Hume and Douglass Scold ABC for Overplaying "Bad" Hastert Story --5/30/2006

1. Hume and Douglass Scold ABC for Overplaying "Bad" Hastert Story
On Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume, a veteran of ABC News, chided his former employer: "ABC News came out with this [Hastert] story, worded the way it was. 'Included in the investigation,' 'in the mix of the investigation,' has an unmistakable implication, and that is the guy's under investigation. We have now had an absolutely unequivocal denial of that, not only from the Justice Department at one level, but....Paul McNulty, the U.S. Attorney, came out and denied that as well. This looks like a bad story. They led their newscast with it. The implication was unmistakable. They ought to back off this story, and the sooner the better." CNN's Howard Kurtz, on Sunday morning's Reliable Sources, raised the accuracy of the story with Linda Douglass who covered Capitol Hill for ABC News until the end of 2005. Douglass was reluctant to lambast her ex-colleagues, but her disagreement with their news judgment was clear: "Well, I think leading with it was a controversial decision, is what I would say. And I think that saying he was part of the investigation, if in fact his name just came up, was, was a phrase you might want to revisit." AUDIO&VIDEO [1]

2. Clift: Media "Regret" How "Gore was Mocked and Ridiculed in 2000"
Confirming what's obvious to anyone watching or reading the gushing praise for Al Gore and his hysterical movie about global warming, on the Memorial Day weekend's McLaughlin Group, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift asserted: "There's some regret, even among the media, that Al Gore was mocked and ridiculed in 2000, and he didn't deserve it. And we're ready for a serious politician."

3. Nets Marvel at Bush's "Unusual Burst of Candor" in Noting Errors
The Friday morning and evening broadcast networks shows pounced on how when asked, at the joint Thursday night Bush/Blair press conference, whether he had any regrets about the conduct of the war in Iraq, President Bush cited saying "bring it on" and "wanted dead or alive." CBS Evening News anchor Bob Schieffer suggested Bush isn't always so honest as he described it as "an unusual burst of candor from President Bush." Schieffer soon called it an "extraordinary statement" and reporter Jim Axelrod agreed it was "startling." NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams found Bush's answer so important that he played a stand-alone clip of the "most interesting moment" and brought aboard Tim Russert who saw a "remarkable, remarkable admission." On her last night as anchor of World News Tonight, ABC's Elizabeth Vargas asserted that "some of the bold talk we once heard from them is gone. Now they are voicing regrets and admitting mistakes." Jake Tapper framed a story around how Bush and Blair "came together to project confidence in the new Iraqi government, but perhaps what came across strongest was regret." NBC's Today opened with "Admitting Mistakes" on screen.

4. Memorial Day: Perfect Day to Celebrate An "Anti-War" Activist?
Since it was Memorial Day, the day on which America honors its war dead, it was natural that the Washington Post saw this as the perfect day for...a big profile of a hard-left "anti-war" activist, Stacy Bannerman of Military Families Speak Out. Reporter David Montgomery chronicled her marriage to a National Guard soldier, "the warrior and the anti-warrior," and she won. The husband, back from Iraq, asked: "Soldiers are dying for what reason again?"

5. NY Times Publisher Apologizes for Failure to Enact Liberalism
C-SPAN on Saturday night (May 27) aired the Sunday, May 21 commencement remarks, by New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., at the State University of New York at New Paltz where he was honored with a Doctorate of Humane Letters. Sulzberger delivered a left wing rant in which he presumed liberal policy goals are more noble than conservative ones as he offered an "apology" for the nation his generation has left to the next generation: "You weren't supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, whether it's the rights of immigrants to start a new life; or the rights of gays to marry; or the rights of women to choose. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where oil still drove policy and environmentalists have to fight relentlessly for every gain."

Hume and Douglass Scold ABC for Overplaying
"Bad" Hastert Story

On Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume, a veteran of ABC News, chided his former employer: "ABC News came out with this [Hastert] story, worded the way it was. 'Included in the investigation,' 'in the mix of the investigation,' has an unmistakable implication, and that is the guy's under investigation. We have now had an absolutely unequivocal denial of that, not only from the Justice Department at one level, but when this business about what well, what about being 'in the mix' came along, Paul McNulty, the U.S. Attorney, came out and denied that as well. This looks like a bad story. They led their newscast with it. The implication was unmistakable. They ought to back off this story, and the sooner the better."

