Friday, April 02, 2004
CNN and David Letterman
What did they know and when did they know it? Paul Krugman sets the record straight in today's New York Times.
"On Monday, Mr. Letterman ran a video clip of a boy yawning and fidgeting during a speech by George Bush. It was harmless stuff; a White House that thinks it's cute to have Mr. Bush make jokes about missing W.M.D. should be able to handle a little ribbing about boring speeches.
CNN ran the Letterman clip on Tuesday, just before a commercial. Then the CNN anchor Daryn Kagan came back to inform viewers that the clip was a fake: "We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video." Later in the day, another anchor amended that: the boy was at the rally, but not where he was shown in the video.
On his Tuesday night show, Mr. Letterman was not amused: "That is an out and out 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was there, and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the videotape."
But here's the really interesting part: CNN backed down, but it told Mr. Letterman that Ms. Kagan "misspoke," that the White House was not the source of the false claim. (So who was? And if the claim didn't come from the White House, why did CNN run with it without checking?)
In short, CNN passed along a smear that it attributed to the White House. When the smear backfired, it declared its previous statements inoperative and said the White House wasn't responsible. Sound familiar?"
Is CNN lying now, or were they lying before? Did the White House really call them or not? If they didn't call, why would they say they did? If they did call, why are they now claiming that they didn't? The Freedom Rider bets that the White House called. Krugman's column addresses a far more serious issue, Bush administration efforts to smear Richard Clarke with the help of the compliant media. (You must register to read Times stories, but registration is free.) While seemingly less trivial, the CNN incident tells us quite a bit about the appalling lack of journalistic standards. Wolf Blitzer, CNN anchor, passed along a smear about Clarke and then backed down when Krugman called him on it. The Daily Howler gives us more examples of the media taking their cues from the White House on the subject of Richard Clarke.
What did they know and when did they know it? Paul Krugman sets the record straight in today's New York Times.
"On Monday, Mr. Letterman ran a video clip of a boy yawning and fidgeting during a speech by George Bush. It was harmless stuff; a White House that thinks it's cute to have Mr. Bush make jokes about missing W.M.D. should be able to handle a little ribbing about boring speeches.
CNN ran the Letterman clip on Tuesday, just before a commercial. Then the CNN anchor Daryn Kagan came back to inform viewers that the clip was a fake: "We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video." Later in the day, another anchor amended that: the boy was at the rally, but not where he was shown in the video.
On his Tuesday night show, Mr. Letterman was not amused: "That is an out and out 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was there, and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the videotape."
But here's the really interesting part: CNN backed down, but it told Mr. Letterman that Ms. Kagan "misspoke," that the White House was not the source of the false claim. (So who was? And if the claim didn't come from the White House, why did CNN run with it without checking?)
In short, CNN passed along a smear that it attributed to the White House. When the smear backfired, it declared its previous statements inoperative and said the White House wasn't responsible. Sound familiar?"
Is CNN lying now, or were they lying before? Did the White House really call them or not? If they didn't call, why would they say they did? If they did call, why are they now claiming that they didn't? The Freedom Rider bets that the White House called. Krugman's column addresses a far more serious issue, Bush administration efforts to smear Richard Clarke with the help of the compliant media. (You must register to read Times stories, but registration is free.) While seemingly less trivial, the CNN incident tells us quite a bit about the appalling lack of journalistic standards. Wolf Blitzer, CNN anchor, passed along a smear about Clarke and then backed down when Krugman called him on it. The Daily Howler gives us more examples of the media taking their cues from the White House on the subject of Richard Clarke.
Thursday, April 01, 2004
Why Fallujah
"The inciden happened in Fallujah where two days before that, the American army shot many many people, women and children, on the streets, and -- in a bizarre shooting incident that was unjustified, killing many people."
Ghazwan al-Mukhtar, Iraqi engineer
Democracy Now! tells us why the residents of Fallujah are glad to see Americans dead.
"The inciden happened in Fallujah where two days before that, the American army shot many many people, women and children, on the streets, and -- in a bizarre shooting incident that was unjustified, killing many people."
Ghazwan al-Mukhtar, Iraqi engineer
Democracy Now! tells us why the residents of Fallujah are glad to see Americans dead.
CNN
If you think CNN is wimpy about Iraq, they won't even stand up to the White House where David Letterman is concerned. Letterman showed footage of a kid standing next to President Bush who was obviously growing bored with Dubya. CNN picked up the footage but got a call from the White House claiming that the footage was edited. They immediately gave the White House line on the story. I would have thought they would call Letterman to confirm, but when Karl Rove said jump they replied, "How high?" It is all pretty pathetic. David Letterman stands up for the truth and CNN caves.
