|
2. Matthews Backs 'Sentiment' of 'No More Blood for Oil!' Protester
3. CNN's Cafferty Links Hughes Resignation to Blackwater Immunity
4. CBS's Greenfield Recalls Clinton Scandals Long-Forgotten by Media
5. Early Show on CBS: Bush Admin Has 'Ruined' Halloween & Christmas
6. DC Press Vet Uses Reagan to Condemn, from Left, GOP Candidates
In a great illustration of how many mainstream media journalists view the war in Iraq through the prism of the war in Vietnam, twice on Wednesday's NBC Nightly News veteran foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell said "Vietnam" when she meant to say "Iraq." Offering a brief summary of how State Department foreign service employees are fighting a plan to involuntarily assign 40 of them to the embassy in Baghdad, Mitchell told anchor Brian Williams about a meeting held Wednesday: "There were a couple of hundred diplomats -- this is extraordinary -- they rebelled against being ordered to Vietnam. Basically, 40 of them will have to go to Vietnam or lose their, excuse me, go to Iraq. This is the first time this has happened since the Vietnam war. There have not been such orders and they could lose their jobs if they don't go to Iraq and they clearly don't want to..." Video clip (25 secs): Real [1] (800 Kb) or Windows Media [2] (900 Kb), plus MP3 audio [3] (150 Kb) [This item was posted, with video, Wednesday night on the MRC's blog. The video will be added to the posted version of this CyberAlert, but in the meantime, to watch the Real or Windows Media video, or to listen to the MP3 audio, go to: newsbusters.org [4] ] Below is the exchange on the October 31 NBC Nightly News as aired at 7pm EDT on Washington, DC's NBC-owned WRC-TV. (Judging by the live video screen behind Mitchell showing MSNBC's 6pm EDT Tucker, this was an un-updated 6:30pm EDT feed of the newscast.) Mitchell was at the NBC anchor desk with Williams following her report summarizing the Tuesday night Democratic presidential debate:
BRIAN WILLIAMS: While we have you here tonight, a little bit of political hubbub today at the State Department, your usual beat in Washington.
During MSNBC's post-Democratic debate coverage Tuesday night, a protester ran up behind Chris Matthews, as he assessed the debate with John Edwards campaign strategist Joe Trippi, and yelled: "All U.S. troops out of Iraq now! No more blood for oil!" After security pulled him away, Matthews quipped that he "agreed with the sentiment at least." [The MRC's Rich Noyes noticed the comment from Matthews as reported by TVNewser. This item is based on a Wednesday posting, by Justin McCarthy, on the MRC's blog.] Video: Windows [5] (730 KB) or Real [6] (665 KB) plus MP3 [7] (115 KB) It is no secret that Chris Matthews adamantly opposes the Iraq War. The night before on Hardball, the former Democratic staffer recommended how Barack Obama could best attack Hillary Clinton from the left on Iraq. See the October 30 CyberAlert: www.mrc.org [8] The October 10 CyberAlert recounted, "In GOP Debate Chris Matthews Advances 'No Blood for Oil' Agenda." Check: www.mrc.org [9] The incident from about 11:40pm EDT following the October 30 MSNBC Democratic presidential debate from Drexel University in Philadelphia:
PROTESTER: All U.S. troops out of Iraq now! No more blood for oil!
CNN's Jack Cafferty, putting on his conspiratorial hat, on Wednesday questioned the timing of Karen Hughes' resignation from her post at the State Department: "Is it just a coincidence...that Karen Hughes left the State Department the day after we found out that the State Department granted some sort of immunity to 17 -- to these Blackwater guards who are suspected in the murders of 17 Iraqi civilians?" Even with this, Cafferty offered a back-handed compliment to Hughes as one of the "brighter bulbs" in the Bush administration. Cafferty then went on to criticize Hillary Clinton's failure to answer questions she was asked at the Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia: "She was also asked about conflicting statements on Social Security, a question she ducked, saying she believed in fiscal responsibility. What the hell does that mean? And when Clinton was asked why she wouldn't release her White House records from the time she was First Lady, her answer was, 'Well, that's not my decision to make.' Baloney, whose decision is it, the Easter Bunny's? Come on." His 5pm EDT hour "Question of the Hour" on The Situation Room reflected this criticism: "Why won't Hillary Clinton give a straight answer to the questions she's being asked?" [This item, by Matthew Balan, was posted Wednesday evening on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [10] ] Cafferty's comments on Karen Hughes came after the program did a segment on the Bush confidante's resignation. In addition to calling Hughes "one of the brighter bulbs" in the Bush administration, he complimented her service at the State Department. "[Hughes] probably did as good a job as anybody could have done." A transcript of his comments on Hughes from the beginning of his "Cafferty File" segment:
JACK CAFFERTY: Is it just a coincidence, you suppose, Wolf, that Karen Hughes left the State Department the day after we found out that the State Department granted some sort of immunity to 17 -- to these Blackwater guards who are suspected in the murders of 17 Iraqi civilians? I mean, how do you sell the American point of view in the Arab street when you're working for a Secretary of State who runs a department that, without anybody knowing about it, gives some sort of immunity to these mercenaries who apparently killed a bunch of Iraqi civilians. There's no way you can overcome stuff like that. I wonder if her resignation had anything to do with that little piece of news we got yesterday. Cafferty then went to quote from The Politico's analysis of Senator Clinton's campaign performance: "'Clinton bombs debate.' That's how The Politico describes Senator Hillary Clinton's showing last night in Philadelphia, calling it 'the worst performance of her entire campaign' and saying that for two hours, she 'dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.'" He also included quotes from Chris Dodd and John Edwards, who both attacked Hillary at the debate. A transcript of Cafferty's comments on Hillary Clinton:
CAFFERTY: "Clinton bombs debate." That's how The Politico describes Senator Hillary Clinton's showing last night in Philadelphia, calling it 'the worst performance of her entire campaign' and saying that for two hours, she 'dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.' On the top of the list was Clinton's non-answer about whether illegal aliens should be given driver's licenses in New York State. That's the state she represents in the Senate. First came a long, complicated defense of Governor Spitzer's plan. But after Chris Dodd attacked the idea of giving licenses to these people, then Clinton said, 'Well, I didn't say it ought to be done.' John Edwards pounced immediately. 'Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes.' She was also asked about conflicting statements on Social Security, a question she ducked, saying she believed in fiscal responsibility. What the hell does that mean? And when Clinton was asked why she wouldn't release her White House records from the time she was First Lady, her answer was, 'Well, that's not my decision to make.' Baloney, whose decision is it, the Easter Bunny's? Come on.
