|
The major media failed to fully report on Gingrich's ouster as Speaker of the House of Representatives, both during and in the weeks and months that followed. This sin of omission was difficult to understand. Part of the problem derives from the conventions of the media, still tethered to the mentality of "this just in" rather than "this is of great importance". The media pretend not to be following any agenda other than the raw, roiling product of news itself, which means, over and over again, some of the most important stories of our times go uncovered or are barely noticed. The unwritten rule of letting news developments dictate what is covered means that news comes and goes like waves on a beach, one passing over the other, one wiping away the next. News becomes a confusing jumble in which nothing is explained and, if a crafty politician can delay disclosure, misdeeds can do unnoticed.
Gingrich was fired as Speaker by a group of five Republican House members who told him they would vote to elect a Democrat as Speaker over him if he did not leave, forthwith. His highly dangerous, extra martial affair, carried on with the knowledge of many around him, threatened their party and the impeachment efforts against Bill Clinton. (Which also raises a question about why the affair, 1. didn't come to light earlier and, 2. Why this was not major news in the days and weeks after his resignation. Why were Clinton’s misdeeds headlines for months and Gingrich’s long affair barely mentioned at all?)
Had either the affair or the nature of Gingrich's taking leaving of the House been known by the public, and become part of the Gingrich narrative, he would possess virtually no ability to pretend to national leadership. He would have been seen as little more than a twice disgraced ex-Speaker, a man whose ego and erotic needs overcame his brain at a time of self induced national crisis. It is hard to imagine evangelicals and fundamentalists rallying round him. As it is now, the fundamentalist fragment of the Republican party is faced with a choice of compromising their religious principles or voting for Romney. In South Carolina, it appeared they picked politics over religion.
At the time that Gingrich was given the boot by his determined colleagues in the House the national media was focused on the drama of change brought about by his ouster. That’s understandable, to a large extent, but in other cases news organizations have immediately jumped on the story of trying to explain what happened. Instead, the focus went at once to the man who was thought to be the next Speaker, Bob Livingston, only to have him resign, too, with a confession of an affair in his life. One might say that, at this point, the media circuits overloaded and no one was concentrating on the “story behind the story”. But what about the days that followed?
The details of Gingrich’s firing came out in dribs and drabs in small stories that were not highlighted and the national television networks did not follow up on the reporting, largely done by newspapers. The details became a non-event, as if they were totally unimportant. There was a major “scoop” to be had, but it didn’t come from investigative reporting, nor were any criminal indictments being considered, so the value of the “news” involved went down, even though the country had been put through a major, behind the scenes crisis of government.
Gingrich did a masterful job of turning attention away from why he resigned with his statement on the day of the event. He presented himself as one who was outraged by the changing culture of the House and one who would not stoup to be Speaker in the new atmosphere. No one, or very few, bothered to ask if anything he was saying was true. He made himself unavailable for clarification, a vital strategic retreat that, otherwise, would have exposed him to sharp questioning.
Make no mistake, Gingrich was, indeed, a disgraced politician when he left the House. Does anyone care now, other than to use these facts for political charges? It is sort of like he served a prison sentence, he did his time, now everything is just fine! Except, it isn’t. Someone who aspires to be president of the United States and be in charge of the greatest military power the world has ever known, and to lead the American people as well as their government, should provide details about what happened back then in 1998. He should also have to explain why anyone should ever trust him as a leader of anything more complicated than a two car caravan on a straight road in daylight.
Doug Terry, 1.24.12
|
