View larger image

As I rolled up on the scene, I was greeted by a mini-mini-media circus consisting of seven protestors, a handful of reporters and one US Senator that was possessed of a workmanlike attitude and a limo with a vanity plate. Senator Lindsey Graham (R - South Carolina) was finishing up a post-Face the Nation press conference for a small sample of national media representatives. The Rathergate protestors docilely stood to the side and observed the interview as I quietly ambled into the tiny press pool.

View larger image

CNN Reporter: "... of CIA plans to support pro-US candidates in Iraq. Are you aware of any such plans?"

Graham: "I have not heard of any such plans. The best thing we can do for the Iraqi people is to allow democracy to take its course, to have as free and as fair elections as we can, to provide more security now, have a more robust security response to the increase in violence by the terrorists, and the CIA or any other group, should not be involved in trying to decide the fate of the Iraqi people. Let's let them decide their fate. And here's my prediction: we're gonna have an election in January; it will be imperfect. But it will be a giant step forward for the Mideast, and when Iraqi women get to go into the polls and vote freely, they're gonna vote for a government that gives their children a better future. They're gonna vote for a government that allows for participation from a wide range of demographics. That's what this war's really about: moderate forces having the power to control their own destiny, and saying no to the extremists."

It was serious subject matter, but the gravity of the exchange was thrown off kilter because a man in bedclothes was sitting just a few feet behind the Senator as he answered a question that had been phrased in the female reporter's "Shatner-like, probing, knitted brow, on-camera" voice. Another reporter then attempted to ask Graham a question, but the senator suddenly started as if struck by a private thought (or a need to use the restroom) and quickly rushed back inside the CBS building with barely a quick word. The press conference was over.

Some of my fellow members of the fourth estate had shot me wary glances, but undaunted, I cheerfully turned to my esteemed colleague at CNN and asked her why Senator Graham had given a press conference in front of the building.

CNN Reporter: "Oh ... well, it was just ... a quick conference after his appearance on Face the Nation."

INDC: "Oh. So it had nothing to do with Rathergate, or these protestors?"

CNN Reporter: "Who ... them? (Grimaces, smiles scornfully) No."

Yes, "them." Truth be told, I was somewhat confused by her scorn, given my previous experience with reporters and protests. You see, reporters love protests, even tiny protests. For example, I've been to several anti-war or pro-civil rights protests where the ratio of reporters to civil protestors and/or barking-mad declared Marxists with drums, hash and puppets was nearly one-to-one; how was this situation clearly different? Was it because the Freepers were quiet? Was it because they're right-wingers? Few in number? Was it ... the pajamas?

As an aside, just between you and me, I've met and/or dealt with several TV reporters at DC events, and I've come to embrace some sweeping generalizations about the breed. The on-air talents that I've met are overconfident, patronizing, disturbingly opinionated, situationally obsequious, unrepentantly aggressive little pirahnas that could sorely use a strong sedative and some Eastern philosophy in their lives ... and perhaps an occasional tasering.

It may be a job requirement, but for them, the rule is to barge into the middle of another interviewer's conversation with a subject and blithely behave as if they and their target are the only people in the scrum. This CNN reporter kept up her characteristic end of the bargain as I tried to grab a few precious seconds with Bob Schieffer, but what was particularly infuriating about this case of reporter self-absorption was that she wasn't seeking his comment for news, rather rudely ripping his attention away from my interview in a bid to grossly grab a moment of off-camera, sycophantic groupie time with the superstar anchor. I was actually somewhat surprised that she didn't just kneel down right there in the street and ... kiss his ring.

My negative impression of TV anchors is a well-studied conclusion. That being said, Schieffer was very gracious, competent, and nice.

Anyhow, back to those Freepers ...

Pajamas make the world a happier place.

Meet Kevin Martin, an active DC Free Republic poster that's worked in "independent public affairs" for 10 years.

INDC: "Why are you out here today?"

Martin: "We're out here because ... there was a criminal bias that was shown reporting these documents, and as a veteran myself and somebody who's worked with documents, something criminal has gone on. You've taken military records ... and basically forged something in the name of a dead man ... If it hadn't been for the persistence of his family standing up and saying, 'no, he didn't say that,' Dan Rather would have gotten away with telling a lie. And for him to come on TV and apologize for reporting the story, and not apologize to the family, it's wrong. He doesn't have to apologize to the President, the President's a public figure ... but for Dan Rather to take a dead man's words and twist them, that's wrong."