If you think CNN is wimpy about Iraq, they won't even stand up to the White House where David Letterman is concerned. Letterman showed footage of a kid standing next to President Bush who was obviously growing bored with Dubya. CNN picked up the footage but got a call from the White House claiming that the footage was edited. They immediately gave the White House line on the story. I would have thought they would call Letterman to confirm, but when Karl Rove said jump they replied, "How high?" It is all pretty pathetic. David Letterman stands up for the truth and CNN caves.
The Last to Know
As usual the rest of the world saw different versions of the killings of Americans in Fallujah. The U.S. media felt the need to protect us all from the violent scenes when we needed to see them more than anyone else in the world.
.jpg)
Americans have also missed images of Iraqi dead. Between 8,799 and 10,649 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the occupation began last year. One brave media source, CNN, had a policy of not reporting on Iraqi civilian dead without also mentioning American casualties. Wimps! Let's look at what the rest of the world has seen.
As usual the rest of the world saw different versions of the killings of Americans in Fallujah. The U.S. media felt the need to protect us all from the violent scenes when we needed to see them more than anyone else in the world.
Americans have also missed images of Iraqi dead. Between 8,799 and 10,649 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the occupation began last year. One brave media source, CNN, had a policy of not reporting on Iraqi civilian dead without also mentioning American casualties. Wimps! Let's look at what the rest of the world has seen.
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
"Fallujah is the Cemetery for Americans" - Iraqi protesters
Today in Fallujah, Iraq four American civilians were killed when their vehicle was attacked by small arms fire. The charred corpses were pulled from the wreckage, dragged through the streets and hung from a bridge. Five American soldiers were also killed today by a road side bomb.
The response from the White House is the standard line that we must "stay the course" and fight "Saddam's remnants." What else can they say? Taking Iraq did not go as planned and violence is increasing as the June 30th hand over date approaches. I should say so-called hand over. We plan to keep bases in Iraq for years to come. Iraqis want us out of their country and they want us out yesterday. When millions of people all over the world protested this invasion and occupation we were called dupes, appeasers, or traitors. Whatever. We knew what we were talking about. I never thought I would hear myself say this, but retired CIA agents agreed with me. I guess they are traitors and appeasers too.
Today in Fallujah, Iraq four American civilians were killed when their vehicle was attacked by small arms fire. The charred corpses were pulled from the wreckage, dragged through the streets and hung from a bridge. Five American soldiers were also killed today by a road side bomb.
The response from the White House is the standard line that we must "stay the course" and fight "Saddam's remnants." What else can they say? Taking Iraq did not go as planned and violence is increasing as the June 30th hand over date approaches. I should say so-called hand over. We plan to keep bases in Iraq for years to come. Iraqis want us out of their country and they want us out yesterday. When millions of people all over the world protested this invasion and occupation we were called dupes, appeasers, or traitors. Whatever. We knew what we were talking about. I never thought I would hear myself say this, but retired CIA agents agreed with me. I guess they are traitors and appeasers too.
Monday, March 29, 2004
Mike Barnicle
Mike Barnicle was fired by the Boston Globe in 1998 when he was busted for making up a story. Barnicle was accused of plagiarism by the late Mike Royko, stole lines from George Carlin and fudged a quote from Alan Dershowitz.
Now he is making racist remarks about an interracial couple, William Cohen, former Senator and Secretary of Defense, and Janet Langhart, a former colleague of Barnicle's. The Globe reports that Barnicle said they were, "Like Mandingo." In his lame explanation he said he didn't remember the plot of the 1970s flick. Apparently he remembered that there was interracial sex.
As a rule I don't think it pays to express outrage about the Barnicle's of the world. The only demand ought to be that black people should be able to say anything without fear of being fired. When black reporters make up stories or give offense they are never seen or heard from again. I said it all in Black Commentator a few weeks back.
Mike Barnicle was fired by the Boston Globe in 1998 when he was busted for making up a story. Barnicle was accused of plagiarism by the late Mike Royko, stole lines from George Carlin and fudged a quote from Alan Dershowitz.
Now he is making racist remarks about an interracial couple, William Cohen, former Senator and Secretary of Defense, and Janet Langhart, a former colleague of Barnicle's. The Globe reports that Barnicle said they were, "Like Mandingo." In his lame explanation he said he didn't remember the plot of the 1970s flick. Apparently he remembered that there was interracial sex.
As a rule I don't think it pays to express outrage about the Barnicle's of the world. The only demand ought to be that black people should be able to say anything without fear of being fired. When black reporters make up stories or give offense they are never seen or heard from again. I said it all in Black Commentator a few weeks back.
Friday, March 26, 2004
My mother always said that if you live wrong it shows on your face. She was right.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Poor Colin Powell
Arab journalists boycotted Colin Powell press conference.
