There's a textbook style for a media piece defending NSC boss McMaster.
Refer to him as a "warrior and a scholar". Or maybe, if you want to mix it up a little, "a scholar and a warrior". Mention that he's brilliant and a deep thinker. (Or the other way around.)
Dismiss all the criticism as an "alt-right conspiracy" or a war waged by Bannon. Ignore anyone who doesn't fit that template. Mention staff firings as little as possible. Mention hirings even less. (Especially if you are, sort of, on the right.) Close by reminding everyone that McMaster is a deeply brilliant warrior scholar being harassed by Twitter trolls. Finale.
None of this amounts to any kind of argument. It's shoddy propaganda.
I would be interested in a defense piece that delves into the history of the personnel that McMaster hired and fired the way my own article did. And I'm still waiting. There are no fact-based defenses of McMaster. There is just hagiography. And that's how you know something is wrong.
If the NSC people whom McMaster is firing could all be written off, then why not make an argument for it. If there's an argument for bringing in Kris "Hamas" Bauman or trying to bring in Linda Weissgold, who helped formulate the Benghazi talking points, by all means. I want to hear it.
If there's an argument for protecting Obama holdovers and firing Flynn holdovers, I'm all ears.
But I know that I'm not going to hear one. All that will come will be more sycophancy and hagiography. It's an echo of the Obama years in which the media wouldn't discuss any of the problems with his administration, but was happy to showcase him dancing or singing.
The "warrior scholar" pieces are just the right of center equivalent of a media story on Obama hugging a baby. They're a deliberate attempt to talk past the issue.
The Wall Street Journal's editorial board debuted, "McMaster and the Commander". The editorial's theme is that McMaster is a brilliant warrior scholar being assailed for no reason. No reason at all.
McMaster has come in for abuse for favoring more troops and a new strategy in Afghanistan, for warning that Vladimir Putin is no friend of America, and for advising that Mr. Trump not precipitously withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal. He also recently dismissed some NSC staff members who were brought on by Mr. Flynn and are said to be allies of Mr. Bannon.
In typically dishonest fashion, the Wall Street Journal buries the actual issue dismissively in the final sentence.
The issue is not Afghanistan or Putin. The WSJ's defense of McMaster's defense of the Iran Deal is interesting. Especially since the paper was used by Obama to leak defenses of his spying on Israel in an effort to protect Iran's nuclear program. The issue is the firing of NSC staff members and their replacement with Obama-Bush types. It's the ideology. But the WSJ chooses to reduce it all to Bannon.
And that's all the interest the WSJ can be bothered to take before calling for a deeper internal purge. The beatings will continue until everyone recognizes that McMaster is a deep scholar warrior.
As Edward Cline writes,"McMaster can profess his allegiance to America until the cows come home, but the fact is that he is dedicated to defeating the man who foolishly hired him to head the NSC."
That's the underlying problem. And it's why so much of the Never Trump media is spinning for him.