INDC: "Ok. If Dan Rather offered an apology to the family, would you be satisfied?"

Martin: "No, I think Dan Rather has to go. I think that over the years, he's shown his bias. He's a devout left-winger, a Democrat ... and he does what he does, and he just basically does his thing."

To be fair to Dan Rather, Mr. Martin lacked specificity in his complaint; removal of all "left-wing" newsies would leave the profession with FOX News and ... John Stossel. His larger point about Rather's tradition of overt bias was relatively clear, however.

Dan Rather = Nixon? To some, it's a sweet, sweet irony.

I also spoke with Kristinn Taylor, co-leader of the DC Chapter of Free Republic.

INDC: "What will satisfy you as an end to this entire affair?"

Taylor: "I'll tell you. CBS News needs to clean house like the New York Times did with the Jayson Blair scandal. Andrew Heyward, the President of CBS News, needs to go; he was involved in approving this story. Dan Rather was involved with the production of this story, he wasn't just reading prompts; he needs to go. And Mary Mapes, who produced this thing, she definitely needs to go. They all need to go, and that's just step one. Then they need to reorganize how they vet stories to prevent something like this from happening again."

INDC: "How often are you out here?"

Taylor: "This is our second time."

INDC: "And how long do you plan ..."

Taylor: "We have lives, so it's not like we can come out here every day. Nobody pays us, nobody tells us to come out at a certain time, we do it on our own volition. We'll be back until this thing is resolved to our satisfaction, but we'll do it on our own schedule."

INDC: "Ok. Another thing ... I'll be honest with you guys, I sometimes like Free Republic, I occasionally find things of interest on the (site), but I also think that Free Republic's ... strong brand of partisanship undermines your ability to get things out into the public debate because some people dismiss you as far to the right. What do you have to say to that sentiment?"

Taylor: "We are regularly ranked as one of the top three political web sites, I should say we have been ranked, right up there with johnkerry.com and georgewbush.com, so people read us. Our Alexa ratings run rings around moveon.org, democratic underground, people on our side at lucianne.com. We're number one as far as political bulletin boards and discussion sites. We have no connection to the Republican Party, I've never met Karl Rove, nobody tells us what to do here, we're on our own."

"As far as credibility and people taking us seriously, I don't think it's our partisanship that would hurt us, it's more that we're a bulletin board that's politically incorrect, so people feel free to say things that politicians won't say. So that may make people a little reluctant to draw the distinction between the owner of Free Republic, Jim Robinson, and what his guidelines are, and what our guidleines are as a chapter respresenting Free Republic in DC. We're pretty mainstream conservatives."

"We have a lot of people on Free Republic that don't like the Islamic religion. On the other hand, we work with Muslims; we worked with Muslims through the build-up to the Iraq War and into it. Muslims who reject terrorism, who want to live in peace and freedom. So that's our credibility. Individual posters don't necessarily represent what Free Republic is about within certain boundaries. We don't tolerate racists, but people are free to criticize Islam. They were free to criticize the Catholic Church when they were going through the big scandal with the priests ... but it's the same thing here; the church needed to clean house, CBS needs to clean house. We're anti-corruption."

Always good advice.

It was an interesting scene. I don't see eye-to-eye with many Free Republic posters, a some of them strike me as a milder conspiratorial mirrors to the left's more virulent DU moonbats, and the more mainstream posters are certainly a vastly different species than the typical members of the liberal media establishment, but these protestors aquitted themselves well by any standard, and were more than reasonable and relevant enough to merit questions from the gathered media personnel, instead of the open scorn that was revealed to me by one correspondent. Just because someone is openly partisan, doesn't necessarily make them wrong. Or right.

It was a microcosm of the greater media narrative. And these gents happened to be fighting the good fight.

UPDATE: A Freeper after-action report can be found here. It features a brief encounter with Ted Kennedy ...

Oh, man ...

Thanks to pictured Freeper Bill F, who assures me that his shoes were, in fact, "cheap imitations of hush puppies," and adds:

As to those who think that Free Republic is far to the right, I can only say that most FReepers are unapologetic Reaganites. Reagan carried 93 states out of 100 in two presidential elections.