In the rush of the live Libby trial coverage, I hadn't had an opportuity to share this with everyone, and it really deserves a closer read and some discussion. It is Reason Number 867 why I adore Dan Froomkin:
And get this: According to Russert's testimony yesterday at Libby's trial, when any senior government official calls him, they are presumptively off the record.
That's not reporting, that's enabling.
That's how you treat your friends when you're having an innocent chat, not the people you're supposed to be holding accountable.
Many things are "on trial" at the E. Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse right now. Libby is the only one facing a jail sentence — and Russert's testimony, firmly contradicting the central claim of Libby's defense, may just end up putting him there.
But Libby's boss, along with the whole Bush White House, for that matter, is being held up to public scrutiny as well.
And the behavior of elite members of Washington's press corps — sometimes appearing more interested in protecting themselves and their cozy "sources" than in informing the public — is also being exposed for all the world to see.
For Russert, yesterday's testimony was the second source of trial-related embarrassment in less than two weeks. The first came when Cathie Martin, Cheney's former communications director, testified that the vice president's office saw going on Russert's "Meet the Press" as a way to go public but "control [the] message."
In other words: Sure, there might be a tough question or two, but Russert could be counted on not to knock the veep off his talking points — and, in that way, give him just the sort of platform he was looking for.
Russert's description of how he does business with government officials came when prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asked him whether there were "any explicit ground rules" for his conversation with Libby.
According to someone taking meticulous notes at the courthouse yesterday, Russert replied: "Specifically, no. But when I talk to senior government officials on the phone, it's my own policy our conversations are confidential. If I want to use anything from that conversation, then I will ask permission."
Whatever happend to that quaint, old-fashioned notion of "the public's right to know"? Things sure have changed from the days of tough questions and a healthy dose of skepticism with regard to those in power, haven't they? Muckraking — are you kidding? Full steam ahead, and pass the cocktail weenies, we're sailing on the S.S. Friendship on an all access pass.
I agree wholeheartedly with Duncan:
…But we're not talking about assuming stuff is off the record at social events, or something, we're talking about assuming stuff is off the record, by default, even when it's clear that Russert is in his role as a journalist.
Journalism ceases to be about bringing truth to the public and becomes official court stenography. Russert only reports what people agree to let him report….
This is exactly right. Arianna has more thoughts on this as well. And something tells me we'll be talking a lot more about this particular issue in the days and weeks ahead. Because, frankly, someone needs to be talking about it. A LOT.
Oh, and speaking of roasted weenies, the thought of Fred Thompson as a "Capitol Hill Hottie" has had me snickering for the last couple of days. All I can say is that folks in the Beltway have way too much free time on their hands, and ought to be doing something a little more productive such as, oh I don't know, their jobs instead of trying to do their sources? I'm just saying…
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
NED!!!
Team FDL!!!
ROOTZ!!!
Christy,
News on the Libbey Front from Jerelyn. Any comments?
Hey there. Thanks for sending me out of the house Christy. It felt good to get out.
Deb at 2 — No comments from me on that as yet — Haven’t had a chance to do anything but blog nonstop today. I’d need to have time to actually read something on that before I could comment. It’s been a bit crazy here at my house this morning.
Wow! I’m so impressed–Ned Lamont and Joe Wilson commenting on the same thread! Where else has that happened? Nowhere!
Christy Hardin Smith @
4
Take your time! I need to do other work myself right now. I just don’t want to see Scoots get away with anything.
Fred Thompson a hottie? DC really is a different world. The guy’s a decent actor, but I wouldn’t put him in the “hottie” category.
Will Andrea Mitchell be testifying?
Christy, I loved the Froomkin piece too. It’s ridiculous that any time a government official speaks to Russert at his NBC office, it’s automatically off the record. Russert needs to retake some journalism ethics courses. Libby called him about one of the network’s news shows. That’s not a casual conversation while standing in line at Starbucks.
All those conversations should be on the record until they discuss making it otherwise. Where’s NBC management in this?
Why do you all think that he spoke so freely with the FBI? I understand trying to hide that fact, but why do you think he did it in the first place?
TheOtherWA @ 7
Umm, on that, I would quote some previous critic whose name I cannot recall: “… spans the emotional range from A to B.”
solai @ 10
That’s the other thing about Russert that confuses me. If he truly considered it an off the record conversation, why did he talk to the FBI? Logically, he shouldn’t have.
Shills
solai @ 10
Because he’s fond of authority and trusts it, and because of that, is probably in the wrong business?
I’m not ashamed to admit it: I’m a “Law & Order” junkie. And watching Fred Thompson play Manhattan District Attorney has always been amusing.
montag @ 11
Well, I said “decent” and left it at that. ;)
I’m a Law and Order junkie too.
FDL has done great work in bringing general awareness of Russert’s screwed-up priorities – the protection of sources before public’s right to know.
But there is a further insidious aspect of Russert’s protection racket, in that the protection is extended only to Republicans. If Russert acted this way during the Clinton administration, you could say, gee, the guy is just being too cautious. But as we all know, Russert and the rest of the DC insider club was only too happy to throw Clinton under the bus.
Russert is a tool of the Republican party. Period.
