Here's an example; Greg Sargent↱ groans about:
Both-sidesism distilled to perfection. The fact that both sides attacked Hur renders him *intrinsically* noble. It's not worthwhile to determine whether one side's criticism is justified and other's is not, as one side cannot ever be right by definition. This rewards bad faith.
It starts with one reporter, two tweets: Once upon a time↱, NBC News reporter Ken Dilanian declared "total legal exoneration" of Donald Trump about a report that explicitly said it does not exonerate him. Even now, it's hard to comprehend that reportorial take on the Mueller report, but, sure, whatever, that was then,
This week, Dilanian complained on behalf of Special Counsel Robert Hur. The political appointee to DoJ was tasked with investigating what looks like a fairly common problem in Beltway circles because congressional Republicans wanted an investigation. The part of the report that was normal did, in fact, read quite normally: Joe Biden, like many before him, is a politician with clearance who needs to be less casual with government documents. At least, we think so. There's also a maybe not, insofar as some of the classified stuff wasn't classified, and some of it falls into a sock-drawer gray area in which personal papers become something else because a government lawyer needs them to be. Everything about the investigation suggests an empty water glass where conservatives had been complaining of a tsunami. Indeed, Hur even says so: There is nothing to prosecute.
But the thing is, it was always a political stunt, so the basic finding is insufficient for the Special Counsel's needs, so he wrote some extra details into the report, claiming Joe Biden had a bad memory. Democrats were furious at the political stunt, Republicans were furious at the lack of indictment; President Biden even addressed the nation in order to discuss the report; Robert Hur was called to testify before Congress.
The hearing went badly. Congressional Republicans saw one of their political sideshows burn to the ground, and Democrats buried Hur under his own words. Ken Dilanian↱ is distressed:
The Robert Hur hearing is a perfect example of what American politics has become. A career public servant spends a year reaching conclusions that are inconvenient for partisans of each party. So they set about questioning his motives and ethics on national television.
The bothsides, by the way, isn't subtle; inasmuch as bothsidesing is commonplace, this was a little more complicated.
The Robert Hur hearing is a perfect example of what American politics has become. A career public servant spends a year reaching conclusions that are inconvenient for partisans of each party. So they set about questioning his motives and ethics on national television.
In the first place, Robert Hur is not a "career public servant"; he has twice served as a political appointee to Republican administrations, was recalled to political service by Merrick Garland, and practiced in the private sector in between. Moreover, even according to the custom that saw him appointed to this task, Hur was a curious choice for having a controversial record at DoJ.
The conclusions were definitely inconvenient for House Republicans, but what set Democratic tempers alight was that Hur went out of his way to include irregular language in his report; unable to criticize President Biden sufficiently, the Special Counsel included in his report unusual statements assessing Biden's age and memory. Not only was it unusual language for such a report, and Hur unqualified to reliably make such assessments, it also emerged, when the interview transcript was released, that Hur misrepresented the episode. That is to say, not only were Hur's statements deviant, and Hur unqualified to make such assessments, he also lied. So, maybe Republicans were sad that the circumstances didn't call for indictment, but Hur wanted to throw them a bone, and in doing so not only deviated from DoJ policy but appears to have willfully misrepresented the record.
So, sure, congressional Democrats want to hear from him.
For Ken Dilanian, this is called spending a year "reaching conclusions that are inconvenient for partisans of each party". The thing is, Ken Dilanian is not new. He is a longtime government-affairs reporter who knows better.
To be clear: What is inconvenient for Republicans is that the facts don't match what they want. What is "inconvenient" for Democrats is that once again, the Department of Justice has deviated from its own protocols in a manner that distracts and disrupts governance while denigrating and discrediting itself. That it happens to be antiliberal, or oriented against Democrats, is not new, but it does look, walk, and quack like a cravenly cynical escalation.
Take a moment for the equivalence; let it sink in. "Inconvenient for the partisans of each party". Dilanian knows the difference; compared to the idea of a "blind spot", this just doesn't look like an accident.
But Dilanian needs that equivalence, pretending political inconvenience is the only congressional motive, and there's the bothsides, in the setup and necessary for the punch: "So they set about questioning his motives and ethics on national television."
Republicans: Didn't get what they wanted from their man, question his motives. Democrats: Wonder why Special Counsel deviated from normal protocol, and according to what standard.
Inasmuch as a political appointee provided a political controversy, the motive is pretty clear. It's just such a desperate and clumsy performance.
And if the hearing is any sort of "perfect example of what American politics has become", no, it's not a bothsides phenomenon. American partisan polarization has been asymmetric pretty much the whole time Dilanian has been a government-affairs reporter.
Or, perhaps, we can wonder about the breadth of Dilanian's blind spot, or perhaps what passes for reasonable accommodation. The political appointee he described as a career public servant actually resigned from the Department of Justice the day before his scheduled testimony; not only did this affect the range of what he could discuss, i.e., permitting him to engage in political speech, it also allowed him to prepare for his testimony with political consultants. Another way to look at it is the poor gut spends a year producing a political controversy, and refuses to stand by own work. When Hur would not stand by his own words, instead only acknowledging what the report said, or what the transcript said, he made clear that even he didn't trust his report.
And Ken Dilanian isn't new. He's spent over fifteen years covering Congress, justice, and intelligence. There is no way these details have slipped past him unnoticed. And while the tendency toward bothsides fallacy is actually part of the American journalistic expectation of fairness, it seems far more interesting decision that Dilanian should blatantly misrepresent record and circumstance in order to set up his fallacy.
That is, it's one thing if the "view from nowhere" discredits reporters by pretending ignorance, but Dilanian's assessment goes even further, relying on explicit misrepresentation. It's not just that Dilanian "rewards bad faith", but that he intends to.
And, in terms of the blind spot Sargent described, no, this kind of political sleight just doesn't work both ways.
____________________
Notes:
@DougJBalloon. "An NBC reporter, then and now." X. 12 March 2024. Twitter.com. 14 March 2024. https://bit.ly/3wXG4af
@GregTSargent. "Both-sidesism distilled to perfection. The fact that both sides attacked Hur renders him *intrinsically* noble. It's not worthwhile to determine whether one side's criticism is justified and other's is not, as one side cannot ever be right by definition. This rewards bad faith." X. 12 March 2024. Twitter.com. 14 March 2024. https://bit.ly/4cdAII1
@KenDilanianNBC. "Folks, this is a total legal exoneration of the president. Congress will want to know more, of course. But the topline: No conspiracy, no obstruction." X. 24 March 2019. Twitter.com. 14 March 2024. https://bit.ly/3vcQfqU
—————. "The Robert Hur hearing is a perfect example of what American politics has become. A career public servant spends a year reaching conclusions that are inconvenient for partisans of each party. So they set about questioning his motives and ethics on national television." X. 12 March 2024. Twitter.com. 14 March 2024. https://bit.ly/3v1LoJf
