Fifty Years after Watergate Comes the January 6 Committee

A news commentator described the January 6 Committee hearings as the most fascinating since Watergate, but I have yet to find anyone who has watched any of them.

July 20, 2022 by GJ MacRae

Many of our readers know that I was asked awhile back to serve as a Registered Wall Street Journal Opinion Leader. Besides its slightly ego-inflating title, the position actually means very little and comes with no perks at all — not even a discount on my annual subscription. The voluntary position requires only my commitment to participate in regular surveys about the news, about how it is gathered, reported and delivered, about marketing, and about various WSJ features. As a result I regularly publish commentary on news and opinion at WSJ.com.

I suspect that this led to a more surprising invitation. A few months ago I was asked to participate as a journalist and agree to an interview for the Pew Research Center 2022 Survey of Journalists. I have just received the full report of this survey on the state of journalism and the news industry in America. The Report has surprising results — the most important of which is a very wide disconnect between the perceptions of journalists and those of the public about the news. Here is a summary:

The Pew Research Center 2022 Survey of Journalists

“Washington, D.C. (June 14, 2022) — From the economic upheaval of the digital age to the rise of political polarization and the Covid-19 pandemic, journalism in America has been in a state of turmoil for decades. In this major new study, The Pew Research Center shares the perspective of journalists about the news industry they work in and their relationship with the public they serve.

“While journalists recognize challenges facing their industry, the Center’s survey of nearly 12,000 U.S. journalists finds that they express a high degree of satisfaction in their jobs and 77% say they would pursue a career in journalism again.

“At the same time, when asked to describe their industry in a single word, 72% used a word with negative connotations. The most common are words that relate to “struggling” or “chaos.” Specific areas of concern for journalists were widespread. They include disinformation, freedom of the press, and partisan coverage of the news. Here are some key findings of the Report:

• Just 14% of journalists surveyed think the U.S public has a great deal or fair amount of trust in the news media.

• About seven out of ten journalists (71%) say made-up news and information is a big problem for the country. This was significantly higher than the 50% of the adult public that said the same thing.

• In a separate survey, 82% of the American public says that journalists should keep their views out of whatever they are reporting on. Among journalists, only 55% agree while 42% report that they feel unable to keep their own views out of their reporting.

• Over half (55%) of journalists say that in reporting the news every side does not deserve to have equal coverage while only 44% said equal coverage of the news is a goal.

• Journalists express far more concern than the public about politically like-minded people clustering around the same news outlets. 75% of journalists report this as a major concern while only 39% of the general public shares the same concern.

• Two thirds of journalists surveyed say that social media has a negative impact on the state of journalism while only 18% say it has a positive impact.

• The survey results reveal that journalists recognize that the public views their work with deep skepticism. When asked what one word they think the public would use to describe the news, the majority of journalists answered with “inaccurate, untrustworthy, biased, or partisan.”

• Journalists and the public stand far apart on how well they think news outlets perform their key functions:

  • 67% of journalists report that the quality of their coverage of important news is very good or good compared to only 41% of the public.

  • 65% of journalists say they report the news accurately compared to only 29% of the public.

  • 52% of journalists report that they fulfill their role as a watchdog of government. Only 29% of the public agrees.

  • 43% of journalists say that they manage or correct misinformation in their reporting. Only 25% of the public agrees, and 51% of the public says that journalists do a poor job at correcting misinformation.”

The Journalist / Public Disconnect

Though not a part of this survey, other media surveys report that the only U.S. institution with less public trust than journalism is Congress. Perhaps nowhere is this journalist/public disconnect in perception more evident that in the work of the Congressional task force known as the “January 6 Committee.” It has been conducting hearings about the events of January 6, 2021 and the chaotic transition of power at the U.S. Capitol. After the Tragedy at Uvalde, Texas and the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, it seems that far fewer people have been paying attention to the January 6 Committee hearings.

I was interested at first, and even began to follow the hearings. Then I heard one of the Committee members or an associate complain that the Uvalde, Texas tragedy was “a distraction” that took public attention from the partisan hearings. Like many Americans, I lost interest in the January 6 affair after that.