This discussion of Russert’s role brings to mind something that Molly Ivins (RIP) said. She started out as an honest-to-god reporter, covering local car wrecks, fires, etc. She pointed out that at a car wreck, she could interview five eyewitnesses and usually get five contradictory and mutually exclusive accounts. This inculcated in her a healthy skepticism as to the value of any one source’s value as a guide to The Truth. Russert, a former aide to Senator Moynihan, basically stepped from one power center in DC into another with no training as a journalist. For him, access to power is what journalism is about, period. Any idea of skepticism as to a source’s reliability, and of weighing conflicting accounts, is something that in all truth probably never even occurs to him. He is simply not competent as a journalist. But if you want carefully controlled access to inside-the-Beltway scuttlebutt, he’s your man.
TheOtherWA @ 9
That’s the problem. AFAIK, Russert never went to journalism school or even took any journalism courses.
In a time of war, I believe that these journalists should not hide their sources behind “senor administration official” type of news stories. They should name names or don’t feed it to the public. It is unpatriotic to use baseless stories to bring our nation further into another war.
Further adventures in reading the New York Times. In 2 or 3 parts:
In today’s edition there is an article entitled “Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says” by Michael R. Gordon which lays out the US case that Iran is giving material support and expertise to Shia militias which is resulting in the deaths of Americans soldiers. Now I should say I would be totally unsurprised if Iran was giving some level of aid to Shia militias and if this aid in part took the form of improved IEDs. Just as I am equally unsurprised that Saudi Arabia funnels money to the Sunni insurgency that accounts for the vast majority of the IEDs and American deaths in Iraq. For all the hoopla, while effective, this is not sophisticated technology, which explains its popularity on all sides in Iraq. The particular IED in question here focuses its explosive force to shoot a metal projectile. You can think of it as a one shot horizontally fired howitzer. Now on to the article.
Note the title. It is not “US says deadliest bomb in Iraq is made by Iran.” The accusation that Iran is doing nasty things in Iraq is made as a flat statement and is only qualified at the end. It makes for a stronger, snappier if more misleading title. It is emblematic of what follows.
Gordon writes the Iranian role reflects “broad agreement among American intelligence agencies, although officials acknowledge that the picture is not entirely complete.”
I love that “not entirely complete”. You could drive a Mack truck through a qualifier like that and this is what Gordon proceeds to do.
Part 2 of Adventures with the NYT:
He cites military officers who say that the use of this device has “doubled” in the last year. Real numbers aren’t used so we have no way of knowing if this is an increase of from 50 to 100 or from 2 to 4. Also they say they are responsible for “a significant portion of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq, though less than a quarter of the total” in the last 3 months of 2006. Again I wondered what this meant precisely, so I looked up American deaths for those 3 months here: http://icasualties.org/oif/
Oct.106
Nov. 69
Dec. 112
for a total of 287. A quarter of this would be 72 deaths over a 3 month period and would form the upper bound of the military’s contention. Gordon never asks his military sources if this is the ballpark figure they are using. This is not by the way some secret. Iraqi insurgents know when one of their IEDs goes off. They can read casualty reports and probably do so much more closely than we do.
Nor does Gordon ask if there was anything special about US operations against Shias in the time frame of the end of 2006. This was the period where Prime Minister Maliki boasted that more than 400 Sadrists were arrested. Was there a connection? Was something else going on? Who knows? Gordon never says.
Another thing that Gordon never questions is the contention made by his sources that they only wanted to discuss “an increasingly worrisome threat to American forces in Iraq, and were not trying to lay the basis for an American attack on Iran.”
This is disingenuous to say the least. Saudi Arabia did nothing to prevent many of its citizens entering Iraq as jihadis and suicide bombers and the only reason that these numbers have declined recently is because the Iraqi insurgency can do most of this, except for the occasional suicide bomber, better on its own. In contrast, only a few scattered Iranians fighters or advisers have been caught inside Iraq. And then as I mentioned earlier, there is the question of Saudi money going to the insurgents. So if these unnamed military officers are worried about threats why aren’t they talking about the Saudi one which so far seems to be responsible for the deaths of many more Americans than the Iranians. It might also have been useful if Gordon had explored with his sources exactly how they square this “increased” Iranian threat with the US alliance with the SCIRI, the party with the closest ties to Iran.
So let me see, we continue to ratchet up tensions with Iran over its nuclear program. We send a second carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf. We appoint an admiral to command CENTCOM, but when we accuse Iranians of killing Americans in Iraq with IEDs, that has nothing to do with all of the above. And why am I supposed to believe this again?
Biodun @ 19
Most unfortunately, even the “real” journalists aren’t doing any better….
Michael Gordon at it again. Wonder if he’s been getting tips on who to talk to from Sag Harbor….
One wonders whether Russert even felt or understood how he subjected himself to criticism. Apparently the MSM has forgotten the meaning of being the fourth estate. I, for one, would be more comfortable if more of them would remember and wake up from their long dream-like state that has become our nightmare. Do you think he knows that people are making fun of him for his cavalier attitude toward being in bed with the government. You know, I remember years ago that a few journalists were chosen as the the voice of the administration, like William Safire, and when they wanted to get the word out, they made that one special call, but it appears that lately, it’s those calls and it’s most of the MSM instead of just one, and we’re living in an echo chamber. Now it seems instead of news we’ve got propaganda; it’s the rule rather than the exception. If that doesn’t change soon, you might just as well say we’re now no longer a free country.