CNN's Howard Kurtz, on Sunday morning's Reliable Sources, raised the accuracy of the story with Linda Douglass who covered Capitol Hill for ABC News until the end of 2005: "Did ABC overplay that story?" Douglass was reluctant to lambast her ex-colleagues, but her disagreement with their news judgment was clear: "Well, I think leading with it was a controversial decision, is what I would say. And I think that saying he was part of the investigation, if in fact his name just came up, was, was a phrase you might want to revisit."

[This item was posted late Sunday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [2] ]

# Fox News Sunday, May 28:

During the first panel segment, host Chris Wallace brought up how "ABC News reported that Speaker Hastert, who was raising such a fuss about this FBI raid, was, in fact, the subject of a criminal -- or involved in a criminal investigation."
Brit Hume: "'Included' in."
Wallace: "'Included.' Well, we'll get to that in a second. And Hastert then fired back and suggested that this was a purposeful leak to try to intimidate him from his fight with the Justice Department. Let's listen to this exchange."
Brian Ross on the May 24 World News Tonight: "Federal officials tell us the congressional bribery investigation now includes the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert."
Dennis Hastert on WGN Radio, May 25: "This is one of the leaks that come out to try to, you know, intimidate people and we're just not going to be intimidated."
Wallace: "What do you think of the ABC story? What do you think of Hastert's charge that there was some connection between that story and the fact that he was upset about the FBI raid?"
Hume: "Well, there's no way to speak for Hastert's allegation, because we don't know who the official was, the unidentified official in the Justice Department, which could include the FBI, that gave this information to ABC News. ABC News has now fallen back on the idea that well, we really didn't quite say he was the target of an investigation, we just said he was 'in the mix,' that he was 'included,' and they quoted their source in a subsequent story as saying you worded it very carefully, but people aren't reading it very carefully.
"Look, ABC News came out with this story, worded the way it was. 'Included in the investigation,' 'in the mix of the investigation,' has an unmistakable implication, and that is the guy's under investigation. We have now had an absolutely unequivocal denial of that, not only from the Justice Department at one level, but when this business about what well, what about being in the mix came along, Paul McNulty, the U.S. Attorney, came out and denied that as well. This looks like a bad story. They led their newscast with it. The implication was unmistakable. They ought to back off this story, and the sooner the better."

# CNN's Reliable Sources, May 28:

Sitting next to Linda Douglass at CNN's Los Angeles studios, Howard Kurtz asked fo her reaction to "a story by ABC's Brian Ross, your former colleague, reporting that federal investigators in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal are looking at House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Hastert says that's not true. The Justice Department says that's not true. Do you think that story was overplayed or over-hyped?"
Douglass equivocated: "Well, it was a very controversial story. Obviously, ABC chose to lead with the story that Hastert was allegedly in the mix. They used some loaded words, 'is part of the investigation'; 'the investigation now includes Dennis Hastert.' So it was a controversial story. My suspicion is that the FBI, which was very angry at Hastert for trying to stop their investigation of congressional offices, may very well have pointed the finger at Hastert. And there has been-"
Kurtz: "In other words, the leak may have come from the Justice Department?"
Douglass: "Well, no, from the FBI."
Kurtz: "From the FBI. Because Hastert, who was among those complaining about the raid on Congressman William Jefferson's office. He's the guy with the $90,000 in the freezer."
Douglass: "Exactly. And trying to stop, perhaps, future investigations in congressional offices."
Kurtz pressed for a definitive answer: "So answer the question in 15 seconds: Did ABC overplay that story?"
Douglass: "Well, I think leading with it was a controversial decision, is what I would say. And I think that saying he was part of the investigation, if in fact his name just came up, was, was a phrase you might want to revisit."

Clift: Media "Regret" How "Gore was Mocked
and Ridiculed in 2000"

Confirming what's obvious to anyone watching or reading the gushing praise for Al Gore and his hysterical movie about global warming, on the Memorial Day weekend's McLaughlin Group, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift asserted: "There's some regret, even among the media, that Al Gore was mocked and ridiculed in 2000, and he didn't deserve it. And we're ready for a serious politician."

Clift, who in her end of the show prediction, anticipated that "a year from now, there will be an Al Gore presidential exploratory committee," earlier in the program laid out how he can follow the "Nixonian play book" in "a very good way." Clift pined: "He's campaigning to awaken the political leadership to the threat of global warming, but it's a campaign that can easily turn into a campaign for himself if he sees an opening. And he's following the Nixonian play book, the Nixonian in a very good way. Just as Richard Nixon was edged out of the presidency very narrowly in 1960 and then came back after eight years to win."

[This item was posted Saturday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [7] ]

Of course, it's not so clear to those who don't lament George W. Bush's 2000 victory how much compared to Bush Gore was "mocked and ridiculed" by the news media.

