LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.   Exclusive Truthdig Merchandise: Mr. Fish T-shirts and Signed Prints
November 24, 2009
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

For 23 Years, Fully Aware but Mute and Paralyzed

Refuse Allegiance to Coal

Playbill

Lieberman Won't Budge on Health Care

Obama's Third Way in Afghanistan

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Freedom’s Fight: Part II

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101
Vetting Sarah Palin

Truthdig Bazaar
Fidel Castro: My Life: A Spoken Autobiography

Fidel Castro: My Life: A Spoken Autobiography

by Ignacio Ramonet and Fidel Castro
$26.40

more items

 
Reports

Dodging Responsibility While ‘Taking’ It (a perspective from the left)

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Feb 17, 2006

Norman Solomon

When Dick Cheney surfaced on Wednesday long enough for an interview with Fox News eminence Brit Hume—an event that CNN’s Jack Cafferty promptly likened to “Bonnie interviewing Clyde”—the vice presidential media spin came out of a timeworn bag of political tricks. Cheney stepped forward and took responsibility. Whatever that means.

The top of the New York Times website swiftly put up a compliant headline: “Cheney Takes Full Responsibility for Shooting Hunter.” Later in the day, just before Fox News Channel aired interview segments at length, the summary from anchor Hume told viewers that Cheney accepted “full responsibility for the incident.” Yet, according to the transcript of the interview posted on the Fox site, Cheney never used the words “responsibility” or “responsible.”

Whatever their exact words, the politicians who can’t avoid acknowledging culpability are often the beneficiaries of excessive media plaudits for supposedly owning up to mistakes or worse. But those politicians rarely do more than just what the spin doctor ordered.

It’s not brave or even forthright for elected officials to express the contrition that seems advisable from a public-relations standpoint. When a convicted criminal voices remorse just before sentencing, the statement is often viewed as little more than a ploy dictated by circumstance. But when a politician ostensibly “takes responsibility” in the court of public opinion, much of the media coverage attaches great significance to an essentially meaningless statement that is a transparent effort to extinguish a scandal-fueled firestorm.

In almost every instance when a politician declares that he or she is “taking responsibility,” there’s no penalty attached to the proclamation. Across the terrain of political media, the I-take-responsibility maneuver is the equivalent of a hit-and-run driver offering an over-the-shoulder yell of “Sorry about that” while speeding away from a grisly scene.

Advertisement

Chrome Bag - Free Shipping
On July 30, 2003—several months after the occupation of Iraq began—President Bush held a news conference while U.S. forces continued to search in vain for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. High up in a front-page story, The New York Times reported that Bush “took responsibility for the first time for an assertion in his State of the Union address about Iraq’s nuclear weapons program that turned out to be based on questionable intelligence.” Bush told reporters: “I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course. I also take responsibility for making decisions on war and peace. And I analyzed a thorough body of intelligence, good, solid, sound intelligence that led me to come to the conclusion that it was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”

In that instance, as in so many others, Bush’s declaration about taking responsibility was nothing more than hot air to inflate ballooning rhetoric.

Last year, on Sept. 13 at the White House, the president said: “Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government, and to the extent that the federal government didn’t fully do its job right, I take responsibility.” Events during the five months since then, compounding the terrible effects of the administration’s deadly negligence in response to Hurricane Katrina, underscore the true significance of the I-take-responsibility scam.

When Brit Hume and Dick Cheney did their Fox trot the other night, they were performing the kind of spectacle we’ve seen many times on television. Network correspondents and powerful politicians know the steps and the boundaries. Their footwork may look simple, but it’s fancy and expertly practiced. Contrary to pretense, the probing journalist doesn’t probe too much, and the forthcoming politician merely hunkers down with a new twist.

And so it goes: Whether the focus is on a quail hunt, or extreme negligence in connection with a hurricane, or chronic deception that propels the mass slaughter of a war, top officials may finally opt to “take responsibility.” But media spin is not genuine change.