After saying that nobody at NBC knew, how do you think that’s going to be reconciled with the fact that Ari said he told David Gregory.
And why did Wells not frame it that way to Russert?
2 questions I was waiting for:
-”since, as you claim, Gregory would have told you about VW if he had known, are you therefore calling Ari a liar?
-”What was your response to A Mitchell’s remark that everyone knew?”
Part 3 of Adventures:
Gordon cites intelligence gained from raids on “an Iranian office in Erbil and another site in Baghdad.” For some reason, Gordon fails to note that the Iranian office in Erbil was there with the knowledge and permission of our Kurdish allies or that that other site in Baghdad was the home of a high SCIRI official in the Green Zone.
He mentions arms smuggling across the Iranian border near Mehran under cover of night. Again he doesn’t talk about why our Special Forces who excel in night operations have not been used or have not found any evidence of IED component smuggling. You would think that this would be done, and if anything was found, it would be publicized to the max.
He writes, “The manufacture of the key metal components required sophisticated machinery, raw material and expertise that American intelligence agencies do not believe can be found in Iraq.” Well, that may be, but the proof? Iraq had a massive conventional (not WMD) arms industry built up during decades of conflict. Did all of this disappear?
He cites the SecDef Robert Gates that “serial numbers and other markings on weapon fragments found in Iraq point to Iran as a source.” Note to the Iranians: if this is all so sophisticated as the previous point suggests, do you think you could scrub the serial numbers or is that too sophisticated even for you?
He cites the possibility of Hezbollah logistical support and training. Given, oh say, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s close ties to Hezbollah, that’s plausible, but Hezbollah remains mostly a Lebanese organization with Lebanese concerns. The suggestion that they are broadening their horizons is probably an Israeli contribution to this narrative because they are the ones who would benefit most from its inclusion.
He cites an unnamed American intelligence assessment “described to The New York Times.” In these Libby Trial days, how media identify or qualify their sources has become and I hope remains an important issue. This one looks like someone has been blabbing classified information (just like Scooter) but it’s OK this time because it bolsters an Administration position. “Iran is implementing a deliberate, calibrated policy — approved by Supreme Leader Khamenei and carried out by the Quds Force [elite Revolutionary Guards].” So there you have it, this is really just about IEDs but, oh wait, this isn’t barnyard smuggling or a few rogue elements. The guy who really runs Iran is behind it.
Gordon goes on to point out that the principal target for these IEDs is armored Humvees. So it is odd that Gordon cites without question or amplification Secretary Gates statement that he has heard that they “can take out an Abrams tank.” Now if I were cynical, I would say that Gates is deliberately exaggerating the threat here. If the targets are Humvees in Iraq, why does he bring up Abrams tanks? Where exactly did he hear this? From Israeli reports during their invasion of Lebanon last year, maybe? Now I would assume that the Sunnis are also blowing up armored Humvees. How do the numbers of successful attacks by Sunnis on armored Humvees compare to those carried out by Shia, and what’s the ratio?
Part of a remark by a Lt. Col. James Danna buried in the article probably gives the best assessment of what is really going on.
Let me repeat the part with which I agree. There are not a lot of these IEDs out there but they are used to signal Americans to stay the hell out of Shia neighborhoods. This is a far cry from the strategic brinksmanship Gates and the President are promoting with regard to Iran’s motives. The rest of Danna’s assessment I disagree with. It’s a question of perspective. “Protecting vulnerable portions of the population” may be how he sees his mission, but it is not how Shia Iraqis see it.
In brief, Gordon lays out uncritically a major plank in the Administration’s case for a military confrontation with Iran, all the while denying this is what he is doing. I am not a fan of the current Iranian regime, but, besides never looking for the weaknesses in what he is being told, Gordon allows only one short paragraph in a long article for an Iranian denial. If Gordon wants to back the drumbeat for war with Iran, he should just say so because this is what his article and his unquestioning attitude do. He (and the New York Times) just shouldn’t expect me to accept it. It gives me a Michael Corleone-like moment. It makes me want to say, “Only don’t tell me you’re innocent. Because it insults my intelligence and makes me very angry.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02…..r=homepage
RussertTimmeh reported Friday on Imus that Scooter’s team would callMrs. Greenspan, Mitchell,another paradigm of Journalistic ethics and putting their reader’s right to know firstBob Woodward, and Jill Abramson. It sounded like there might be more than just these three.Hugh @ 21
Umm, same wavelength at the same time. More from Glenn Greenwald on this latest extravaganza from Gordon.
OT-but what’s up with the PoliticsTV video clips from the trial? Nothing from the past week is there anymore.
is all I get.
ESaund @ 17
The thing I wonder about is whether he’s a deliberate tool, or whether he’s become a tool because of the GOP’s hardline attitude. That is, he could slam Democrats and they’d still come talk to him, but the Republicans made it clear to him that if he did that to them, they’d cut him off cold. (Democrats having the disadvantage that they have to get their message out somewhere, but Republicans can always fall back on Fox.)
