MediaWatch: July 1997

NewsBites: Camel Canard

In their zeal to destroy the cigarette industry, some in the media resort to using addled research from liberal crusaders. In a July 10 World News Tonight story on R.J. Reynolds dropping the Joe Camel cartoon, ABCs Aaron Brown relayed this preposterous claim: "Kids loved Joe. Researchers in 1991 found more kids knew Joe Camel than knew Mickey Mouse."

Is it really logical to believe more kids know Camel than a widely replicated Disney movie character? The June 16 Weekly Standard demolished the "bogus" claim which appeared in a 1991 Journal of the American Medical Association article: "The Mickey Mouse result was derived from interviews with 23 children at a single Atlanta pre-school and couldn't be replicated on a broader scale."

Three Cheers, Green Militias!

Most Americans would agree that breaking the law is not something that should be taught to young people. The national media has tossed out many stories on the lawlessness of right-wing militia groups. But what about lawlessness on the left? That's different. On the June 22 World News Tonight and Nightly News, ABC and NBC profiled a group called the Ruckus Society, a left-wing group which, according to NBC anchor Sara James, trains its young campers "for the front lines in the battle over the environment."

NBC reporter Dan Lothian sounded like a representative for the camp: "This is a training camp for warriors, environmental warriors. Held in the southwest corner of North Carolina, just where the Appalachian Mountains end, it's a bare-bones existence. Tents dot a nearby forest, no burgers and fries here, only vegetarian fare...It's a nine-day course in civil disobedience, run by a group called the Ruckus Society. Pioneered by the conservation group Greenpeace, former camp graduates include Woody Harrelson, who climbed San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge to protest redwood forest management."

Over at ABC, reporter Antonio Mora was no different: "At first glance, it looks like a pleasant retreat, but then it gets serious. This simulated confrontation is part of a four-day training camp in civil disobedience. It was organized by the Ruckus Society, a group of veteran Greenpeace and Earth First environmental activists, who want to make sure there's a next generation of protesters."

A CBS Diversion.

The night before the Senate hearings opened, prompted by Democratic fundraising abuses, the CBS Evening Newsdevoted an extraordinarily long five minutes and 33 seconds to a story reflecting the "everybody does it" spin forwarded by liberals. CBS created a Web site especially to provide additional information about how Republicans were just as guilty.

Anchor John Roberts began the July 7 story: "In tonight's Eye on America investigation, a look beyond the questionable campaign fundraising practices that Congress will focus on starting tomorrow. Much of what Congress will look at is limited to Campaign 96 and especially money funneled to the Democrats." Whittaker opened with video of a 1992 GOP fundraising dinner, explaining the CBS discovery: "The biggest donor: an American businessman whose stunning $500,000 donation got him a seat up at the head table with President Bush. He's Michael Kojima. You remember him: The biggest donor turned out to be America's biggest deadbeat dad. When his name hit the papers, a former wife was shocked: he owed her more than $100,000 in child support."

Whittaker elaborated: "A CBS News investigation has revealed that if anyone had bothered to look back in 92, they would have found that Kojima didn't have his own money to give, but apparently was funneling foreign donations to the GOP -- which is illegal -- donations from Japanese businessmen seeking to benefit from Republican connections." But CBS is far from consistently concerned about foreign money. CBS, as well as ABC and NBC, failed to report an April 1 Wall Street Journal story on how Charlie Yah Lin Trie "received a series of substantial wire transfers in 1995 and 1996 from a bank operated by the Chinese government. The transfers from the New York office of the Bank of China, usually in increments of $50,000 or $100,000, came at a time when Mr. Trie was directing large donations to the Democratic National Committee."

Tough Liberal Questions.

While Clinton made the interview circuit in preparation for his much ballyhooed California speech on race relations, reporters challenged him with tough questions from the left. Charles Osgood interviewed Clinton June 15 on CBS's Sunday Morning show and questioned the wisdom of Clinton's call for a dialogue on race: "Is there risk in that, though, sir, if you have people speaking frankly, do you really want people to say what they think about others? We have something of that kind that goes on to talk radio all the time and people say what they think, but it's not always very constructive." Then he asked: "Do you think that today the United States is a racist country and is it mainly white racism?" Osgood mentioned the scandals only in passing, and even then he talked of Clinton as a passive victim, mentioning the "legal problems being thrust on you."

The next morning Gwen Ifill interviewed Clinton and asked another tough question from left field: "Is this welfare bill your great vulnerability on this subject [of race relations]? Your supporters, your critics, they all say that, perhaps, you are abandoning minorities and the poor." Do "all" of Clinton's critics really attack him for signing the welfare bill? Not his conservative critics. Ifill is apparently not familiar with them.

Brock vs. Brock.

If you want to blast conservatives on the Todayshow, it's open mike morning. But attack a liberal and a symposium is required, with the liberal side well represented. After David Brock wrote an article for Esquire complaining the conservative movement had become a "neo-Stalinist thought police," Today gave him an unchallenged platform from which to attack. Matt Lauer set the scene on the June 18 show: "Brock details his fall from grace in the conservative community in the current issue of Esquire magazine." Lauer summarized Brock's argument: "Basically the problem is, you're saying, they look at you not as a journalist, who would tell a fair story, they looked at you as someone who would be a hit man for their cause."