Nets Marvel at Bush's "Unusual Burst
of Candor" in Noting Errors

The Friday morning and evening broadcast networks shows pounced on how when asked, at the joint Thursday night Bush/Blair press conference, whether he had any regrets about the conduct of the war in Iraq, President Bush responded: "Saying, 'bring it on.' Kind of tough talk you know that sent the wrong signal to people" and "some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner. You know, 'wanted dead or alive.'"

CBS Evening News anchor Bob Schieffer suggested Bush isn't always so honest as he described it as "an unusual burst of candor from President Bush." Schieffer soon called it an "extraordinary statement" and reporter Jim Axelrod agreed it was "startling." NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams found Bush's answer so important that he played a stand-alone clip of the "most interesting moment" and brought aboard Tim Russert who saw a "remarkable, remarkable admission." On her last night as anchor of World News Tonight, ABC's Elizabeth Vargas asserted that "some of the bold talk we once heard from them is gone. Now they are voicing regrets and admitting mistakes." Jake Tapper framed a story around how Bush and Blair "came together to project confidence in the new Iraqi government, but perhaps what came across strongest was regret."

With "Admitting Mistakes" on screen over video of Bush and Blair at their 7:30pm EDT joint Thursday press conference, Katie Couric opened Friday's Today show by trumpeting:
"Good morning. Admitting mistakes. President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair open up about missteps made in Iraq in a very candid prime time news conference."

In her full story, reporter Norah O'Donnell maintained that the Thursday press conference showed Bush's previous "bravado replaced by a rare public admission of error when asked what missteps he's made." O'Donnell recalled: "In recent months the President acknowledged setbacks, but this was a high-profile setting for introspection. Much different from during election year 2004 when he would not offer the same candor."

Over on ABC's Good Morning America, news reader Kate Snow introduced a story:
"President Bush is hosting Prime Minister Tony Blair for a second day after an extraordinary news conference in which both leaders admitted making mistakes. ABC's Jessica Yellin is at the White House."

And on CBS's The Early Show, Bill Plante pointed out:
"The most extraordinary moment came when the President, who's not ordinarily much for public self-analysis, was asked which missteps and mistakes he most regretted."

[This item was posted Friday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [8] ]

Transcripts of the May 26 ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts:

# ABC's World News Tonight. Anchor Elizabeth Vargas: "President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair have wrapped up two days of talks in Washington, mostly about Iraq. The political toll the war has taken on both men was clear. Some of the bold talk we once heard from them is gone. Now they are voicing regrets and admitting mistakes. ABC's Jake Tapper is at the White House."

Tapper over video of Bush and Blair outside the West Wing: "One last walk for President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair on this visit. They came together to project confidence in the new Iraqi government, but perhaps what came across strongest was regret."
President Bush at Thursday night Bush/Blair press conference: "Not everything since liberation has turned out as the way we had expected or hoped."
Tapper: "The President was contrite about remarks he'd made, such as this from 2003."
Bush in 2003: "My answer is 'bring 'em on.'"
Bush Thursday night: "Saying 'bring it on.' Kind of tough talk, you know that sent the wrong signal to people. I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner."
Tapper: "Ever since the war began, the President has been asked repeatedly about mistakes. And this has often been the answer."
Bush at August 13, 2004 press conference: "I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with that answer, but it hadn't yet."
Tapper: "Mr. Bush has recently been more willing to acknowledge problems in Iraq, from failures to secure the borders to prisoner abuse."
Bush Thursday night: "We've been paying for that for a long period of time."
Tapper: "Prime Minister Blair acknowledged being overly optimistic about how easy democracy would take hold there."
Blair at Thursday press conference: "I'm afraid in the end, we're always going to have to be prepared for the fall of Saddam not to be the rise of democratic Iraq, that it was going to be a more difficult process."
Tapper: "It was the 14th face-to-face meeting for the two men. Their alliance forged in the furnace of war and worldwide criticism. But now they are embattled leaders, largely because of that war and the way they pursued it. One last regret, Mr. Bush says he doesn't want Mr. Blair to resign next year as planned."
Bush: "My attitude is, I want him to be here so long as I'm the President."
Blair: "Well what more can I say? (laughter) Probably not wise to say anything more at all."
Tapper: "Jack Tapper, ABC News, the White House."

# CBS Evening News. Anchor Bob Schieffer: "Good evening. CBS News has learned that the United States is sending more troops to Iraq to help contain the violence there. That even as the top commander on the ground is talking about drawing forces down. This word comes one day after an unusual burst of candor from President Bush who said last night that some of his tough talk may have set the wrong tone for fighting the war in Iraq."

