Analysis of reports about Deep Throat Mark Felt exposes deep contradictions about perceptions of
whistleblowers raising question of whether media have tripped on their biases.
dominant-media accolades for Mark Felt's recent self-exposure as Deep Throat prompt deep
analyses of years-ago
media perceptions of the role of a whistleblower. To state the dominant
media's professed view of whistleblowers abstractly, it is to honor, rather than vilify, a
government employee who exposes to the press efforts by agents of the employee's superiors to
pressure the employee into cooperating with, rather than exposing, efforts by the superior to
falsely deny allegations of wrongful conduct-- unless, of course, the "whistleblower" were
to be Linda Tripp rather than Mark Felt.
What's an important difference between Deep Throat Mark Felt and Linda Tripp? The latter,
unlike the former, had the courage to identify herself and expose herself to merciless attack by
media sympathizers with Bill Clinton. In contrast, Mark Felt stayed safely in the shadows for
more than three decades before "coming out" to the laudatory accolades of the very same
media that heaped calumny on Linda Tripp. Another important difference? Deep Throat
never claimed that Nixon or his agents directly asked him to obstruct justice or commit perjury, but
Linda Tripp steadfastly maintained that the reason she decided to become a whistleblower (and to do
so openly rather than as a covert source) was that agents of Bill Clinton had urged her to lie on
his behalf rather to tell the truth. Another important difference? Mark Felt was a
top-level FBI official hardened by decades of service under J. Edgar Hoover, but Linda Tripp was a
lowly, single-mother employee of the federal government. Who had the most to "fear"
from whistleblowing in public? Who had more courage? The answer is obvious to all but
the oh-so-predictable dominant voices in the dominant media. (Dare I say
Paradoxically, the liberal elite in the media, who worship at the shrine of the judiciary,
considered Bill Clinton's attempt to corrupt the judicial process (in the kind of litigation which
he and his supporters had ardently supported through legislation empowering judges in civil actions
by subordinates alleging sexual harassment by superiors to require superiors to truthfully answer
questions about prior instances of alleged sexual harassment by them against other subordinates regardless
of how "embarrassing" or "humiliating" such disclosures might be to the
superiors' families) to be far less "serious"
than Nixon's agents' commission of criminal acts (burglary) to search for evidence of criminal
activity (use of call-girls for political blackmail) by Nixon's opponents. One would think a
criminal offense against the system of justice would be at least as serious as a criminal offense
against a criminal offense.
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
email this to a friend, copy and paste the Links Box below into your email. To email the links
to a different installment, go here to
find the Links Box for that installment.
2005 #01 Daily Update at PoliSat.Com,
where satire is always
commentary, but commentary
isn't always satire.
Deep Analysis (about whistleblowers).
link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2005/du0506-01--10.htm#20050605-01.
30-day news-link: http://polisat.com/DailyPoliticalSatire-Commentary/du20y05m06d05-01.htm.
link to the silent animation for this
links to the latest Daily Updates, Animations, Song-Parodies, Limericks, Palindromes,
Archives, Site-Index/Search, go to http://PoliSat.Com.
this Links Box to a friend, copy it and paste it into your email form and send it to your
links boxes for other installments, find them at http://PoliSat.Com/EmailAFriend.htm.
request Links Boxes for Daily Updates by email, click
the installment immediately preceding this one, go
here. To find other, prior installments, use PoliSat.Com's Archives.