Profound Pontifications

Should media hosts allow their guests with clear political agendas to regurgitate or even introduce their obviously unproductive “talking points”? This was the question that occurred to me while the nation muddled through the recent Senator Reid debacle. While the nation huddled around this non-issue from the freshly-available novel, Game Change, by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, the REAL issues in the book received little scrutiny. Hell, even I had to weigh in with an article on the Reid issue just to set the record straight.

One of the REAL issues in the book were former President Bill Clinton’s alleged remarks to the late Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy – referring to then-Senator Barack Obama – that, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.” Another REAL issue was the allegation that the Democratic leadership RECRUITED a hesitant Barack Obama to run for President, fearing a loss by Senator Hillary Clinton in the general election.

So my question is this: Given the wasted time and effort taken on Sen. Reid’s remarks – to the extent that America is now tired of talking about the book, Game Change – should the media even allow such red-herring issues to be discussed? Should they cut off the “talking points” the way Ed Schultz of MSNBC is prone to do? Wasn’t the coverage of Reid’s comments along-side of the relatively sparse coverage of the REAL issues in the book politically orchestrated to soften the blow of the REAL issues? And didn’t the ploy succeed? Isn’t America now so tired of hearing about Game Change that the REAL issues are destined to receive little scrutiny? If more media personnel were like Ed Schultz, wouldn’t we waste less time on the trivial? And is it any wonder that Mr. Schultz has been recently courted for a political career? Since the politicians have a hard time beating him, does it surprise anyone that recruitment would be a strategy employed? What are your thoughts?

One of my colleagues posed the question of whether or not the media should have publicized the fact that Army psychiatrist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan – the culprit in yesterday’s Ft. Hood shootings – was a Muslim. I seems like a valid question. I mean, was his faith really determinative?

According to CNN, Fort Hood’s commanding general (unnamed) relayed that witnesses reported that Hasan yelled “Allahu Akbar,” Arabic for “God is great,” during the shootings. But then they reported that Lieutenant General Robert Cone said investigators had not confirmed that. Why is it that a lieutenant general is referred to by name, but the commanding general isn’t? Is it because the commanding general said, “Don’t quote me on that”? And if he did, why would he have done so? Could it be that he was embellishing – trying to give a religious motivation to an incident that had no clear indications of one?

Oh, I’m not saying that there was no religious motivation – just that it isn’t clear. And my legal background has trained me to give the benefit of the doubt. Too many Muslims in this country have had to live a fragile existence since 9/11. We need to tread lightly in this area.

Like many in this country, my own sixteen-year-old son has an Arabic name, though he – just like the President – is not a Muslim. I named him after Kahlil Gibran, a Lebanese poet who wrote one of my favorite books – The Prophet. So the current environment where Muslims – and those with Arabic names – are viewed with suspicion concerns me. I fear for my son’s safety.

The Christian Science Monitor reported that there were signs that Maj. Hasan was “troubled”. He apparently counseled soldiers who experienced post traumatic stress disorder. And though he was never in a war zone, there is every indication that his treatment of traumatized soldiers coupled with the ominous prospect of deployment to a war zone, was just too stressful for him to handle. He wouldn’t be the first psychiatrist with psychiatric problems of his own.

All I’m talking about is fundamental fairness. We don’t attack or ostracize all Christians – and those with Christian names – when a particular Christian kills people. So what’s good for the goose….

Any thoughts?