It’s another side of the coin of “liberal media” bullying. I’m certainly not saying that excuses being a tool, but it may provide a clue for the best way for our side to combat it.
solai @ 10
Oddly enough, I think he didn’t want Libby dragging him into this investigation kicking and screaming. I think he was basically saying, “I know NOTHING!” I think it’s pretty funny, considering Russert’s a lawyer. What do you think, Christy, or you other lawyer types?
What amazes me is the level of comfort this White House had with NBC news. While they scream to the sheep, or have Rush tell them that the media is evil and we hates them, they are seriously close to the people at NBC who they went to with their leak attempts, not to FAUX news.
Oh, and Fred Thompson’s about as hot as a wart on a frog’s butt.
Hugh @ 21 and 22:
Great media analysis as usual. Thanks. Deeply appreciate them.
OtherWA … the PTV clips will be back… as part of YouTube’s new scrub of their site for potential copyright problems, they have taken down a lot of material … PTV is working on this now and we’ll have them back soon. The clips are on PoliticsTV’s own site …see here:
http://www.politicstv.com/
OT, but, congrats, Christy, to your Mountaineers on their victory over my UCLA Bruins.
No crow around to eat. But I hear it tastest like chicken
…um, tastes like chicken. Spellcheck is my friend.
Well, Peter Jennings didn’t even graduate from high school (IIRC) but he actually worked as a reporter for years before getting a network job. Timmah needs some remedial ethics training, now.
Hugh! Great analysis!
Remember folks, Gordon worked with Judy … see this for more:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0210.html
Great disection, Hugh. I was hoping to see somebody actually do what you did with that NYT article. Hat tip.
montag #27,
Thanks for the Greenwald link. I will go look at it.
It’s funny, I still remember a talk Phil Donahue gave when I was in college more than twenty years ago. One of his main points was not to rely on official sources, because you become captive to what they want you to hear. At the time, I remember thinking that there were some things you have to get from official sources, because otherwise you’re just reporting what some outside people think, rather than people who know the actual facts (and also that this was a convenient way of saying that his style of work was inherently better than other journalists’.)
But it stuck with me all these years, and it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me now.
trifecta @ 32
As I recall, some of that had to do with Jack Welch, before he retired. Jack was very proud of the fact that he’d been able to “turn” Chris Matthews from the liberal he once was (while working as spokesman for Tip O’Neill) to a conservative worthy of NBC. Welch’s corporate, Republican view really did infect NBC to a considerable degree, and, certainly, the Bush administration knew that (remember, too, the stories about the missing tape of Welch calling NBC’s election center and telling them to call the election early, for Bush).
Thanks, Siun! *whew* I feel better now.
Siun @ 35
From Politics TV:
The idea of journalists sourcing is like blogging facts without a solid link.
trifecta @ 32
Well, sure. They scream about “liberal bias” to discount anything negative about conservatives that appears in the news, and to bully them into being stenographers, not because they actually believe it. And after it’s had its effect, normal people are more likely to believe news that’s positive about conservatives when it comes from non-wingnut outlets.
Totally, OT, but here is the email confirmation of the note that got sent to Jonah Goldberg when I helped to pay his gambling debt to the USO:
From wiki about Tim Russert’s background:
[..] At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush’s Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine’s Soroush Shehabi. A grandson of one of the late Shah’s ministers, Soroush said, “Mr. President, I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized.”
“I know,” President Bush answered.
“But does Vice President Cheney know?” asked Soroush.
The president chuckled and walked away.
http://www.upi.com/Internation…..0038-4021r
(h/t Pat C.)
TRex @ 47
LOL That’s awesome!
estiv @ 18
Actually, I think Russert has become a well-trained puppet. In truth, TV personalities are at a disadvantage to print journalists in regard to their profession, because they are more dependent on getting interesting and important guests to come on their shows, so they tend to coddle the guests more. In some respects, they need to do this because they have competitors that will if they won’t. But what Russert and the rest forgot is that access to the TV cameras is as important to the politicians and important interviewees as access to the politicians is to the interviewers. Somehow they need to straighten out the mess, and it may start with the fact that we, the people, don’t give them the deference that they crave or the credibility to continue. If we don’t watch their shows, and their ratings fall flat, that will be their best incentive to change.
Yay, Trex! I love that Jonah was getting slammed by the blogs and was named WPITW on Olberman for his non-payment of that debt. Too cool!
Hugh @ 40
What I find interesting is that all this is about shaped charges, and some repeated administration assertions that these were too sophisticated to be made by local Iraqis.
Then, along comes an ex-Special Forces guy who said, naw, we were taught how to make them with a #10 can and an aluminum pie plate….
Gaza fighters are making home-made rockets in their garages. The Iraqi locals have been able to continually modify the triggering devices of IEDs. When the US started scrambling RF in the frequency of the then-used detonators, the locals found ways to use cheap and readily available infrared devices to detonate them.
Arabs pretty much invented advanced mathematics and were probably using the zero before the Mayans. They were building large freestanding arches and domes at least concurrently with European masons. A large percentage of the stars identified in star maps today have Arabic names because the Arabs were comprehensively mapping them for maritime trade purposes more than a millennium ago.
