"Scandal"

After several days nursing the tendonitis—and two days away from news outlets—the political news fix is in progress.  Here's something I’ve been mulling over:

 

The IRS Thing:  Do you remember how heavily that “major scandal” was covered by the media—including more progressive outlets, like The NY Times and MSNBC?  There were press conferences where you could almost see Boehner and buddies salivating at the microphones. There were investigations and hearings where career IRS employees testified under oath.   Right wing bloviators were righteously raging on the airwaves and—nothing new here—getting creative with their own “facts” day to day.   The funeral parlor tone from the Left made it clear that Progressive talkers were wearing deeply furrowed brows. 


 

I “knew” this was a non-scandal.  Don’t ask me how.  It’s one of those knowings that I have sometimes; I’ve learned to trust them—along with my common sense.   In a June 7 post here at Lucy I said that I believed the Cleveland bureaucrats were simply feeling their way through the new Supreme Court ruling and figuring what might be the best way to handle the filings.  I said that I might have sorted the Tea Party filings, and those of other organizations associated with political activities, in a separate category if it had seemed an efficient way to process it.

 

Claims from the beginning were that the IRS actions were purposely and exclusively targeting “conservative”  (translated in my mind to “radical”) entities.  AND speculation was strong that the “scandal” would reveal White House involvement.  Turned out neither claim was true.  Period.

 

After all the investigating and hearings— run by Republicans who wanted desperately to confirm that the “scandal” touched the Oval Office— it was clear that the White House had nothing to do with the way the bureaucrats in Cleveland singled out certain groups.  There was no political motive.   And it was determined early on that the government workers in Cleveland did not single out exclusively “conservative”  (to me, “radical”) groups.  They included a number of progressive organizations that appeared to engage in political activities, as well.


 

With all the heavy coverage of the “emerging scandal” and the “ongoing scandal” in the late spring and early summer— and the continuing reference to the IRS “scandal” in right wing media to this day—isn’t it shameful that the non-existence of an  “IRS Scandal” hasn’t been publicized more? 


 

I suppose saying “We were wrong in our speculations”  is not a “sexy” thing to broadcast or headline in daily papers and blogs.  The truth rarely is as scintillating as a heavily hyped “scandal.”  And no news organization likes to say they got something wrong.


 

Accusations in the IRS situation absolutely warranted investigation.  It would have been a terrible thing for the government to target certain groups or individuals based on their political leanings (as has happened during other administrations--remember Nixon?).   But since the suspicions around the IRS “scandal” proved to be unfounded, the responsible thing would have been/still would be to give equally robust coverage to the “no scandal” findings— as was given to the “emerging scandal” in the spring, when the media’s daily exercise was jumping to conclusions.