Prompted by Hillary Clinton's dissembling answer during Tuesday's Democratic presidential debate about why her White House records have not been released, CBS political correspondent Jeff Greenfield uniquely reminded CBS Evening News viewers on Wednesday night of her scandals not mentioned by the media in years. Greenfield outlined why Hillary Clinton, contrary to her claim the National Archives is delaying the release when, in fact, President Clinton asked communication between him and the First Lady be withheld until 2012, wants to keep secret her papers from the White House years: "The notion that there's stuff that's being restricted potentially opens the door to asking questions about, well, the travel office where the independent counsel said she had been factually false. How did her brothers get pardons for two felons after being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars? How did she raise $100,000 trading cattle futures? This stuff hasn't come up in the campaign..." And it hasn't come up in the mainstream media which, until Tim Russert's question at the debate about the withholding of her records, has so far shown little interest in "asking questions" about the 1990s Clinton era scandals. [This item was posted late Wednesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [12] ] ABC, CBS and NBC on Wednesday night all ran stories on how other candidates at the MSNBC debate took on Mrs. Clinton over her stands on Iraq and Iran and the inconsistency of her position on New York's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens. ABC's David Wright didn't touch on the hidden records and NBC's Andrea Mitchell gave the subject just a brief mention as she noted how Clinton was "blaming the National Archives for sealing her White House papers when this letter from Bill Clinton shows he asked that they be sealed for 12 years." The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video for the exchange, between Greenfield and anchor Katie Couric, which followed a debate report from Jim Axelrod on the October 31 CBS Evening News:
KATIE COURIC: Jeff, as we saw, Senator Clinton hit some rough patches last night. Let's talk about what happened when she was asked about immigration.
TIM RUSSERT, DEBATE MODERATOR, MSNBC DEBATE: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the President not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban? 
GREENFIELD: And here's the problem, Katie. The Clinton campaign has been very successful in not going back to any of that turmoil of the '90s. The notion that there's stuff that's being restricted potentially opens the door to asking questions about, well, the travel office where the independent counsel said she had been factually false. How did her brothers get pardons for two felons after being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars? How did she raise $100,000 trading cattle futures? This stuff hasn't come up in the campaign, but you could almost hear the opponents beginning to chomp at the bit, waiting to ask, "What is she hiding?" There's the potential problem, I think.
On both Tuesday's CBS Evening News and Wednesday's Early Show, CBS gave prominent coverage to Nancy Pelosi's call for the resignation of the head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Nancy Nord. In an interview with Nord on the October 31 Early Show, co-host Julie Chen charged: "American parents are upset, they're frightened, they feel like their Halloween and their Christmas is now ruined. They don't know what to buy. Members of Congress are calling for your resignation. Are you going to resign?" The Evening News led with Pelosi's demand and featured a portion of Pelosi's rant against the Bush administration: "I'm calling upon the President of the United States to ask for the resignation. It is, after all, his administration, his policy, his appointee." That was followed by reporter Chip Reid's explanation that "Pelosi says it's clear that Nancy Nord, the acting Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, doesn't understand the gravity of the situation because Nord opposes legislation now before Congress that would double the agency's budget over the next seven years to more than $141 million a year." Later, Reid did present Nord's perspective that "Democrats, she says, want to change the mission of the agency to less testing of products and more litigation against companies." ABC and NBC on Tuesday night also devoted a full story to the Democratic-fueled controversy over Nord. [This item, by Kyle Drennen, was posted Wednesday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [13] ] However, on the Early Show, Reid again reported from Capitol Hill, but this time followed Nord's explanation with how "consumer advocates say what's really going on here is the Bush administration protecting big business at the expense of consumers, a charge the White House vigorously denies." Why the sudden addition of an attack on the administration? Perhaps the answer lies in harshness of the Early Show coverage, as Chen asked: "But I have to say, the American public, they're wondering this morning why you haven't been jumping up and down, waving your arms, demanding more funding before all this?" At a later point, Nord explained that "we have a number of people that test toys and work on toy safety." Chen responded: "Well, you clearly need more. Do you have a team that you're ready to hire?" While the product recalls are a serious problem that should be discussed, CBS has clearly decided to simply accept the Democratic Party line and serve as a mouthpiece for Pelosi and her cohorts, as reflected in this concluding question to Nord from Chen: "In the final 15 seconds, what's your response to those who think you are just simply too cozy with the manufacturers?" # Katie Couric teased the October 30 CBS Evening News: 
KATIE COURIC: Tonight, showdown over consumer safety. KATIE COURIC: Good evening, everyone. We're beginning tonight with a battle between Congress and the Bush administration over the safety of the product we use and how much the government should regulate the companies that make them. The Consumer Product Safety Commission overseas about 15,000 products, from baby strollers to mattresses, but after the recall of more than 22 million dangerous toys, Democrats today demanded the acting chairman be recalled. Chip Reid is on Capitol Hill tonight. Chip?
