From 1951 to 1957 television sets across America were tuned into the I love Lucy show. Through tears of laughter, Americans would be treated to Ricky Ricardo asking the same question to his wild and wacky wife Lucy to “splain.” Phrases like “Okay, ‘splain” and “Alright. Start ‘splaining” were common for Ricky to call out Lucy following one of her madcap escapades. For those of us old enough to remember that program it seems a perfect question to ask Susan Rice following her latest fiasco. Ok, Susan, “you got some splainin’ to do.”
The only problem, of course, is that the establishment media doesn’t seem capable of issuing that imperative to Ms. Rice. To do so would mean they might have to carry water for President Trump. And that is simply outside the bounds of acceptable behavior for the Fourth Estate. Why — because they have backed themselves into a corner with the current president and must oppose him on every front.
And now those who see themselves as arbiters of truth are calling out this media duplicity. Such is the case with George Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley. No longer is it only those on the right who see through the media’s double standards, now those on the center-left like Turley have taken to calling them on the carpet.
And is it ever about time. Citing those citadels of journalistic ethics, Andrea Mitchell, Christ Cuomo and Don Lemmon, Turley takes a swipe at the coverage of the Rice “unmasking” calamity:
There is a common expression in the media that there are “some facts too good to check.” It is used in jest to reflect how you sometimes hate to give up a great story for the real facts. That tension was well on display this week as media seemed to tie itself into knots to avoid admitting that there are legitimate questions raised by the “unmasking” allegations surrounding the actions of Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice.
Turley hits the establishment media full-force with his intellect and takes them to task for their biased, partisan reportage:
It appears that Trump is the temptation that many journalists simply cannot resist. It is a Faustian bargain: media is so intent on pursuing Trump that they have lost any sense of their own navigational beacons of objectivity and neutrality.
Objectivity and neutrality — that’s assuming the media ever had any of those qualities in the first place. Meanwhile, Turley turns on Rice as someone who has played fast and loose with the truth and is hardly, as he terms her, “a reliable source.” From Benghazi (caused by that “hateful” internet video) to setting aside the Fourth Amendment rights of an American citizen or citizens by “unmasking”, Rice has a lot for which to answer.
The only problem, as Turley astutely points out, the media are not asking any questions, let alone the right ones:
Reporters are now so committed to refuting Trump that they are refuting actual stories. The loss of objectivity in the response to the Rice story reflects a broader problem of the press focusing so hard on Trump that it is losing sight of its own bearings.
Indeed, Susan Rice does “have a lotta ‘splainin’ to do” as Ricky Ricardo would say. But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for either the questions or the answers to be forthcoming anytime soon.