I have long admired and respected Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, and I frequently publish commentary on her column in the WSJ Weekend Edition. However, I suspect that she was misreading the nation in one aspect of her June 25, 2022 column entitled, “Trump and Biden Both Face Rejection.” She attached to the January 6 hearings an awareness and importance to the collective consciousness of America that just doesn’t seem to be there. She did this, as her excerpts below attest, by drawing a comparison with the 1972 media coverage of the Watergate scandal. Ms. Noonan wrote:

“There has been criticism that the 1/6 committee isn’t the Watergate hearings, which the entire country watched and which in the end turned public opinion. Totally true. We had an entire country that watched things together once. But the Watergate story was often hard to piece together in those hearings. Not so here.

“The 1/6 committee has been knocked for hiring television producers, but that’s part of why it is yielding a coherent story. They made it tight, not cheap. And after they aired, the Watergate hearings disappeared because there was no internet. The 1/6 hearings will be telling their story forever — on C-Span and YouTube … and they will be heavily viewed.”

With all due respect to Peggy Noonan, I could not disagree more. The Watergate hearings of 1973 were iconic. They left a lasting impression on the American political psyche. The public was riveted to them. The hearings resulted in the production of a major motion picture — All the President’s Men — which won numerous Academy Awards and still enthralls 50 years later. Two Washington Post reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, remain household names 50 years later as icons of journalistic pursuit and integrity. No one in today’s news media has a similar reputation.

I was 19 years old when the Watergate burglary was reported at the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate complex in Washington, DC on June 17, 1972. I was 20 when the Watergate Congressional hearings took place and led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. Along with the entire nation, I was riveted to the unfolding story and its fascinating cast of characters.

America was a different nation in 1972, and it was a different time. There was no Internet, no Facebook, no Google. The most memorable newsman in America was Walter Cronkite. As Washington correspondent for CBS Evening News, he established a reputation as a trusted, paternal figure. As a result, his reports on the Vietnam War and the Watergate affair greatly influenced public opinion. Today, no one in the news media evokes a similar reputation for trust that comes even close. I cannot say that the news media is better off for having generated no one of similar character and prestige over the last half century.

These Are Not Your Father’s Watergate Hearings!

I admit that I write from a peculiar vantage point. I cannot jump on the internet to take the pulse of the nation, but I am in touch with a lot of people who speak from varying points of view. So over a recent week, I informally polled some of them about their awareness of the January 6 Committee Hearings. This is by no means a scientific survey, but here is a sampling of the underwhelming results from some honest observers. I have not excluded any results that spoke from a contrary point of view:

Law enforcement officer #1 : “I know the hearings are going on, but they are totally one-sided. When I heard that Trump wanted to send troops to stop the Capitol riots but Nancy Pelosi declined, I stopped watching. No one I know watches any of this.”

Law enforcement officer #2 : “I haven’t watched. If they gave equal time to the Joe and Hunter Biden scandal, I might watch.”

Parish priest : “I have not seen the hearings, and none of my parishioners ever even mention them. There are way more important things going on like the reversal of Roe v. Wade.”

High school teacher #1 : “The hearings came as school was ending so I watched a little. I just don’t trust MSNBC which seems to be the main network covering (or exploiting) the story.”

High school teacher #2 : “I got pretty disgusted when I heard one of the Committee members complain that the tragedy at Uvalde was taking attention away from Jan. 6 hearings so I lost interest.”

High school teacher #3 : “I don’t follow the hearings after Nancy Pelosi declined to allow the participation of two prominent Republican Committee members. It is a one-sided political panel.”

Retired obstetrics nurse : “After the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade, I don’t think anyone even knew these hearings were still going on.”

Federal Government Employee #1 : “I followed a little at first, but it seems totally one-sided. They just want to ‘get Trump’ while the country is moving on.”

Federal Government Employee #2 : “I haven’t watched the hearings, but I hope they can get Trump! Can’t stand him!”

Ten random prisoners: “Hearings? What hearings?”

The Rise and Fall of the News Media

In 1972, The Washington Post sent two young reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, to cover the story of a break-in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters in the Watergate Office Complex. The Post editors made a decision early on to allow that story to go where the facts led. As a result, Peggy Noonan was right. The whole country watched entranced as the Nixon Administration dissolved before our very eyes.

Fifty years later, Washington political scandal has not changed at all. What has changed is the news media. The Washington Post is now arguing in its editorials that George Washington University must change its name because of its namesake’s association with slavery 300 years ago. The Post is conveniently not applying the same argument to its own name. As historian, Barbara Tuchman wrote in The March of Folly, “There is nothing more unjust than to judge men of the past with the ideas of the present.”