CHIP REID: Well, good evening, Katie. The Bush Administration and the Democratic Congress have very different ideas on how the federal government should police product safety. And caught in the middle is the consumer. For months, U.S. consumers have been deluged with wave after wave of toy recalls from dolls to jewelry to toy cars. Today, key Democrats in Congress said enough and demanded that President Bush fire the head of the federal agency that overseas product safety.
JULIE CHEN: The head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is under fire this morning. She's in charge of all those toy recalls that have been scaring parents, and rightfully so. Now, there are calls for Nancy Nord to resign. CBS News Capitol Hill Correspondent Chip Reid has the story.
CHIP REID: More than 22 million dangerous toys have been recalled in recent months, most because they contain unusually high levels of lead, which can cause brain damage or even death if ingested by young children. Many Democrats say the Bush Administration doesn't understand the gravity of the problem and are calling for Nancy Nord, head of the federal agency that oversees product safety, to step down.
JULIE CHEN: Now we turn to the head of CPSC, Nancy Nord. Good morning.
In a letter to the editor published in Wednesday's Washington Post, a Washington press corps veteran who covered President Reagan for Knight-Ridder and Newsday, Saul Friedman, used Ronald Reagan to condemn, from the left, this year's GOP presidential field, President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Friedman, now the "Gray Matters" columnist on elderly issues for Newsday and other papers, recalled how Reagan "didn't put his religion on display wherever he went. He didn't question the concept of evolution. He pulled U.S. troops out of Lebanon rather than commit them to a no-exit war. He did not wish to privatize Social Security and indeed helped preserve it for 75 years." Friedman hailed how "along with his friend Margaret Thatcher, but contrary to views of his vice president and the day's Cold Warriors, he recognized Mikhail Gorbachev as a genuine reformer." The former White House correspondent, who resides in a Maryland suburb of Washington, DC, is certainly a liberal. In an August column, Friedman praised Michael Moore's insights into the U.S. health care system: I haven't yet seen "Sicko," but I don't need filmmaker Michael Moore to tell me (and most of us) that while American health care can be the best if you can get it, the health care distribution system is also the most backward, costly, unfair and inequitable in the civilized world. The single most important reason: The multibillion dollar power of the private insurance industry stands in the way of genuine change. The facts are well known, and unique to the United States. More than 43 million Americans, most with jobs, have no health insurance and no protection against illness or accident. More than nine million children are without health care coverage. People who are under 65 and have been laid off from jobs cannot get coverage unless they pay outrageous premiums. Personal bankruptcies are increasing because of medical debt. And as Moore's documentary shows, the 250 million Americans with insurance can't count on coverage when they're really and expensively sick. Any of these facts would be considered outrageous almost anywhere else in the world. END of Excerpt For the August 4 column in full: www.newsday.com [14] For the archive of Friedman's columns: www.newsday.com [15] Friedman's letter in the October 31 Washington Post: Mr. Reagan vs. the Field In his Oct. 26 column, "A Fine Field of 4 1/2," Charles Krauthammer pointed to perceived flaws in Ronald Reagan's presidency and conservatism to emphasize the alleged strengths of the current Republican presidential field. I covered Mr. Reagan for eight years as a reporter for Knight Ridder and Newsday, and none of the candidates comes close. Mr. Reagan never bashed gays (too many of his friends were gay). He didn't put his religion on display wherever he went. He didn't question the concept of evolution. He pulled U.S. troops out of Lebanon rather than commit them to a no-exit war. He did not wish to privatize Social Security and indeed helped preserve it for 75 years. He never denigrated Medicare, and, along with his friend Margaret Thatcher, but contrary to views of his vice president and the day's Cold Warriors, he recognized Mikhail Gorbachev as a genuine reformer. SAUL FRIEDMAN Edgewater That's posted online at: www.washingtonpost.com [16] -- Brent Baker
|
