 [1] |
|
Dan Rather's "Objectivity"; Why Not Apologize?; Can't "Eat, Drink or Breathe" Thanks to Bush; Bush Too "Hard-Edged" on China 9) Also-ran suggestions for Letterman's "Top Ten Signs Dan Rather Doesn't Give a Damn Anymore." >>> Interested in an alternative news source? Learn about the latest stories posted on the MRC's Cybercast News Service Web site by subscribing to the twice-daily "CNSNews.com E-Brief." It provides a rundown of the freshest stories with direct links to each. To subscribe, go to: http://www.cnsnews.com/e-brief.asp [2] <<<
I guess the fundraiser was just a little detour. Friday's late afternoon CyberAlert "Reading & Viewing Alert" noted that "in the early 1980s, before she became a White House speechwriter, [Peggy] Noonan wrote Rather's radio commentaries, making her, I think it's a fair bet to say, the only person to have toiled for both Dan Rather and Ronald Reagan." Well, Bernard Kalb would be another, though he wasn't as close to Rather or Reagan. Kalb went from the CBS News Washington bureau to spokesman at the State Department under Reagan.
Fox's Brit Hume then asked Daschle: "The question is Senator, if it's such a great victory for your side, why did you vote against it?" Daschle replied that the bill did not have enough spending, what he termed "investments." Best Remote Location for a Sunday interview show guest: Daschle in Murdo, South Dakota.
-- Bob Schieffer to Secretary of State Colin Powell on Sunday's Face the Nation: "You have said that the Chinese know that they should not expect an apology. Let me just ask you an obvious question: What would be wrong with apologizing?" Powell answered that apologizing means you did something wrong and the U.S. did not in this case. -- Sam Donaldson to Democratic Senators Joe Biden and John Breaux on Sunday's This Week: "Forty percent of the American public, according to our most recent poll, says it would be alright to apologize. That's a minority, but still a sizable minority. What would the United States actually lose if it resolves this whole matter by offering an apology?" "Nothing," replied Biden, but Breaux shot down the idea. -- Brit Hume on Fox News Sunday took the opposite approach with Colin Powell: "It appears then that this Chinese fighter, ace fighter pilot flew too close, took chances with the lives of 24 Americans. An accident occurred, or maybe not an accident, that resulted in severe damage to the aircraft, could have killed our crew members. They had to make an emergency landing. Why are we not asking for an apology?"
Her ridiculously exaggerated outburst came in her "Outrage of the Week." She charged: "Remember when Ronald Reagan tried to save a few pennies on the school lunch program by classifying ketchup as a vegetable? Last week the Bush administration went further, axing a regulation that forced the meat industry to test hamburgers served in school for salmonella. Imagine, Mad Cow Disease among children, K through 12. The day it hit the papers the proposal was quickly withdrawn. The Bush administration keeps trying to kill health and safety regulations at this pace, soon we won't be able to eat, drink or breathe." Maybe we could get that to occur only with reporters like Carlson who make up and distort facts. First, Ronald Reagan never proposed counting ketchup as a vegetable in school lunches. It's just a liberal myth perpetuated by lazy reporters who agree with the premise of an uncaring Reagan. Second, the meat inspection rule officials at the Agriculture Department considered withdrawing was put into effect last July so, by Carlson's reasoning, for the first seven-and-a-half years of the Clinton administration kids were vulnerable to Mad Cow Disease. Third, the rule change would not have made meat more dangerous. As the Washington Post reported on April 5: "The alternatives would focus on improving control of all types of contamination during slaughtering and in processing plants rather than testing at the end of the process, said Kenneth Clayton, acting administrator of the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service."
The exchange took place during the roundtable segment on Sunday's This Week: George Will: "It may be good for the
Democrats's self-esteem and psychotherapy and other things they believe
in to pretend that they won this, but look what happened. The Democrats
real choice for a tax cut was zero because it cuts back government and
they exist to inflate the government." Dan Rather attracted donors to a Democratic fundraiser. Consider this Donaldson's even more valuable "in-kind" contribution to the Democratic cause.