There’s a clear ethnocentric bent to this business that the Iraqis can’t figure out this stuff themselves….
montag @
11
Among her many other journalistic writing jobs, Dorothy Parker was a wicked reviewer of plays, movies, & books. She wrote of an actress she cared little for, “She delivered a striking performance that ran the gamut of emotions, from A to B.”
Congressman Weiner from New York disses The “Republic Party” This is hysterical, and a keeper.
Marie Roget @ 54
I chose not to make that attribution, because I couldn’t remember if it was Parker, or Mencken. :)
“Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran” is completely ridiculous as a headline, as is the rest of the unsourced claptrap.
Gordon should frame it correctly: “Some military officials are telling the NYT that …” and then provide some context, including the possible motivations behind the leaks, possible reasons for the anonymity, and possible alternative perspectives on what the deadliest bombs in Iraq ~really~ are. Otherwise he should really just STFU.
I’m glad Hugh and others are going to be holding the NYT’s feet close to the fire this time around. Once people have proven themselves to be reckless and brazen liars, their burdon of proof for their stories should become a great deal heavier.
Not-for-attribution claims do not even come close.
I can’t help but comment on this Fred Thompson thing. If I were a woman, and I’m certain that I’m not, I just checked, and I’m not; but don’t ya’ll think that the guy who played Gopher on the Love Boat has got to be a little jealous. Not to mention “Cooter” from the Dukes of Hazard” (The tv show, no the movie) is probably more than a little verclempt?!? I mean they were real actors first, liars second. Although as a kid I warned my parents that Reagon would be dangerous because he can lie better than other people because he’s an actor. And I was only 14!!
Let’s make sure they know that we know … Glenn’s article is a great piece along with Hugh’s above – http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/
and emails can be sent to the NYT at
public@nytime.com (Byron Calame-Reader Representative)
executive-editor@nytimes
managing-editor@nytimes
Can I share my favorite part of the Libby grand jury testimony (so far)? At 1:54:48 in part 1, Fitz is asking Libby about his lunch with Ari and quotes the “this is hush, hush. On the QT, that Wilson wife works at the CIA” remark. There’s a pause of several seconds before Libby answers very quietly “I don’t recall that.” During that pause, you just know he’s thinking, “Damn it! Ari ratted me out! Now what do I do?”
Download the audio here.
I put it in iTunes and onto my iPod already. Drove around listening to it yesterday.
Yes, there’s a sign over my head that says “political nerd.” Why do you ask?
It’s the same people.
It’s the same people.
Iran.
Iraq.
2003.
September AND October earlier.
Iran-Contra.
Beyond.
Look at who is being silenced.
Please please please connect the dots.
Follow the yellowcake road.
[yanked off the stage by my alcohol counselor]
Tap Duncan @58
I hadn’t thought of it that way, but you have a point. :)
PF: So, Mr. Russert, what are the ground rules when you interview a government official on Meet the Press?
TR: There are no ground rules. Everything is on the table.
PF: You have no guidelines or preset boundaries for your questions?
TR: Oh, you mean the unwritten rules? Well yes, those have evolved and been agreed on over time, I suppose you could call them rules, or expectations of behavior.
PF: Such as ……..?
TR: Such as certain words and gestures mean certain things. If the interviewee touches temple or glasses, it means he/she would prefer a “Larry King” question next – like “What do you think of Laura Bush and her influence in the White House?”
If they clear their throat, the next question should be a “Barbara Walters” – like “Do you have any regrets, looking back?”
If they touch their collar, it means Next topic, NOW. No follow up.
If it seems (to me) I am going too easy on them, I ask my ‘challengers’ – “Are you going to run for president?”, or “If John McCain runs, will you support him?”, or “Could you support Hillary Clinton if she should choose to run for the highest office in the land?” I try to be tenacious and get something on the record.
If the interviewee brings in their own materials and props, it always helps. We provide a venue, but we can only do so much. We try to present a reasonable set of facts for the viewers to decide if they can trust these guys, and we give them a frame to make their case.
PF: So, do you challenge your interviewee when you know they are, say, exaggerating or even lying?
TR: I don’t see what purpose that would serve, plus it would almost certainly mean loss of “access”. My job is to get the information out, I can’t do that if it stops coming in.
montag @ 56
Yeah, they’re both pretty damn quotable these days, particularly Mencken… :)
I’ll never forget Tim Russert on Election Night 2000 with his stupid little white board and red&blue markers — in hindsight, is anyone surprised that he brought such an easily erasable office tool to the night that began our long national nightmare? Prescience on Timmeh’s part? Or was he clued in to what would happen as November dragged into December?
[adjusts Alcoa topper]
Read William Grieder’s ‘Who will tell the People’ for a good understanding of how and why the press isn’t for the people anymore.
montag #53,
So much of this case for Iranian IEDs is based on blind assertions and appeals to unnamed authorities. It’s a major threat because “they” say it is. It’s too sophisticated” for the Iraqis because “they” say it is. Then we have reporters like Gordon who write it up with nary a question or a caveat, despite the fact that someone like you or me can do a minimal amount of research on the internet and a little critical thinking and take apart the whole argument. My tolerance for journalists who get paid for doing such abysmal work gets lower every time a come across another one of these examples of stenography and hidden agendas.
stingray #57,
What surprises me is that with the Libby Trial you would think that the practitioners of this version of non-journalism would be hanging low. Instead they seem to be about as brazen as ever.
