Bob Somerby doesn't have a high opinion of the media, or of liberal thinkers, usually. Sometimes his posts are tedious, but sometimes not.
Because he's close to my age, Harvard-educated, and former Baltimore schoolteacher, I read him.
Today's post discusses the episode of Muskie's tears, back when he was the leading contender for the 1972 Democratic nomination, having done a good job as Humphrey's VP partner in 1968. Part of the Watergate investigation revealed/highlighted Nixon's dirty tricks campaign against Muskie. Woodward and Bernstein discussed it in yesterday's Post as part of their 50th anniversary piece on Watergate.
I remember both the report of Muskie's "tears" when he spoke defending his wife, and the dirty tricks campaign, as well as the Waldman piece in the Post this century which Bob covers.
I've wondered over the years what today's historians have made of the story. By today's standards Muskie's defense of his wife is goodish, his vulnerability if he actually cried should not have been disqualifying, the question of whether he actually cried and whether the reporters/media types handled it correctly makes it too complicated to cover briefly. That's assuming they understand the story. But when I'm cynical I'm guessing it's the sort of factoid which isn't closely examined; it just gets added to the text to provide color, etc.
Is my cynicism correct?
No comments:
Post a Comment