"This is not, in many ways, a great political victory for Mr. Bush, is it?" Peter Jennings asked ABC's Linda Douglass, who confirmed his downbeat assessment for Bush. CBS anchor John Roberts wondered: "So is this a stinging setback for the Bush plan?" Bob Schieffer added some nuance: "All sides claim that they won today. The President saw it as the first step in his plan that he promised in the campaign: to cut taxes." NBC's Lisa Myers avoided taking sides: "Today's vote was a mixed bag. The President had to settle for 75 percent of his tax cut, which is much less than he wanted. But it's much more than anyone would have predicted he'd get three months ago. In the end, everyone declared victory." -- ABC's World News Tonight on April 6. Peter Jennings announced: "Now back to Washington again because it was a very big day in the Senate. The Senate has approved nearly $1.3 trillion in tax cuts today over a period of 11 years. The package of cuts is about 25 percent less than what President Bush had wanted. However, after the vote today, Mr. Bush followed the time-honored political tradition of getting what you can and then declaring victory. However, not quite. ABC's Linda Douglass is on Capitol Hill tonight. This is not, in many ways, a great political victory for Mr. Bush, is it?" Douglass confirmed Jennings' premise: "Not a great political victory at all, Peter. This is actually a victory to a certain extent for Democrats and some moderate Republicans who sent a very strong signal to the President that they think his tax cut is too big, it's going to have to be smaller, they want to give more back to people right away this year and they're telling him he's got to negotiate with them now, which he hasn't done before. So for President Bush, today was really a turning point." -- CBS Evening News. Fill-in anchor John Roberts (could Rather have been off to another fundraiser?) asserted: "Concerning the centerpiece of the Bush domestic agenda, the Senate voted today on the President's tax cut plan and gave him three-quarters of what he proposed. So is this a stinging setback for the Bush plan? Chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer is at spin-central on Capitol Hill." Bob Schieffer replied: "Well, John, all
sides claim that they won today. The President saw it as the first step in
his plan that he promised in the campaign: to cut taxes. Without pointing out how Daschle had voted no
on the bill he now called a victory for Democrats, Schieffer explained:
"Daschle claimed victory because the President wanted a $1.6 trillion
tax cut over 10 years. The Senate slashed that to $1.2 trillion, with $400
billion promised for education programs and debt reduction. Of course, the
tax cut was still a lot bigger than the $900 billion cut that Democrats
wanted, which may be why the vice president was smiling, too." -- NBC Nightly News. Substitute anchor Brian Williams introduced NBC's story without offering an assessment of who won: "The Senate approved a new federal budget today, and in the process lopped off about one-quarter of the President's proposed tax cut. For what this all means tonight, here is NBC's Lisa Myers." Myers contended: "Today's vote was a
mixed bag. The President had to settle for 75 percent of his tax cut,
which is much less than he wanted. But it's much more than anyone would
have predicted he'd get three months ago. In the end, everyone declared
victory."
-- George Stephanopoulos on Sunday's This Week: "First of all, China has to bear the first responsibility for holding the hostages. This is something that is unacceptable, but I think it did take a few days for Bush and the administration to find their voice. When Bush went out there he was very firm but very hard-edged. And you'll notice that Premiere Jiang did not demand an apology himself until after Bush came out, and then you saw the White House scrambling and finally coming up with all these words of regret. I think it took them a little bit too long to get to that place." Nice of Stephanopoulos to concede that "China has to bear the first responsibility for holding the hostages." -- CBS Evening News on Thursday, April 5, blamed America first. Dan Rather declared: "Decisions made by China's leaders in the first minutes and hours after the two planes collided set the stage for the current standoff. And CBS News tonight has exclusive word that it could have been avoided." From Beijing, reporter Barry Petersen
asserted, as transcribed by MRC analyst Brian Boyd: "Dan, CBS News
has learned that when this incident began China's top political leaders
really intended to end it quickly, in fact, some argued for returning the
plane and the crew immediately. But then things started spinning out of
control. Under the scenario described to CBS News the Chinese military
stepped in with its own agenda insisting on a 48 hour delay, time to
search the plane and extract any high-tech secrets still left intact. By
Tuesday night the military would be willing to give up the people and the
plane. But on Monday President Bush spoke out demanding the Americans be
freed." Yes, it's our fault.