Hugh quotes Gordon:
So earlier we were to believe that Iraq had advanced weapons of mass destruction, but now we are to believe that Iraq does not have the capability to manufacture components for IEDs?
From Quotes:
I don’t agree with her on this, but often Parker was right on.
Scottir #63
ROFL! You have got the inanity of it perfectly.
Thanks, Hugh!
So Saudi-backed Sunnis kill 80% of our troops. We know it, we’ve known it all along. Saudi Wahabists backed Khobar Towers, the African embassies, the USS Cole and 9/11. We know it, we’ve known it for years. No doubt Saudis are still major donors to Al Qaeda, if not THE major donors.
Meanwhile the Bushista regime is trying to create a myth that a great danger exists because the nutcase President of Iran – who has no say over either military assets of Iran or say in how that country’s military/industrial development proceeds – is “possibly” endangering our troops? In a word, yes.
All the MSM outlets and media are enabling, not reporting. Now. Just like five frigging years ago. There is virtually no change in how the current chapter of the two-part series Securing the Realm and Rebuilding America’s Defenses is playing out when compared to the period from early 2002 up through the Iraqi War.
If our press has learned so little in five years, it has gone far, far beyond merely being “enablers.”
Knew I could find a Mencken quote on politics if I looked for half a second:
“It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.”
Something tells me he’d be thoroughly disgusted by Russert’s attitude regarding confidentiality & politicians.
I suppose Dick Cheney will appear on Meet The Press soon quoting the NYT Michael Gordon article as authoritative and disturbing evidence of Iran’s deep involvement in the War on Iraq.
Watch for it. That’ll be the start of the countdown to War on Iran — the Tonkin/Hormuz tripwire will come soon afterwards.
Fern @ 68
So earlier we were to believe that Iraq had advanced weapons of mass destruction, but now we are to believe that Iraq does not have the capability to manufacture components for IEDs?
goes to show what five years of American “can do” expertise can do to the locale of the oldest known civilization on the planet, eh?
TeddySanFran @ 73
Teddy, If that happens we are all doomed.
As one who covered city halls, courthouses, state and local government agencies for over 40 years, I can tell you the same issues confront the not-so-bigtime reporter. When is converation considered social or between reporter and official/source? But when one covering city hall calls the mayor in his office he or she usually expects the conversation to be on the record unless some other rules are agreed upon by the reporter beforehand, and this tactic should be used very sparingly. One can ask for background not attributable to the source and then go on the record afterwards. And as for all the shock and awe over Cheney’s flak Martin releasing stuff late on a Friday afternoon (with the hopes it will be misssed or treated lightly), that happens all the time at the local level. You just gotta hang around catch the bastards, then press yout editor to make sure it gets in the paper.
George at 76 — Ahhh, but what you are doing can rightly be called “journalism.” It’s the assuming it’s off the record unless and until you are notified otherwise or decide that you might want to use it part that pisses me off to no end from Russert. That’s called “infotainment.”
Fern @ 68
So earlier we were to believe that Iraq had advanced weapons of mass destruction, but now we are to believe that Iraq does not have the capability to manufacture components for IEDs?
Well, if you are going to be unfair and use logic . . .
So much of what reporters like Gordon write sounds coherent only if you aren’t paying attention, and if you are, it all falls apart. I agree with your point. We went to war over finely milled aluminum tubes and now we think they can’t make a metal can.
The aluminum tubes were manufactured in China.
Hugh @
21
It also complete neglects the fact that the DEADLIEST BOMBS (ignoring the ones that the US delivers) have targetted the Shiite populations.
Kind of hard to believe that the Shiite militias are obtaining THESE bombs from Iran!
Ed*ard Teller @ 79
You are, of course, correct.
Hugh – tack the story about Iran and al-Qaeda that they’ve tried to float, but which didn’t get the Miller/Gordon treatment, on too.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17079073/
BC Iran is capturing, turning information over about, and holding al-Qaeda in its territory, the Admin would like to make a run at Iran being “affiliated” with al-Qaeda.
Two “typical Bush administration” spots in the story.
1. Iran wants to sit down and discuss the al-Qaeda terrorist issues and also the MEK terrorism issues with the US, but no one can find the key to the chastity belt for Dr. Rice’s lips, so:
Imagine the NSC’s shock when:
2. Then the US makes All The Proper Noises about how Iran is holding these people, but like the ruthless anti-freedom, anti-liberty loving fiends that they are:
I believe Iran responded by lifting the military’s “we can’t violate our detainees’ privacy rights by releasing their names” argument from GITMO, but declined our request to send a picture of detainees stripped naked and staked in a pyramid.
The Iranian source went on to say:
Iran doesn’t disappear people or have ghost detainees and even though our leader says we can’t say what happens to people in our custody, we treat them very humanely and definitely the people we’ve suffocated to death in sleeping bags, stuffed into fake ied holes and shot, and left in stress positions where they had to choose between standing on pulverized legs which couldn’t support them or dieing have not made any formal complaints — oh wait, sorry. That was the US statement, not the Iranian one.
Oh well. I could have sworn, after looking at the pictures of Fallujah, that the most destructive bombs in Iraq come from somewhere other than Iran.
