James Comey's book, "A Higher Loyalty"

I have just finished reading James Comey's book, "A Higher Loyalty."

Unlike, it seems, some of the commentators and pundits, I actually read every word of it.

Those who claim it is a book about Donald Trump either haven't read the whole book, don't understand it, or are lying.  It is not a book about Donald Trump.  It is a book about leadership.

I don't know if he made the right decisions about the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's e-mails.  I'm actually not sure.  But, I know that, according to his book, he had reasons for the decisions he made.  He discussed those reasons with the staff working on the case(s).  And he accepts responsibility for those decisions.

I remember something someone said about James Comey.  I disagree with many of the policy decisions he has made, but I have never known James Comey to lie.

I was struck by two things he says near the end of the book.

"I am writing in a time of great anxiety in my country.  I understand the anxiety, but also believe America is going to be fine.  I choose to see opportunity as well as danger."

"... I choose to be optimistic.  Yes, the current president will do significant damage in the short term.  Important norms and traditions will be damaged by the flames.  But forest fires, as painful as they can be, bring growth.  They spur growth that was impossible before the fire, when old trees crowded out new plants on the forest floor.  I already see new life - young people engaged as never before, and the media, the courts, academics, non-profits, and all other parts of civil society finding reason to bloom."

Now, I don't assume that America is going to be fine.  It depends on the decisions we make going forward.  It has in the past.  It always has.  In the past, we have made decisions that kept America progressing.  There is no guarantee that we will continue to make those kinds of decisions.  But, don't count us out.

I will try to be as optimistic as James Comey.

If You Can't Trust CNN ...

A few minutes ago I finished watching Jake Tapper's interview of James Comey on CNN.  I didn't care for the interview.  It was as if Mr. Tapper was trying to get Mr. Comey to say something that would be sensational, something Mr. Comey had not before said.  Mr. Comey responded to all of Mr. Tapper's questions in a way that seemed thoughtful and careful.

Immediately after the interview, Mr. Tapper had a discussion with a panel of "experts."  Almost all of the experts, including Mr. Tapper, quoted Mr. Comey incorrectly from the interview.  Mr. Tapper rarely corrected them.

Then, Wolf Blitzer came on the air and told Mr. Tapper what a "powerful" interview it had been.

I could not disagree more.  It had, in my opinion, not been a "powerful" interview.  On the contrary, it seemed to me a weak interview on the part of Mr. Tapper.

So, I am left wondering what, if anything, I can believe from CNN, "the most trusted name in news."

I don't watch Fox news, because they are obviously right-leaning.  I don't watch MSNBC anymore, because they are obviously left-leaning and I have heard them say things that I know not to be true.

For many years, I have watched CNN because I considered them to be "down-the-middle," truly "fair and balanced."

I understand the difference between factual reporting and opinions.  That's why in an earlier post on this blog I didn't recommend CNN as one's initial source for sorting out the news.

However, this was not just opinion.  This was factually incorrect reporting by a reporter who was there.  This was a failure to correct the opinion "experts" when they said things that the "reporter" should have known were incorrect, because the reporter was there.  This was one hand of the network washing the other hand of the network when it didn't deserve washing (Mr. Blitzer complimenting Mr. Tapper on his "powerful" interview).

Recently, my son argued that CNN was not to be trusted.  I didn't believe him.  In fact, I was a little hurt by what he said, because I trusted CNN.  Now, I think he spoke the truth.

So, that brings me to my question.  If you can't trust CNN - which I cannot - who can you trust?  I guess the local news and local the newspaper.  We are back where we began, years ago.