Tavis Smiley, Michael Beschloss, and the continued PBS assault on Bill and Hillary Clinton

I used to get angry when the right criticized PBS for having a liberal bias in its political coverage. No more. That was before the 2008 Democratic primary when I saw Shields, Brooks, and Lehrer repeatedly treat Hillary and Bill Clinton with lip-curling contempt. PBS has been at it again this week, once again demonstrating their “do or say whatever it takes to support Barack Obama attitude,” even if it means trashing two fellow Democrats who have given him their complete support throughout his first year in office.

Just prior to Obama’s first State of the Union speech, the network aired Tavis Smiley’s interview with Hillary Clinton, which I watched with mixed feelings. On one level, Smiley was treating the secretary of state with apparent awe for her hard work and dedication, but on another level there was unmistakable condescension in his every comment about her.

And there was outright misrepresentation of the facts in his first mention of her trip to Africa where she exposed herself to dangerous conditions in the East Congo, the rape capital of the world, to make a stand for women’s rights.

From her entire trip to Africa, Smiley chose to highlight an incident when Clinton rightfully objected to a student’s question regarding what her husband thought about an issue.

In concert with his sexist colleagues in the media, Smiley failed to get the put down that any self-respecting contemporary woman in Clinton’s circumstances would have experienced in that situation. Instead, our smug, superior news correspondent referred to Clinton’s objection to the question as a “gaffe.”

I never learn. I made the mistake of tuning in the NewsHour the day after Obama’s State of the Union address to watch Judy Woodruff moderate a panel that included so-called historian Michael Beschloss. Historians put aside their biases and record history objectively, right? My jaw dropped in astonishment as I heard Beschloss attempt to prop up Obama by accusing Bill Clinton of having done whatever it took during his first term to get re-elected. It was about then that I hit the off button on my remote.

I don’t understand how American TV viewers continue to support PBS in response to its recurrent fundraising drives in which its spokespersons boast about the network’s objective and balanced news coverage. Personally, I will never send PBS a dime.

By the way, Beschloss didn’t succeed in his efforts to elevate Obama by smearing Bill Clinton. Not by a long shot. In this morning’s NY Times column, Paul Krugman puts Obama’s puny stabs at leadership in perspective:

Wait, it gets worse. To justify the freeze, Mr. Obama used language that was almost identical to widely ridiculed remarks early last year by John Boehner, the House minority leader. Boehner then: “American families are tightening their belt, but they don’t see government tightening its belt.” Obama now: “Families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same.”

What’s going on here? The answer, presumably, is that Mr. Obama’s advisers believed he could score some political points by doing the deficit-peacock strut. I think they were wrong, that he did himself more harm than good. Either way, however, the fact that anyone thought such a dumb policy idea was politically smart is bad news because it’s an indication of the extent to which we’re failing to come to grips with our economic and fiscal problems.

It’s time we all asked ourselves, what’s going here?