The Washington Post and other news outlets today join the partisan Congressional framers of the January 6 Committee hearings to exaggerate public interest or decry the lack thereof. Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal’s Holman Jenkins demonstrated journalistic courage in covering anew a story that most in the news media and the Democratic side of Congress helped to actively suppress.

In “Hunter and the Press: Who’s the Real Degenerate?” (WSJ July 2, 2022) Holman Jenkins revealed a series of evolving Washington Post headlines about the now notorious Hunter Biden laptop in late 2020. The Washington Post coverage leaves no doubt that the paper was actively suppressing that story in order to help facilitate a desired election outcome without regard to the damage it was doing to journalism, not to mention democracy. There was no hint of The Washington Post of the Watergate era. In the Hunter Biden story, The Post showed no consideration at all to its Watergate-era determination to “let the story go to where the facts take it.”

In this age of partisan spycraft and woke politics, the news media that was once the underpinning of democracy is now in a state of determined self-destruction. Most in the news media have chosen a partisan political side to the detriment of journalism, and perhaps the nation itself.

I hope, with the small voice given to me, to remain a purveyor of truth, and let the story go where the facts take it. Please do tell me anytime you think I might be screwing this up!

+ + +

Note: Thank you for reading. Please continue to take the measure of the news media with these related posts:

Miranda Devine, Cardinal Pell, and the Laptop from Hell

Hitler’s Post, Nazi Crimes and The New York Times

The Exile of Father Dominic Menna and Transparency at The Boston Globe

A Soap Opera at CNN Amid the Winds of War

Miranda Devine, Cardinal Pell, and the Laptop from Hell

Covering unrelated stories of the trial of the late Cardinal George Pell and the notorious Hunter Biden laptop, Miranda Devine deserves a Pulitzer for journalistic integrity.

May 25, 2022 by Fr. Gordon MacRae

I never imagined that I would be writing a post with Cardinal George Pell and Hunter Biden’s notorious “Laptop from Hell ” sharing the same title. The connections are circumstantial, but once I stumbled upon them, I knew I had my title for this post.

In both stories, the mainstream news media brought little light, but lots of heat, while exposing little truth beyond its own vile bias. In the case of Cardinal Pell’s unjust imprisonment, much of the news media in both Australia and America embraced a wildly imaginative narrative filled with holes to presume his guilt with no evidence. Being sent to prison is by no means an indication of guilt. In the case of Hunter Biden, both mainstream media and social media teamed up to cover up the explosive story before the 2020 presidential election. It was a true account that citizens of a free and open society had a right to know.

In both stories, one journalist distinguished herself as a champion of journalistic courage and integrity for pursuing and publishing the truth despite immense pressure to adhere to the media’s availability bias. That journalist is Miranda Devine who covered the Pell case in Australia while single-handedly exposing the Hunter Biden laptop story for the New York Post.

Back in October, 2021, Ryan MacDonald wrote a post in these pages entitled, “Fr. Gordon MacRae in the Prison Journal of George Cardinal Pell.” Ryan included in that post several pages from Cardinal Pell’s book, Prison Journal Volume 2 which was widely read across the globe.

The paragraphs that Ryan reprinted from the book were about me. I read them repeatedly, not because I like to see my name in print, but because I had a subconscious nagging sense that I was missing something. Then, just weeks ago, it struck me. In one paragraph, my name appears along with that of Miranda Devine. Why would that be important? It wasn’t at first, but in subsequent readings it leapt out at me. Here’s the story:

From the Cardinal Pell Journal

On May 15, 2019, three years to the day before typing this post, I published a carefully researched article entitled, “Was Cardinal George Pell Convicted on Copycat Testimony?” Sheryl Collmer, a reader of this blog from Texas who writes for American Thinker and Catholic World Report, mailed a copy of my article to Cardinal Pell, then still in an Australian prison having lost his first appeal. From half a world away, Cardinal Pell pondered my article and then wrote about it on August 2, 2019 in the journal he kept in his cell. Here are excerpts:

“By a coincidence, today I received from Sheryl [Collmer], a regular correspondent from Texas, a copy of the 15 May 2019 post on the blog These Stone Walls written by Fr Gordon MacRae. The article was entitled, “Was Cardinal George Pell Convicted on Copycat Testimony?” Fr MacRae was convicted on 23 September 1994 and sentenced to sixty-seven years in a New Hampshire prison for crimes allegedly committed around 15 to 20 years previously. The allegations had no supporting evidence and no corroboration.”