Hopefully the conversation will get loud enough that Tim’s sponsors will question if they want an association with such damaged goods.
Millineryman @ 83
What makes you think that Timmeh’s sponsors aren’t in on it? NBC if I am not mistaken is owned by GE.
RevDeb @ 83
Well I’m an idealist at heart.
montag @
53
There is so much thought behind this post.
How come everyone is making fun of Fred Thompson’s acting ability? I personally think he’s a MUCH better as a District Attorney than he is as a Senator.
Hugh @ 81
All true, but the issue of local precision manufacture sort of ignores the fact that the US sold Iraq quite a bit machine tooling over the years (as did Germany and other countries), and much of that was looted in the early weeks of the invasion.
Some showed up in scrap yards in Bremerhaven and in Denmark, I believe, but there’s no telling where all of it went, since there was no interest in stopping the looting or in tracking the looted items. Combine that with the looting at Tuwaitha of some very sophisticated high-energy explosives after US troops broke the IAEA seals there (and the likelihood of a large amount of unexploded US ordnance available), and you have all the ingredients necessary to make serviceable shaped-charge IEDs.
Most of the improvised anti-personnel devices used in Vietnam were not sophisticated machine parts brought in from elsewhere. They were crude, but effective, home-made explosives which used stolen and recovered US weapons and some homegrown ingenuity. (Not to mention that Iran and Iraq fought a near-ten-year war on each other’s territory and there’s probably no shortage of unexploded Iranian ordnance and abandoned/damaged Iranian military equipment laying around in Iraq.)
That’s at least one alternative explanation of what’s happening.
Now, throw in the previously-mentioned unlikelihood of Iran arming Sunnis, and any article on Iranian arms going to Iraq ought to be suffused with a healthy amount of skepticism.
In the blogs, we’re not exactly in a dialogue. We’re Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican. We’re not even always in a dialogue with the Press [without whom, we wouldn’t have anything to write about]. Blogs from all sides of the political spectrum criticize the Press.
Dan Froomkin, Eschaton, Firedoglake, and the Huffington Post are all weighing in on something Tim Russert said several times in his testimony at the Libby Trial:
In the cross-examination, Ted Wells couldn’t talk enough about the paradox between Russert’s talking openly with the F.B.I. about his contact with Scooter Libby yet never mentioning it publicly and his attempt to avoid testifying about it, claiming reporter confidentiality. As reddhedd says here, Froomkin says it best, referring to Russert’s assumption of confidentiality with “senior government officials.” He writes, “That’s not reporting, that’s enabling.”
While I’m not sure that Russert is a total culprit here, given the nature of his show and his job in Management, I’d rather separate the issue from him altogether. There is a modern question about the Press – particularly now. They’ve let us down, and this Valerie Plame story shows us how. This Administration has used the Press as a vehicle for their own gain. They’ve created a wall of secrecy and actively used the Press to their own advantage. The blogs and Talk Radio have come into being to deal with the Press itself, from both sides. We on the Left call them the MSM, a contemptuous term. Those on the Right call them the Liberal Media with equal disdain.
Frankly, I don’t think this has anything to do with the Press. I think it has to do with the Bush Administration. We eat each other up and eat up the Press because our current government plays the news like it’s an advertising media, a one way communication to manipulate. We’re attacking the Messenger. If we had a “normal” government, I expect we’d have a “normal” Press.
The Press can’t save us. This is a fight to liberate the Press, not destroy it.
I work for a volunteer fire department and when the local weekly calls I know that I am not off the record.
Many moons ago I thought I would like to be an investigative journalist, but I would end up the type they kill because I was exposing too much. I understand the “dance”, but really- the press was mentioned by the Founding Fathers for a reason – they knew that undetected and unchallenged human nature was a bad thing.
Citizens cannot make informed decisions without the information. And that is exactly what the powers to be like to hide.
I guess if I were making $5 million a year and going to swanky parties and being one of the “in” crowd, I might do what was necessary to protect my position. NOT!
My parents brought me up better than to sell out and become a whore.
Hugh @ 81
I read somewhere that the Chinese aluminum tubes originally sent to Iraq were slightly out of spec and so when (at least) one of them blew up inside of an Iraqi Army’s cannon barrel, they got back to China with LOUDER SPECIFICATIONS to make the damn things EXACTLY LIKE THE ITALIAN ONES they had bought originally, in the 80’s. Which, speaking of serial numbers, had Italian military issue serial numbers and the name “MSU 81″ (something like that) stamped clearly on their sides. The Chinese were told they had to be milled very precisely and evenly at 10 mm thick or they would endanger the troops.
The WORLD’S LEADING EXPERT on centrifuges, who had recently retired from the DOE’s Oak Ridge nuclear research facility was asked about the tubes and said they would have to be modified so radically to work even for a 50’s-era centrifuge design that is made no sense whatsoever for Iraq to be sending them back to China to make them even more like rocket tubes, if that’s not precisely what the freaking things were intended for!
Fortunately, WINPAC had some brilliant mind called Joe who had no such expertise but did earn a trip to Europe (where he got laughed at once he left the IAEA conference room) and then was given a sudden promotion – all for seeing the tubes as such an obvious sign that Iraq was an imminent nuclear threat to the United States of America!
