OPINION:
National Public Radio is an impressive news organization with information-gathering tentacles around the globe. Its commitment to expansive reporting and vivid writing puts it at the vanguard of American journalism.
But it is biased. Anyone who wants his news straight up, uncontaminated by clever choices on what to say and how to say it, should take that into account in receiving many NPR offerings. Consider a January 25 piece on “All Things Considered” — a conversation between host Mary Louise Kelly and justice correspondent Carrie Johnson.
The topic: Republican agitations over perceived FBI abuses related to the investigation of Russian meddling in last year’s presidential election and possible collusion by the Donald Trump campaign. Behind these agitations lie some disturbing questions about how the FBI operated, not just in initiating the Russia investigation but also in how it handled the prior inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s infamous email server.
Some of the questions: Why did FBI director James Comey take it upon himself to settle the matter of whether Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted, when it wasn’t his province to do so? What’s the back story there? Did the infamous “Steele dossier” serve as a basis for getting a secret national security warrant so the government could spy on the Trump campaign? If so, was this a misrepresentation to the FISA court, charged with issuing such warrants?
Why did CIA director John Brennan, in issuing his January report on Russian meddling, call it a “National Intelligence Assessment” when in fact the appropriate procedures for producing such a document were not followed? Why has the government never backed up the assertions of that document with any real evidence, as noted even by a New York Times reporter at the time of its release?
More: How do the FBI and the Robert Mueller independent counsel apparatus explain so many questionable expressions between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page? In the case of Mr. Strzok, how did such a zealous defender of Mrs. Clinton and vicious detractor of Mr. Trump get positions at the heart of both investigations? What should we make of Strzok’s intervention to protect Mrs. Clinton from a passage in Mr. Comey’s report that equated to the definition of illegality?
What exactly was Mr. Strzok talking about when he said he didn’t think Mr. Trump could be elected but there was a need for an “insurance policy” because “I’m afraid we can’t take that risk”? When, in connection with these charged musings, Mr. Strzok referred to a discussion in “Andy’s office,” was that the office of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, and what was the substance of that conversation?
Finally, do these questions add up to sufficient evidence of criminal justice manipulation to justify a call for further investigation? For many congressional Republicans, various commentators, Wall Street Journal editorial page editors, and others, the answer is yes.
But when Mary Louise Kelly and Carrie Johnson discussed the matter on January 25, all these questions were ignored, the better to discredit Republican concerns slyly and snidely.
They began with some missing FBI text messages between Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page, a gap in their correspondence that coincided with many important developments in the case. Republicans have made much of this, but the explanation appears innocent — and it’s moot now in any event because the messages have been resurrected. But Ms. Kelly and Ms. Johnson focus on this non-question as an apparent means of avoiding the real questions.
Then they do it again with a reference in one of the Strzok-Page exchanges to a “secret society.” “Yeah, not so fact,” says Ms. Johnson, explaining that a full reading of the exchange indicates it was a joke. Fair enough, but what was the substance of the joke? Of course there is no “cabal at the highest levels of the FBI,” as Ms. Johnson puts it.
But was it perhaps a jocular reference the participants’ own passionate anti-Trump feelings and machinations, and what precisely were those machinations? No interest there on the part of Ms. Kelly and Ms. Johnson. Instead, they use the thing as a red herring to avoid the real questions.
Then Ms. Johnson reveals that, after all, these top FBI officials under scrutiny by critics are all Republications, so what’s all the fuss about? But even a cursory assessment of what’s going here would show that this isn’t really a partisan battle; it’s a battle between the national security establishment and its intractable foes, under the leadership of that despised pseudo-politician, Donald Trump. Another red herring.
Ms. Kelly poses an intriguing question to Ms. Johnson regarding a secret report produced under the auspices of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes. The report, says Ms. Kelly, reportedly suggests “that the FBI abused its powers and spied on the Trump campaign.” Then she asks: “What are the facts here?”
Too hot to handle, it seems, for Ms. Johnson. She sidesteps the question by noting that Mr. Nunes hasn’t even let the FBI or the Justice Department see the report (why would he?). Nor has he let the Senate Intelligence Committee chair see it.
Thus does Ms. Kelly ignore the most important question: “What are the facts here?”
Too many facts are missing from this controversy, which amounts to dueling narratives of what actually took place around the murky question of U.S.-Russian collusion and the investigation into it. That’s what journalism is for — to cut through the murk and find the facts. But first the pertinent questions have to be identified. That’s what NPR didn’t do here.
• Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C. journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative. His latest book is “President McKinley: Architect of the American Century” (Simon & Schuster).
Please read our comment policy before commenting.