Cardinal Pell went on in his journal to analyze my article and why I believed his trial was scripted from another unrelated case in the United States. A sensational and distorted account of that case appeared in both the U.S. and Australia in Rolling Stone magazine by a now disgraced former journalist, Sabrina Rubin Erdely. In several paragraphs, Cardinal Pell described my 2019 article:

“Fr MacRae recounts extraordinary similarities between the accusations I faced and accusations of Billy Doe in Philadelphia which were published in Australia in 2011 in the magazine Rolling Stone, pointing out that there are far too many similarities in the stories for them to be explained by coincidence. The author of the 2011 Rolling Stone article was Sabrina Rubin Erdely, no longer a journalist, disgraced and discredited.

“In 2014 she had written, and provoked a storm which reached Obama’s White House, about ‘Jackie’ at the University of Virginia who claimed she was gang-raped at a fraternity party in 2012 by seven men. As Fr MacRae points out, ‘The story was accepted as gospel truth once it appeared in print.’ Jackie’s account turned out to be a massive lie. A civil trial followed; the seven students were awarded $7.5 million in damages by the jury and Rolling Stone was found guilty of negligence and defamation.

“No one realized in 2015, when the allegations against me were first made to police, that the model for copycat allegations, or the innocent basis for the remarkable similarities, was also a fantasy or a fiction.”

Cardinal George Pell, Prison Journal Volume 2 : pp 57-60

Cardinal Pell did not know it at the time, but I had already posted articles on the story of Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s dubious article about accusations against Philadelphia priests by the anonymous “Billy Doe” in 2011, and her equally dubious account of gang rape at the University of Virginia. The most recent of my articles was, “The Path of Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s Rolling Stone.”

Now Comes Miranda Devine

After reading Cardinal Pell’s book, I set it aside happy to have been of some hope and encouragement during his unjust time of imprisonment. Cardinal Pell concluded in his journal:

“I am grateful to Fr MacRae for taking up my cause, as I am to many others. These include in North America George Weigel and Fr Raymond de Souza and here in Australia Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine, Gerard Henderson, Fr Frank Brennan, and others behind the scenes.”

Prison Journal Volume 2, p. 60

Many months after reading Cardinal Pell’s journal, I took up another book ordered for me by a friend. It was Laptop from Hell (Post Hill Press 2021), a now notorious account by New York Post columnist Miranda Devine. My friend told me that the first printing sold out within weeks at both Amazon and Barnes and Noble so it was placed on backorder for me. It arrived in early March, 2022 and I began to read its shocking pages.

I immediately recognized its author, Miranda Devine, as the now famous New York Post columnist who nearly upended the U.S. presidential election in 2020. But I also knew that I had seen her name somewhere else. It turned out that it was in that passage from Cardinal Pell above. I was surprised to see both my name and that of Miranda Devine in the same paragraph.

I had not known until then that Ms. Devine wrote boldly in defense of Cardinal Pell against a tidal wave of progressive criticism in both Australia and the United States. Among her several articles on the Pell case was her last one, “Finally, Justice for George Cardinal Pell” published in the New York Post on April 7, 2020. Three weeks later I published, “From Down Under, the Exoneration of George Cardinal Pell.”

There were several articles in the left-leaning Australian news media deeply critical of Ms. Miranda Devine for her defense of Cardinal Pell. She thus became, in my view, a champion of journalistic integrity. Such champions are few and far between now, but they keep alive the notion that fair, just, and courageous journalism is all that stands between us and the demise of democracy.

In the Bill of Rights, Freedom of the Press has long been regarded as fundamental to individual rights. Without a free media, a free society and democratic self-government would not be possible. Nonetheless, in October 2020, The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, and almost all network news media and social media banded together with an unprecedented decision to keep the American people from learning the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop before the presidential election.

I was in shock by this at the time. It was the sort of thing that happens during elections in any number of banana republics, but here it was, in a full court press, shamefully happening in the United States. As a result, the New York Post’ s Facebook and Twitter accounts were blocked and any mention of the laptop or its contents by thousands of users (including me) was censored.