Jim Axelrod, after running through some other comments at the press conference: "The most memorable moment of Mr. Blair's visit had nothing to do with U.S. troop movements. It came last night when President Bush was asked if he had any regrets about the war in Iraq."

President Bush at Thursday night press conference with Prime Minister Blair: "Saying 'bring it on.' Kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner."

A few seconds later, Schieffer asked: "Jim, I want to go back to this extraordinary statement that the President made last night where he said he had set the wrong tone for fighting the war on terrorism. I've been watching this President a long time, I've never heard anything quite like that."
Axelrod: "Startling, wasn't it, Bob? He said it a couple times before although never in such a high-profile venue. He was once asked about it and he said he had no regrets and ever since then when asked he said this, the wrong tone, is his biggest regret. Bob?"

# NBC Nightly News. Anchor Brian Williams: "President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair quietly ended two days of talks on Iraq today with Mr. Blair saying it's time to move on from the debate about going to war and it's time for war critics to start supporting the idea of democracy in Iraq. A lot of those people who were watching the news conference those two leaders held last night thought the most interesting moment came in response to a question by a British journalist."
Reporter at Thursday night Bush/Blair press conference: "Mr. President, you spoke about missteps and mistakes in Iraq. Could I ask both of you which missteps and which mistakes of your own you most regret?"
President Bush: "Saying, 'bring it on.' Kind of tough talk you know that sent the wrong signal to people. That, I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner. You know, 'wanted dead or alive.' That kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted. And so I learned from that. And, you know, I think the biggest mistake that's happened so far at least from our country's involvement in Iraq is Abu Ghraib."
Williams: "Interesting response from the President last night and with us tonight for more on this, our Washington Bureau Chief, moderator of Meet the Press, Tim Russert with us from our Washington bureau and Tim, the President has had his chances in the past to talk about regrets, mistakes, he's turned them down until last night. Why now and why this change of heart or policy?"
Russert: "Well Brian, because the cloud of Iraq hovers over this presidency and the President knows it. The outlook in the midterm elections quite dismal unless things turn around. I talked to Democrats and Republicans all day and they were uniform in one opinion: This is a much different President, gone is the supreme confidence, the swagger. They saw someone last night who was acknowledging some of his words were not sophisticated, not presidential. It was remarkable, remarkable admission."
Williams: "More than one analyst said, looking at the scene last night, these two leaders side-by-side, it looked like the end of an era. Do you concur?"
Russert: "It sure is. These two men invested their positions, the Prime Minister and the President, in a successful outcome in the war in Iraq. And that's very much in doubt. They're hoping for the best, there's a new Iraqi Prime Minister, they hope the country can be secure. They hope the troops can come home, but it's a lot of ifs and a lot of hopes."

Memorial Day: Perfect Day to Celebrate
An "Anti-War" Activist?

Since it was Memorial Day, the day on which America honors its war dead, it was natural that the Washington Post saw this as the perfect day for...a big profile of a hard-left "anti-war" activist, Stacy Bannerman of Military Families Speak Out. Reporter David Montgomery chronicled her marriage to a National Guard soldier, "the warrior and the anti-warrior," and she won. The husband, back from Iraq, asked: "Soldiers are dying for what reason again?"

The annual Memorial Day concert event on the mall (nationally televised by PBS) topped the left corner of Monday's Style section, but much of the front Style page was devoted to Montgomery's story, with a huge Post photographer's shot of Bannerman marching for "peace" in jeans and a T-shirt, complete with the www.mfso.org [9] web address. The headline: "Choose Your Battle: She's a Pacifist. He's A Warrior. But Even In the Shadow of Iraq, Their Love Soldiers On."

For the May 29 Washington Post article: www.washingtonpost.com [10]

[This item, by the MRC's Tim Graham, was posted Monday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [11] ]

To demonstrate that this story is just a profile in the can, and there's not a lot new in it, Montgomery, the protester's best friend, began with Bannerman's husband being called up to serve in Iraq -- in the fall of 2003, and the "professional pace and justice activist" wasn't happy:
"Lorin's National Guard unit just got called up. And in a deep part of him that he doesn't reveal to her this instant, he's kind of looking forward to it. Stacy, on the other hand, is a professional peace and justice activist. Her emotions are much closer to the surface, and she's freaking out.
"It's the fall of 2003, seven months after the war began, outside Seattle where they live. They are the warrior and the anti-warrior, and their years of living dangerously are about to begin.
"She watches him drive away in his new white Kia Sorento. The planet-hugger in her never approved of his buying that SUV. Now, as her man prepares for mobilization to the land of oil and blood, she sees the manufacturer's name and thinks: 'Killed in action.'"