Norman Solomon’s latest book, “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death,” has just been published. To find out more about Norman Solomon and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By Laura, February 22, 2006 at 2:41 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

It is funny how they are so willing to accept resposibility, but never mention, or expect to endure consequences.

Report this

By Tom Thomson, February 22, 2006 at 11:54 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Nice piece.  Perhaps it is merely quaint (to appropriate Attorney General Gonsalez’s language) to suggest that tendering one’s resignation after a significant failure or judgment or performance might put some teeth into the otherwise vacuous assertions of Bush, Cheney, Chertoff et al that they “take full responsibility.”

Report this

By walt, February 21, 2006 at 6:25 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Norman,

Good piece. Spot on.

There’s one more point I’d like to add that your article prompted me think about. In fact, it has a lot to do with Bush and his appeal and popularity.

This “I take full responsibility” line (as you note with your examples) is more of a Bush thing than a Cheyney thing. In fact, I’ve read Bush had to push Cheyney to do this and he found him a soft pillow to land on at pseudo-news channel Fox and with pseudo-journalist Hume.

In both the examples you cite, where Bush said “I take full responsibility” he later on explicitly, or by inference always adds, “and I did it for you.” Beauty huh?

Unlike any leader in my memory he has constantly reaffirmed the idea that his actions are all to be understood within the context of his personal understanding of his presidential responsibility - “to protect us.”

He almost always makes it personal. He is not there to lead or defend America, and even tells us that we may not like him but we always know what he stands for and that is again by inference, to protect us.

This is decidedly in line with the character of a man re-made from a life of family neglect and substance abuse by the literalism of fundamentalist Christianity.

It is a kind of moral blackmail.

Like Jesus, who died for our sins, he does this for us, so we should not challenge him or ever question his motives.

So whether it’s illegal wiretaps or invading sovereign nations without cause or provocation, expending our troops’ lives like disposable lighters, or declassifying the security status of intelligence officers, like “Jesus Would Do”, he’s doing it for us.

Pretty smart actually. Mainly because it works. And of course, incredibly Messianic .

NOTE: I’m not sure by the way Fadel Abdallah, that we are so much a “nation of sheep” as much as we are a nation of consumers. We are marketed to, not informed. Everything including the news is riddled with the interests of commerce; and everything, even our politicians are delivered unto us as “Brands”. It’s a sad state but not a dire – that is to say irreversible - one. It simply takes a revolution in thinking and a commitment by everyone who cares enough to get off their asses and do something other than complain.

If that’s what you mean by a “people’s revolution” then I agree. If what you mean is what people meant back in the 60’s and 70’s, let me save you some time, it’s vanity. Get over it. Get engaged and change this world. It is all there is.

Report this

By JohnJ, February 20, 2006 at 9:32 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

On the eve of the Normandy Invasion in 1944, General Dwight Eisenhower composed two letters to send to Washington; one if the invasion succeeded, and one if it failed. The second one was brief and succinct:

“Our landings have failed and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the navy did all that bravery could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

Eisenhower was willing to accept blame and fault along with responsibility. I have no doubt he would have tendered his resignation to Roosevelt along with that letter.

That’s leadership.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, February 18, 2006 at 9:21 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Rhetorically speaking, this is indeed a great article. However, I am sick and tired of being sick and tired about a sheepish nation, watching evil Bush highjacking and mocking democracy, and turning a democratic nation into a police state, while nicely accepting responsibilty for one disaster after another, and yet there is no action on part of a good segment of this sleepy nation to dethrone him from the throne he made for himself, while every body cowed under the blanket of the culture of fear, he manipulatively created. Where is the revolutionary ferver America?! Peaceful democratic change is an illusion, for democracy was something from the past. Only a people’s revolution have a chance to restore democracy!

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!







Number of characters remaining: 4000

Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

 
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.