President Bill Clinton‘s former special counsel Lanny Davis took to CNN.com Wednesday to defend a nationwide pariah: NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.
“In defense of” pieces are especially effective when the person is collectively loathed. It has to have just the right puzzle pieces of jarring and plausible. Like oh yeah, there might be something good about this person that most of the world isn’t seeing.
“In defense of” O.J. Simpson might not work too well. But “in defense of” Anthony Weiner would, as would “in defense of” Benny Johnson‘s plagiarism or “in defense of” Monica Lewinsky. “In defense of” the late Senate flak Ryan Loskarn would be iffy, but there could be some merit to it. Even an “in defense of” Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) could fly.
But in this case, the practice rings hollow.
Davis writes that Goodell followed the three rules of crisis management: He admitted he made a mistake, he took proactive measures toward future resolution and lastly, he authorized an independent investigation.
So what to numbers one and three. But let’s examine Lanny’s number two.
“Second, he laid out a detailed forward-looking mandatory education and training program to implement this policy. Most important, he announced far more severe penalties than before, effective immediately for violations of this bold-faced policy: 1) at least six game suspensions for the first violation, with heavier penalties if facts show more serious offenses, such as violence involving a weapon, choking, repeated striking, against a pregnant woman or in the presence of a child; and 2) a second offense will result in ‘banishment’ from the NFL. That’s right, banishment — with no assumption that a petition for reinstatement will ever be accepted.”
Six game suspensions is an acceptable response to a player knocking a woman unconscious and dragging her out of an elevator? Laughably, he calls for more severe punishment if there’s choking or the woman is pregnant. Or if there’s–gasp!– a child around.
What, then the conclusion might be seven or eight game suspensions?
Sorry, Lanny, but when women are being punched and knocked out, and Goodell’s answer is six games, he should not be praised for his exemplary crisis management skills.
Also mildly ridiculously is Lanny’s proclamation that journalists should stop with the anonymous sourcing or that pundits should stop have “overheated” judgmental responses.
“When everyone is piling on, it’s time to take a breath and say: We need more facts, less reliance on media reports based on anonymous sources and over-heated pundits who are too ready to rush to judgment,” he writes.
A rush to judgment? We all watched the relentless airing of the elevator video.
And anonymous sourcing. Hmmm… has Lanny never been an anonymous source for a journalist in This Town (not the book per se, but Washington)?
In the end, Lanny again strikes out at reporters and pundits. Yes, relax everyone. Observers should just calm down and wait for FBI Director Robert Mueller to conduct his investigation on the NFL surrounding this domestic violence incident.
“Now after all the media and pundit frenzy, it is up to all of us to take a breath and wait for Mr. Mueller to complete his work — and to let proven, verified facts speak louder and more persuasively than innuendo and anonymous sources,” he wrote. “If only we could do that.”
Some “in defense of’s” are bold, brave and warranted. This wasn’t’ one of them.