Colin Powell has had a rough week. Arab journalists walked out of his press conference in Baghdad and he was kept waiting for 30 minutes by Spain's new Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. Their meeting only lasted for 15 minutes, maybe Colin's nose was out of joint.
I find it hard to feel any sympathy for Colin Powell. At least the Spanish didn't put him on a plane and send him to the Central African Republic. Black Americans and white liberals have been making excuses for him for far too long. Powell threw Aristide out of the country he was elected to lead. If the only pay back is waiting to meet a Prime Minister he has gotten off easily. Powell plays the good cop, and his performance is starting to look stale. He is no different from Rice, Cheney or Rumsfeld and he should be judged accordingly.
By the way, the Arab journalists who walked out of the press conference showed more courage than their American counterparts have in over a year of reporting the invasion of Iraq. Two Iraqi reporters were killed by American soldiers. What did Powell have to say? Only some gobbledygook about "freedoms to Iraqis of the kind they have never enjoyed before, as you just saw exercised a few moments ago." They also have the freedom to be killed by jumpy U.S. soldiers.
Arab journalists boycotted Colin Powell press conference.
Colin Powell has had a rough week. Arab journalists walked out of his press conference in Baghdad and he was kept waiting for 30 minutes by Spain's new Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. Their meeting only lasted for 15 minutes, maybe Colin's nose was out of joint.
I find it hard to feel any sympathy for Colin Powell. At least the Spanish didn't put him on a plane and send him to the Central African Republic. Black Americans and white liberals have been making excuses for him for far too long. Powell threw Aristide out of the country he was elected to lead. If the only pay back is waiting to meet a Prime Minister he has gotten off easily. Powell plays the good cop, and his performance is starting to look stale. He is no different from Rice, Cheney or Rumsfeld and he should be judged accordingly.
By the way, the Arab journalists who walked out of the press conference showed more courage than their American counterparts have in over a year of reporting the invasion of Iraq. Two Iraqi reporters were killed by American soldiers. What did Powell have to say? Only some gobbledygook about "freedoms to Iraqis of the kind they have never enjoyed before, as you just saw exercised a few moments ago." They also have the freedom to be killed by jumpy U.S. soldiers.
Kerry and Venezuela
In retrospect, I realize I should have linked directly to Kerry's comments on Venezuela. He is vague about whether he wants Chavez to go. Here are his comments, judge for yourself.
In retrospect, I realize I should have linked directly to Kerry's comments on Venezuela. He is vague about whether he wants Chavez to go. Here are his comments, judge for yourself.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Is Kerry pursuing a losing strategy?
I should have my fill of predicting Kerry's demise. I said just a few months ago that Dean was headed for the nomination and Kerry was history. I must not have learned my lesson because I am predicting once again that Kerry will lose, unless he changes tactics.
I was appalled when I read that the Democratic nominee is backing Bush efforts to unseat a democratically elected leader. Hugo Chavez is the President of Venezuela but he is too far to the left to suit the Bushies. The will of the Venezuelan people be damned. The administration has been trying to unseat Chavez, a la Aristide, for some time now. What does Kerry have to say? He has called Bush "soft on Chavez."
John Kerry is making a terrible mistake in this misguided attempt to appeal to Cubans in Florida. Kerry should talk about how Florida was really lost. As I point out in my latest Black Commentator column, Florida was stolen when over 50,000 eligible voters were purged from the rolls in May of 2000. John Kerry has yet to publicly discuss the true theft of democracy in that state. Instead he has chosen to be defensive and in the process deny the most basic beliefs of the democratic party and put Florida back in the red state column.
If this latest strategy is a predictor of the way Kerry will run for the presidency, we should all prepare for the next Bush inaugural.
I should have my fill of predicting Kerry's demise. I said just a few months ago that Dean was headed for the nomination and Kerry was history. I must not have learned my lesson because I am predicting once again that Kerry will lose, unless he changes tactics.
I was appalled when I read that the Democratic nominee is backing Bush efforts to unseat a democratically elected leader. Hugo Chavez is the President of Venezuela but he is too far to the left to suit the Bushies. The will of the Venezuelan people be damned. The administration has been trying to unseat Chavez, a la Aristide, for some time now. What does Kerry have to say? He has called Bush "soft on Chavez."
John Kerry is making a terrible mistake in this misguided attempt to appeal to Cubans in Florida. Kerry should talk about how Florida was really lost. As I point out in my latest Black Commentator column, Florida was stolen when over 50,000 eligible voters were purged from the rolls in May of 2000. John Kerry has yet to publicly discuss the true theft of democracy in that state. Instead he has chosen to be defensive and in the process deny the most basic beliefs of the democratic party and put Florida back in the red state column.
If this latest strategy is a predictor of the way Kerry will run for the presidency, we should all prepare for the next Bush inaugural.
