If there’s one thing the national press wants you to know this week about incoming CIA chief Gina Haspel it’s that she’s closely linked to many controversial and now-illegal enhanced interrogation methods.
In other words, she’s a lot like some of her agency predecessors, including known liar and drone war enthusiast John Brennan.
Oddly enough, however, the coverage of Haspel’s nomination this week has been far tougher and far more unflattering than anything Brennan ever saw in 2013 after he ascended the spook throne.
“Senate confirms Gina Haspel as 1st female CIA director despite questions about her role in harsh interrogation program,” read one headline published Thursday by the Associated Press.
The Hill reported separately on social media, “JUST IN: Senate confirms Trump CIA pick despite concerns over ties to torture.”
“Senate confirms veteran agent Gina Haspel as first female CIA director despite torture role,” said USA Today.
The New York Times went with this, “Senate confirms Haspel to lead C.I.A. despite torture concerns.”
In contrast, Brennan, whose controversial nomination even included a 13-hour long filibuster from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., over the issue of the extrajudicial droning of U.S. citizens, received fairly ho-hum headlines in 2013 following his successful confirmation by the Senate.
“BREAKING: Senate confirms John Brennan to CIA,” read the AP’s breaking news headline.
The Hill published a report titled, “Brennan wins Senate confirmation to become director of the CIA.”
“Senate panel approves John Brennan for CIA chief,” read the title to USA Today’s coverage of the story.
Then there was the Times, which published this wholly unremarkable headline, “Brennan confirmed to lead the C.I.A.”
So what’s the deal? Were newsrooms unable to think of an interesting news hook in 2013 for the successful nomination of a key architect of the United States’ ethically and legally dubious drone war? No titillating headlines for the man whose opposition to enhanced interrogation methods lasted just long enough to carry him through the confirmation process?
Don’t get me wrong: This is neither a defense of Haspel nor the methods she may have used, defended, or covered up video of. The point here is, where was this concerned and critical brand of reporting back in 2013? Because it sure would’ve been nice then.
Brennan came to the confirmation process with a long track record of ethically dubious behavior. He also came with many, many legitimate questions about possibly illegal and unconstitutional practices in tow.
But compare and contrast how the press handled both Senate confirmations. Why the difference?
When Brennan took the lead spot at the CIA, the final Senate vote was reported as a cut-and-dried affair. It’s only now – now that President Trump has his own pick heading the CIA – that our newsrooms have developed a deep concern about whether agency’s top executive is a moral person.
I appreciate the press’ concerns over Haspel, and I certainly welcome the scrutiny. I also can’t help but say, “Welcome to the party, pal.”