Montgomery never described Bannerman as "liberal" or "leftist" or "progressive" (despite her new book being hailed by far-left stars like Howard Zinn), preferring the stale and positive "antiwar" label to describe her overall politics:
"In town for a series of antiwar activities, she breaks from the march early for a debate with former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle being filmed for a PBS documentary. He was one of the intellectual advocates of toppling Saddam Hussein, and he and Stacy square off against a backdrop of the thousands of boots -- a pair for each soldier killed. The next day, Mother's Day, Stacy rallies outside the White House with the women's peace group Code Pink."

If Montgomery weren't so interested in making Bannerman sympathetic, he would ask her about Perle's position for toppling Saddam. Does she believe that being a "justice" activist means leaving Saddam in power was the better answer for Iraq? And that Saddam's clear rejection of a United Nations process against the creation of weapons of mass destruction was no threat at all? She isn't forced to think for this profile, merely emote.

The story had a happy ending, at least for the Post and its reporters. The "antiwar" side is winning, what Montgomery described as an almost scientific process: "As the death count rises, public support for the war plummets, two black lines on a neat, precise graph." Bannerman is so persuasive that her National Guard husband is going soft and Code Pink-ish, and that, to Montgomery, can be described as patriotic:
"Going to Iraq probably drew Lorin closer to Stacy's position on the war. 'Just some of the things I heard and saw changed my viewpoint,' he says. 'Soldiers are dying for what reason again?"
"But he also says: 'On a personal level, yes I'm glad I went over there and had that experience as a soldier. Yes, I get to wear the Combat Infantryman Badge....That's something special for us.'"
"For the warrior, the badge is an insignia that he saw action and risked his life for his country. The antiwarrior feels just as proud -- and patriotic -- when she borrows his cap and wears his badge on her long march for peace.

PS: For a stronger sense of the harshness of Bannerman's rhetoric, consult her House testimony as captured on the MFSO website:
"The 1.2 million soldiers and their families who have paid for this war with their lives and limbs and loved ones don't need medals.
"We need leaders.
"We need leaders who will honor the Constitution, not shred it. We need leaders that hold accountable an administration that promotes a policy of torture but penalizes the foot soldiers that are expected to carry it out. We need leaders that don't bankrupt a nation in the interests of bankrolling their personal political agendas. We need moral leaders who are champions of truth and justice, not lapdogs to private interests and war profiteers. We need leaders willing to reclaim democracy from the iron fist of imperialistic power and greed."

That's online at: www.mfso.org [12]

NY Times Publisher Apologizes for Failure
to Enact Liberalism

Sulzberger's remarks were reported last Monday by the MRC's Clay Waters in picking up local Hudson Valley newspaper accounts. For Clay's May 22 posting on the MRC's TimesWatch site: www.timeswatch.org [16]

For the May 23 CyberAlert item: www.mediaresearch.org [17]

[This item was posted Saturday night, with video, on the MRC's NewsBusters blog. The Real and Windows Media video, as well as MP3 audio, will be added to the posted version of this CyberAlert. But in the meantime, to watch or listen to Sulzberger, go to: newsbusters.org [18] ]

The video is of this portion of Sulzberger's address (I corrected the posted text against what he actually said):

I'll start with an apology.

When I graduated from college in 1974, my fellow students and I had just ended the war in Vietnam and ousted President Nixon [light cheering]. Okay, okay, that's not quite true. I mean yes, the war did end and yes, President Nixon did resign in disgrace but maybe there were larger forces at play.

Either way, we entered the real world committed to making it a better, safer, cleaner, more equal place. We were determined not to repeat the mistakes of our predecessors. We had seen the horrors and futility of war and smelled the stench of corruption in government.

Our children, we vowed, would never know that.

So, well, sorry [pause and applause]. It wasn't supposed to be this way.

You weren't supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land [louder applause].

You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, whether it's the rights of immigrants to start a new life; or the rights of gays to marry; or the rights of women to choose [applause].

You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where oil still drove policy and environmentalists have to fight relentlessly for every gain.

You weren't. But you are. And for that I'm sorry.

END of Excerpt

RealPlayer streaming video is available of the entirety of Sulzberger's address:

# SUNY at New Paltz has recently added a 15-minute streaming RealPlayer video link to the posted text of the commencement remarks. The volume level, however, is fairly low: www.newpaltz.edu [19]

# Sometime early this week C-SPAN will also add streaming RealPlayer video of Sulzberger to its page of "American Perspectives" videos: www.c-span.org [20]

-- Brent Baker