Although Lauer asked Brock one challenging question about accusations of Brock being on a publicity hunt, Lauer vigorously pumped Brock for dirt on the conservative movement. After Brock said that he could no longer be on "that team anymore," Lauer asked, "Alright, when you say the team, give me names of the players....Like who?....Give me some other names that people will recognize." Brock dutifully named two boogeymen of the liberal imagination: Gordon Liddy and Oliver North. Today treated Brock quite differently when he was promoting his book The Real Anita Hill. On the May 3, 1993 Today segment devoted to Brock's book, his presence was "balanced" by that of a liberal, Charles Ogletree, who continually interrupted Brock and called him a liar.

No Gore Gaffes.

Harsh words are hardly new to politics, but the media feels a need to condemn them only when the speaker's a Republican. Case in point: when Vice President Gore attacked a Republican plan to bar new immigrants from the Social Security program as "un-American, simply un-American," the story could be found on the AP wire and in the June 20 USA Today and Los Angeles Times. But the Big Three networks did nothing. TV viewers had to wait for CNN's Inside Politics to see a clip of Gore making the comment late in its June 24 show, but only as part of a series of examples of "tart political talk this month from members of both parties."

But when Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said on the June 15 edition of ABC's This Week that President Clinton was acting like a "spoiled brat" on tax cuts, Sam Donaldson quickly admonished him: "Well, now you've just called the President of the United States someone like a spoiled brat, so I mean, Senator, don't complain if others use highly inflammatory language." A few hours later, World News Tonight Sunday anchor Carole Simpson pondered: "The disaster relief bill is now signed and both sides have compromised on the budget, so why all the name-calling today?" CNN's Prime News also raised Lott's comments, as did the July 16 NBC Nightly News.

On Inside Politics June 16, Bernard Shaw began with "what some might call sticks-and-stones politics. The prospect of a bipartisan agreement on specific tax cuts remains caught today in some decidedly partisan crossfire." In an interview with GOP Reps. Joe Barton and Ernest Istook later in the show, Shaw asked, Does it serve your cause for the Senate Majority Leader to say that the President of the United States is acting like a spoiled brat?"

Pile on the Prosecutor.

Reporters are so anxious to bash Whitewater prosecutor Ken Starr that when the Washington Postrevived a three-month-old Arkansas Democrat story revealing that agents working for him questioned Arkansas state troopers for the names of women with whom Bill Clinton may have had affairs, the media pounced.

His aim was legitimate: to find other acquaintances who may have overheard discussions about Whitewater. But Starr's use of a classic prosecutorial technique outraged reporters: "Critics charge that after three years and 30 million dollars, Starr's investigation is nothing more than a political witch hunt," conveyed NBC's Jim Miklaszewski on the June 25 Nightly News.

The next day, Today anchor Matt Lauer asked conservative Susan Carpenter-McMillan: "The fact that this line of questioning from Whitewater investigators has turned personal to the President's, or then Governor's sex life, does it show you that this investigation is desperate?" Over on Good Morning America, an exasperated Charlie Gibson asked Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff: "These troopers are saying they are being asked questions like did you ever see the Governor perform a sex act, did some woman bear a love child of the Governor's. What does that have to do with land deals?" For reporters who had no trouble asking about Clarence Thomas's personal life, their outrage seems to hinge on to whom the questions are being asked.

Another Improper Fundraiser.

When George Stephanopoulos signed on as a commentator for ABC News many saw this as yet another turn in the revolving door between politics and journalism. But an effort by Stephanopoulos to leave a foot on the politics side revealed that ABC is suffering from a case of selective ethics. In the June 26 Washington Post, media reporter Howard Kurtz found that Democratic New York City mayoral candidate Ruth Messinger invited supporters to a fundraiser featuring Stephanopoulos at Tavern on the Green. Kurtz wrote: "A $2,500 contribution, the invitation said, 'entitles couple to intimate dinner with Mr. Stephanopoulos and Ms. Messinger after the event.' When one of the invitations made its way to ABC News, it promptly nixed the idea." Kurtz continued: "It's against the rules,' said ABC Senior Vice President Richard Wald. 'I called George and said this is a no-no.' Anyone employed by ABC News 'should not be in active support of electoral politics,' Wald said. 'He made a mistake.'"

But ABC is hardly consistent when it comes to barring news staffers from lending their name to political causes. In 1994, correspondent and anchor Carole Simpson hosted a $175-a-plate fundraiser for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund's 40th anniversary. What was the difference between that and Stephanopoulos? ABC's policy covers "groups with a political purpose" and ABC declared the NAACP doesn't fit that category.

Featured Posts

Bozell Slams Hillary’s Shills in Media: ‘They Are Covering for’ Her

Get the Latest News From CNSNews

Get the Latest Media Analysis on NewsBusters