The next night, MRC analyst Jessica Anderson noticed, reporter Mark Litke in Beijing told April 4 Nightline viewers: "There's a reform-minded leadership here that I believe wants to solve this issue, but they're under a great deal of pressure from hardliners and conservatives. There's a power struggle going on behind the scenes for a change in leadership next year. The reform-minded people cannot give the conservatives the ammunition that might scuttle their ability to continue controlling this country next year."
-- Simply says, "Stuff happened today; more stuff's gonna happen
tomorrow; who cares, we're all gonna die" Maybe that last one would cut out some of the bias too. --Brent Baker [3] >>>
Support the MRC, an educational foundation dependent upon contributions
which make CyberAlert possible, by providing a tax-deductible
donation. Use the secure donations page set up for CyberAlert
readers and subscribers: >>>To subscribe to CyberAlert, send a
blank e-mail to:
mrccyberalert-subscribe >>>You
can learn what has been posted each day on the MRC's Web site by
subscribing to the "MRC Web Site News" distributed every weekday
afternoon. To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: cybercomment@mrc.org [5].
Or, go to: http://www.mrc.org/newsletters [6].<<< |
Howler
of the Weekend. Bernard Kalb, co-host of CNN's Reliable Sources and a
long-time CBS News reporter, on Dan Rather's appearance at a fundraiser
for the local Democratic Party committee in Travis County, Texas:
Best
Question of the Weekend. Fox News Sunday played a soundbite of Senate
Majority Leader Tom Daschle proclaiming on Friday of the Senate passage of
a $1.2 trillion tax cut plan: "I understand some of our Republican
friends have called this a victory. If this is a victory there ought to be
more like them."
Let's
just apologize to China, suggested CBS's Bob Schieffer and ABC's Sam
Donaldson, but Fox's Brit Hume wondered why we don't demand an apology
from China.
In a
seeming parody of her over-hyped anti-Bush declarations, on CNN's
Capital Gang on Saturday Time columnist and reporter Margaret Carlson
exclaimed that thanks to the Bush administration, "soon we won't be
able to eat, drink or breathe."
Sam
Donaldson, Democratic policy defender. When George Will asserted that
"what Democrats really want is a targeted tax cut to boss us around,
saying you can get a tax cut if you do what the government wants,"
Donaldson took offense at the characterization: "Wait a minute
George, what they say is a tax cut if you are among people who need it
more than the very wealthy."
ABC and
CBS on Friday night portrayed the Senate passage of a $1.2 trillion tax
cut as a loss for Bush while NBC delivered a more even-handed presentation
of spin from both sides.
While
conservatives worry that President Bush may be going too soft on the
Chinese, ABC and CBS have blamed Bush's words for prolonging the
situation. ABC's George Stephanopoulos warned that Bush was too
"hard-edged" at first and on the CBS Evening News, reporter
Barry Petersen claimed China planned to end the incident
"quickly," but then "strong words from the U.S. President
stunned China's President Jiang Zemin, forcing him to up the ante. His
demand: a full apology."
Nightline
again last week labeled hard-core communists as "conservatives,"
instead of viewing the political spectrum as a continuum with hard-core
communists on the "hard left." As noted in the April 5
CyberAlert, on the April 3 Nightline Ted Koppel tagged the bad guys in
Beijing and in the U.S. as conservatives: "Over there they also have
their conservatives and maybe not their liberals, but they're less
conservative, and I'm sure that they now are arguing in similar fashion,
'Hey, we don't need this relationship with the United States.' Is
there anything of value that we want to preserve here, even after this
incident is over, no matter how it turns out?"
The
April 6 CyberAlert featured the Late Show with David Letterman's
"Top Ten Signs Dan Rather Doesn't Give a Damn Anymore." I've
since had a chance to access the Late Show Web site and so here are the
"also rans," the suggested entries from the writers which did
not make the final cut for the April 5 list: