway for a public official drowning in the convoluted logic of his own defense, it’s this. And Gonzales pounces on it, then continues to leap from one contradiction to another:

Absolutely. Now, that’s not to say that during the process I may not have heard about the performance — or particular matter with respect to the United States attorney. For example — we’ve already confirmed that Senator Domenici did call me about the performance of the United States attorney in New Mexico.

The president — the White House has already confirmed that there was a conversation with the president, mentioned it to me in a meeting at the Oval Office — in terms of concerns about — about the commitment — to pursue voter fraud cases in — in three jurisdictions around the country. I don't remember that conversation, but what I’m saying is during the process there may have been other conversations about specifically about the performance of US attorneys. But I wasn’t involved in the deliberations as to whether or not a particular United States attorney should or should not be asked to resign.

The rest of the interview follows suit, Gonzales’ statements a series of obfuscations, feints, and utterances of circular logic that serve only to confuse the matter in the mind of the American people and create doubt as to the role he played. In Williams, he has a worthy accomplice. After allowing Gonzales to easily circumvent the question of how he can be sure the U.S. attorneys were fired for proper reasons if he was not engaged in the deliberation process, and prove that with “a shortage of documentation,” Williams again channels Larry King: “Obviously you're — you've chosen to stay and — and fight this issue. Why?”

I was waiting for Williams to ask Gonzales how his faith sustains him during such difficult times. But no such luck.

Curious Conflict of Interest
Finally, I’m guessing many people don’t realize the conflict of interest involved in Pete Williams covering this administration at all. Prior to joining NBC, Mr. Williams was, under Bush 41 and then Assistant Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. In that position, Williams was named Government Communicator of the Year in 1991 by the National Association of Government Communicators.

Talk about the perfect mouthpiece for this administration. As the saying goes, you really can’t make this up.

Comments

[MediaBloodhound]

NBC’s Lame Gonzales Interview Lost in the Mix