Laptop from Hell got its title from a Twitter message of then President Donald Trump who read of some of its contents in the New York Post, the sole U.S. media outlet with the integrity to publish the story. Then President Trump’s Twitter account was also suspended.

I followed this story closely in October, 2020 as it was shamelessly suppressed and censored by most U.S. news and social media. The more it was suppressed, the more alarmed I became. As a 19-year-old in 1972, I was riveted to the Watergate story and the heroism of the Washington Post coverage by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. The story led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon in 1974 and criminal charges for some senior White House staff. The Washington Post won a Pulitzer for it while the names “Woodward and Bernstein” became synonymous with journalistic courage and integrity.

Hunter Biden’s Laptop

Now, a half century later, the same Washington Post was actively suppressing a story of government corruption of equal importance solely for political bias. The pre-election weeks of October 2020 should have caused an uproar over the revelations by Miranda Devine in the New York Post about the explosive contents of a laptop abandoned in a repair shop by the Democratic presidential nominee’s son and never retrieved. The White House and Democratic Party went into circle-the-wagons mode, and most of the news media, setting aside their primary role to be a nonpartisan check and balance on government, joined them there.

Hunter Biden’s laptop was not the only thing abandoned. Its potential impact before a hotly contested election resulted in the abandonment of the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press as well. Polls about trust and confidence in the news media were off the charts after Watergate, but reached an all-time low even before “Huntergate” when they bottomed out completely. In the most recent Pew Research Center survey of news journalists, in which I was invited to take part, American trust and confidence in the news media is under six percent.

The story told by Miranda Devine in Laptop from Hell is both utterly painful and painfully necessary. A web of lies, cover-ups and corruption drove Richard Nixon from the White House in his second term in 1974, but by covering up the Hunter Biden story in 2020, the news media interfered in a presidential election and now leaves a stunned nation with a scandal of equal measure after just one year of the Biden administration. It was not patriotism that did this. It was the opposite of patriotism. It was partisanship.

The laptop consists of thousands of emails, video clips, and other material produced by Hunter Biden, son of then Vice President Joe Biden, the 2020 Democratic Nominee. The contents reveal a shocking influence-peddling scheme by Hunter Biden who received millions of dollars for arranging influence from his then Vice President father with foreign entities in Ukraine, Russia, and China.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Legislative Judiciary Committee Member Adam Schiff, and seemingly every member on the Democratic sides of the House and Senate who were asked, including fifty former intelligence officers sworn to uphold the Constitution, all agreed to knowingly propagate a massive lie: that the laptop story “had all the earmarks of Russian disinformation.”

That well-rehearsed lie was repeated to the American people by the Democratic nominee as he stared into the camera during the second Presidential Debate. It should be alarming that it was President Trump, and not the news media moderator, who brought it up in the first place.

I waded into this story a bit when I posted “A Soap Opera at CNN Amid the Winds of War” some months ago. It was posted just as Vladimir Putin’s murderous invasion of Ukraine was in its early stages. I wrote in that post that if the slowly published contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop are true, the President is compromised in foreign policy regarding Russia, Ukraine and China. I was certainly not the first or the last to raise this concern. The best coverage came from the least impaired news media, The Epoch Times, and a March 23, 2022 op-ed by Jeff Carlson and Hans Mahncke, “The Foreign Policy Ramifications of Hunter’s Emails.”

We only know about this story at all today thanks to the dogged pursuit of it by Miranda Devine and the New York Post. And in U.S. news coverage of the wrongly convicted and imprisoned George Cardinal Pell, Miranda Devine and the New York Post were singular in their expression of journalistic skepticism about the flawed case against him. Mercifully, all seven members of Australia’s High Court agreed. If there is a Pulitzer for journalistic courage and integrity, it should have Miranda Devine’s name on it.

+ + +

Note from the Editor: Please share this post. Father Gordon MacRae will mark forty years of priesthood on June 5, 2022, the Solemnity of Pentecost. Please join us here next week on June 1st for a special post as he reflects on those years in the most extraordinary circumstances. You may also like these related posts:

The Path of Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s Rolling Stone

From Down Under, the Exoneration of George Cardinal Pell

Fr Gordon MacRae in the Prison Journal of George Cardinal Pell

A Soap Opera at CNN Amid the Winds of War