Month: October 2005

So said Dana Milbank at the start of Howie Kurtz’s now hour-long Reliable Sources on CNN.

The panel’s first topic: How careful we (the WaPo) were about the Karl Rove indictment story … as opposed to some other careless journalists. (The implication, of course, is that the “responsible” journalists have concluded that Fitz is essentially done. Fitz doesn’t have a knuckleball, they’re smugly certain.)

“The mainstream media was responsible,” says Dana Milbank. “… as opposed to some of the wacky stuff by the ideologues and the blogs.” (FU, DM.)

Update [2005-10-30 12:31:25 by susanhu]: Via Crooks and Liars‘ Blog Round-up, “”On or about July 10, 2003, LIBBY spoke to NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert to complain about press coverage of LIBBY by an MSNBC reporter.” Guess who that reporter was.

I can’t guess who the reporter is — David Shuster? — and I haven’t looked yet It can’t be Norah O’Donnell. No way. Can you guess?

………………………………………………

If you’re watching, comment away … i wonder how many more distortions and falsehoods will be spun. If you’ve watched Meet the Press or This Week or other Sunday shows, report in. Even though we’re “wacky,” we are curious little buggers.

by Patrick Lang (bio below)

One of the more pathetic spectacles available in today’s media is the propensity of the tribe of journalists to interview each other about events, systems and areas of expertise of which they have only a limited grasp. I suppose that tendency is thought of among them as a sign of confidence in their role as protectors of the public good, but the truth is that the bloviations of journalists are usually sadly demonstrative of ignorance of anything but their trade.

Members of Congress, their staffs and the press are (with some exceptions) so poorly grounded in the underlying matter of their stories that they are very easily manipulated and deceived by anyone who cares to do so. The White House, the Department of Defense, the State Department, various lobbies, and just about anyone who has an assured manner and credentials can use the broadcast and print press to “project” whatever they want through the media.

When you add to that a use of the real power which the state has over the corporate media through the implicit and sometimes rather explicit threat of denial of access to people and stories and therefore a threat to the “bottom line” then it becomes child’s play to use them as ventriloquist’s dummies.

Unfortunately, the public media are not immune to similar “control” since they are dependent on public funding controlled by political appointees.

This combination of media people’s ignorance of “real life” and the ease with which they are manipulated gives a certain zany quality to the spectacle of a panel discussion in which they clearly think that they have some special insight into the march of history.

Saturday night, Time Russert moderated a panel made up of Russert, Andrea Mitchell, David Gregory and Pete Williams. In the course of this discussion the group gravely asserted that Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger was obviously a “nepotistic” fraud because Wilson’s wife worked in the staff section at CIA responsible for sending him on the trip, and that, in essence, it was his wife who had sent him on the trip.

This is clearly a White House/RNC talking point.

It was said in the panel, without contest that this trip was a “boondoggle,” implying, at least to me, that the Wilson family budget benefited from this trip through payments to Wilson for his services. In fact, Wilson was not paid for the trip.

The CIA covered his expenses, but they did not pay him a fee. This was “pro bono.” His wife “sent him” on the trip? I do not wish to denigrate Mrs. Wilson’s career attainments, but the fact is that she lacked the authority to do that. What seems to have happened is that when the issue of sending someone to Niger to investigate the uranium issue was under discussion she, at some point, pointed out that her husband, a retired career diplomat, had experience in both Iraq and Niger and might serve this purpose. Someone followed up on that hint. What a surprise!!

It was said in the panel that Wilson lied in his book and in his now famous New York Times oped piece. I have read his book, talked to him, read his op-ed, and It does not seem to me that he lied. I would accept the charge that his language was not always as precise as it might have been, but, in its essence it seems to me that his reporting was correct.

He said that the VP was responsible for his mission to Africa. Since Cheney’s question to a CIA briefer was ultimately responsible for his trip, it is reasonable that Wilson might have thought that Cheney had asked that someone should go find out if there was anything to the “yellow cake” story.

This is lying? Continued below:

My father is a saver.  He had a lucrative career as a corporate lawyer.  But, he didn’t spend like it.  Although I never wanted for anything, we were certainly not awash in things.  My mom and dad have had the same washing machine for 20 years.  It works fine, so there is no need to replace it or upgrade to the newest model.  My parents conspicuously saved for their retirement.  And now, they are fine.  I often joke with my dad that he should get the crowbar out, open his wallet and spend some money on himself.  The point is my dad is a saver.  And I am damn proud of his actions.

Civil War, Started By Our Invasion, and U.S. Casulies Of Iraq Innocents ‘Quietly’ Released By Pentagon!!

Oct 26, 2005: Over 600 vigils were held around the US to mark the death of the 2000th US soldier in Iraq. This one took place in Times Square, New York City.