Advertising

Reuters White House correspondent Jeff Mason amplified conservative critics when he asked Jen Psaki to explain Vice President Kamala Harris’ references to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 during her Jan. 6 speech.

Psaki held a briefing with reporters on Thursday just hours after Harris and President Joe Biden delivered speeches at the Capitol to mark the anniversary of the Capitol insurrection. She fielded many questions about Biden’s speech, but Mason had concerns about the VP’s address. Or rather, about how it went over with people who spent the day whitewashing the attack.

“Vice President Harris, in her remarks today, compared January 6th to Pearl Harbor and 9/11,” Mason said, and asked “Can you elaborate on what the thinking was behind that comparison?”

“She’s faced some criticism, especially in conservative circles, for that,” he added.

Psaki offered some perspective:

Well, I would first say that, as the President also said in his remarks, you know, when — if we look back to some very difficult moments in our history, back in 1861, there were no Confederate flags being rai- — being waved in the Capitol. In very dark moments in our history, there were not people storming our nation’s Capitol, trying to take over the office and even threaten the Speaker of the House.So, instead of — for those who are being critics of the Vice President’s remarks, I think instead of

focusing on or analyzing comparisons of moments in history, I would suggest that they be a part of solving the threats on democracy that occurs today, that is happening today. And they’re using this as an excuse not to be a part of that.

This is the kind of situation in which I would prefer Psaki employ an anger translator, as one reader suggested not long ago, because this sort of all-too-common clownery from the press deserves to be eviscerated directly and completely. This is especially true of clownery from someone of Mason’s caliber — a respected veteran of the beat and a former president of the White House Correspondents Association.

Let’s rewind a second to look at what, exactly, is the cause of all of this outrage. At the very top of her speech, VP Harris said this:

Certain dates echo throughout history, including dates that instantly remind all who have lived through them — where they were and what they were doing when our democracy came under assault. Dates that occupy not only a place on our calendars, but a place in our collective memory. December 7th, 1941. September 11th, 2001. And January 6th, 2021.

The merits of that statement — placing the Capitol insurrection in context with other historical touchstones — are difficult to contest if you’re a member of the reality-based, non-denialist community that sees the event as an assault on our very democracy. That’s

not partisan — the belief that it was something less is the partisan view. A reasonable person might quibble reasonably with the degree of the sentiment, but not one reasonable person would fall onto the fainting couch clutching their Polaner All-Fruit at the mention.

And the remark, contrary to Mason’s assertion, was not a blunt comparison of the events, nor a suggestion that they were equivalent, but rather a recognition that they were similar in their historical significance. “Dates that occupy not only a place on our calendars, but a place in our collective memory.”

Only a deranged partisan could be confused by that passage, let alone outraged by it.

Now, is there journalistic utility in allowing the White House the opportunity to respond to these attacks? Certainly, and a reporter has no duty to call such criticism absurd and illegitimate — although that certainly should be permitted if warranted.

“How would you respond to criticism from conservative circles to the VP’s references to Pearl Harbor and 9/11?” would be a perfectly fine way to get the White House on the record about the issue.

But Mason, objective journalist, amplified and legitimized an illegitimate attack in his question. There was no mystery as to the VP’s intent or meaning, and there were no prominent critics who were not in those “conservative circles” that spent the day engaging in varying degrees of denialism.

Why do this?  There are a

raft of obvious potential reasons: to boost credibility with a right wing that’s convinced of a liberal media bias, to generate a provocative sound bite, to contribute to a narrative about the vice president… maybe even to allow a personal distaste for Harris to leak out. Who knows? Some or all of the above?

It’s also possible, but not likely, that Mason himself experienced good-faith confusion about why a violent takeover of the Capitol by Confederate flag-waving insurrectionists bent on overturning an election would merit inclusion in such a list of national historical disgraces. But if so, he didn’t see fit to even mention the passage in his article on the speeches.

The reason doesn’t matter much — although it is worth noting that Mason later appeared on Fox News in a segment that included the airing of Psaki’s response, but not Mason’s question.

And Mason is not alone in falling into the trap of uncritically repeating criticisms and/or asking dopey questions at briefings. He’s not even the only one to ask a dopey question about the Jan. 6 speeches.

But it’s worse when a respected print reporter like Mason does it, and it is especially worse when he does it on such a momentous issue.

Watch above via The White House and Reuters.

Tags: Capitol insurrection, CNN, Donald Trump, Fox News, Greg Gutfeld, Jan. 6, January 6th, jeff mason, Jen Psaki, Jim Jordan, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Kristen Welker, New Day, The Big Lie