This New York Times piece on senior presidential aide Gregory Craig, a Clintonite who defected to Obama during the campaign, is puzzling. Rumours about Craig's position have been swirling around for a couple of months, mainly because it looks like the president is going to have to renege on his early promise to close Guantanamo within a year - a promise that Craig recommended. The piece is about those rumours, but doesn't get anybody on or off the record to repeat them. Nor does it find anybody to criticise Craig. In fact of the several people that are quoted, all of them make pretty convincing statements of support, arguing variously that Craig's deadline has speeded up the closure of the prison, that he's being blamed unfairly for stuff, that this is just empty Washington gossip. So in content, it's a pretty positive piece! And yet the whole thing is framed as a "Craig's in trouble" story. Wouldn't it have been fairer to frame it as "Craig seemed to be in trouble, but isn't"? Or - if the reporter knows otherwise - to present some evidence that Craig is incompetent, or at least that people think he is, and/or that he is on his way out?
The piece ends with this quote:
“In the White House, in particular, power is the perception of power,” said Bradford A. Berenson, a former associate White House counsel under Mr. Bush. “And if people perceive you to be under attack and on the way out, it limits your effectiveness.”
A familiar point, but a bit of a lame one. And anyway, we seem to be talking about a perception of a perception here.
I need to lie down.
Comments