It would have been much easier to make the case that we never landed on the moon, if all they had to do was find and quote a few lunatics. The ones they did use were very few and far between.
Oh well. It’s not like it was over anything important.
Very interesting thought!
Regarding Russert and the journalist-source privilege issue. I think that young journalists should be required to read and ponder the judgements of the justices in the Cooper/Miller case and subsequent appeal. The justices were quite astute in pointing out that the purpose of such confidentiality was ACCURATELY INFORMING THE PUBLIC ON ISSUES OF SOCIAL IMPORTANCE. Thus there was a difference between protecting the identity of a “whistleblower” who was revealing government malfeasance or corruption vs. a “source” that was using their anonimity to actually target a “whistleblower” or critic.
Should Russert have spoken with the FBI? In my view he was justified in doing so as long as he was pretty much only revealing what HE did/or didn’t tell Libby…i.e. his own knowledge. He could have probably have said something to the effect that he wouldn’t reveal any information that Libby gave him as a source…at least until it became clear that the “source” was using him in a manner that would target a critic or even involve him in a criminal act.
But when Libby tells the FBI that it is Russert that is his source for the classified information regarding Plame, Russert becomes embroiled in the case not merely as a journalist…but as a potential criminal. In every sense Russert would have been used as a patsy if he had sheilded Libby by firmly insisting on an unlimited journalist-source shield.
Essentially anyone who speaks with a journalist could assert that it was the journalist who told them some information (rather than someone else), or even assert that they had an alibi “meeting” with the journalist, or that the journalist had information about someone else involved…and that reporter would remain silent despite the lie.
Rather than building up trust and the reliability of the press, such acts would degrade it.
When the Media argues that having to reveal what sources say will impinge on their access to sources…they should realize that true whistleblowers like Daniel Ellsberg rarely are defending established agencies that have the ability to retaliate. To think that Libby, Rove or Cheney needed the shelter of the journalist-source confidentiality to protect them from ???? strains credulity.
montag @
11
I’m probably late to the party, but that was actually from a film critic re one of Kathryn Hepburn’s first movies.
kathryn in MA @ 92
What the press really needs is not liberation–they’ve grown too lazy to want that. What they really need is a kick in the ass–and that’s what’s going on now. That kick in the ass is the kind of scrutiny of what they’re writing and why they’re writing it that an occasional letter to the editor in the past could never do.
The lazy reporters don’t like it. The news outlets’ owners see news as a cash cow, and don’t like criticism, either. They have to have the support of government and its FCC to increase their profits, so, of course, they’re going to be kind to the hand that feeds them, because increasing profits is more important than fulfilling their Constitutional mandate to inform the public. This is not just my view, it’s Walter Cronkite’s, too.
It’s a wholly pernicious situation that’s gotten worse over time. Liberation, my ass. Kick in the ass is what they need.
POLITICS TV is asking folks to complain to YouTube for canceling their account.
More information at their site.
Will we ever get to the point when we can openly question 9/11. Pet goat. Guillani saying on tape in regard to tower 7. We knew it was going to fall, so we pulled it.
No, I quess we will never be able to talk about that.
BTW I wonder if Christie, EW, or others at the Plame House have any thoughts on the “broad case” given Fitz’s line of questioning at the Grand Jury Hearing.
It seemed to me that Fitz was VERY interested in
1) Cheney’s role,
2) the procedure and discourse of the INSTA-Declassification of the NIE and cables and other documents
There was also several sections redacted…for example relating, it seems, to some discussion about IRANIAN Counterproliferation activities. Was this redacted because it might impinge on other, future, prosecutions? Can he do this? Or does the whole transcript of the testimony have to be presented minus materialds of National Security importance?
In addition Fitz provided Libby with a lot of individuals that “appear” to have conveyed to him (or had articles) that suggested that Libby (or others) may have told them about Plame (Sanger, Evans, Pincus) but who were not brought forward as witnesses in this case.
Does that mean that Fitz actually didn’t know that Libby wasn’t their source? Or perhaps it was merely a ruse to get Libby to talk further about information that these individuals knew? It seems odd to ask him questions about reporters if, in fact, those journalists hadn’t testified that he was a source?
Perhaps these journalists weren’t necessarily needed in this prosecution on these charges? Maybe Fitz is “holding his powder” for additional charges against Libby? Or maybe Fitz is going to call these in a future trial and doesn’t want to have their testimony revealed to those he’s going to charge?
I also note that Libby’s list of potential witnesses excludes many of these. Could it be that after being queried about them at the Grand Jury that Libby’s team is afraid of putting them on the stand…that they may actually BUILD ON Fitz’s case. Maybe Fitz is playing “chicken” here?
And maybe Team Libby padded their witness list with potential witnesses like Cheney in order to have Fitz’s more limited team to have to spend time preparing for potential examinations of Defense witnesses that they never intended to call?
montag @
95
A liberating kick-in-the-ass sounds good to me!
Lady of the Lake @ 90
Evidently, if truth be told, “Big Russ” really was not very good at parenting.
Pat at 97 seems to have comflated two important disclosures:
Guillani said on tape that he was told the towers would fall so he had to move his hq (not telling the firemen or anybody else in the process). It was Silverstein who made the “pull it” remarks on PBS.