Lauer Dampened Bush Win; ABC Asked Gore if Credibility Doubts "Hurt?"; Discredited Gore Global Warming Claim Ignored
-- Back to today's CyberAlert
1) Network polls found Bush won
the debate. "Of course you have to remember that last week's snap polls
weren't entirely accurate so we're gonna have to see how this whole thing
plays out," pooh-poohed NBC's Matt Lauer. Tim Russert warned that Gore
"has to have one consistent image of just who he is."
2) Gore the victim? ABC's Jack Ford ignored Gore's
distortions, but pressed both candidates on a faulty Bush claim, and
empathized with Gore about how it felt to be doubted: "You find yourself
on stage, in front of family members and tens of millions of people, with a
moderator asking questions about your integrity and your credibility. Does
3) None of the networks touched it, and in spite of their
recent public embarrassment, not even the New York Times bothered to refute
Gore's discredited claim about the melting North Pole.
4) ABC's George Stephanopoulos attacked Bush's claim that
Gore's Russian ally Viktor Chernomyrdin pocketed IMF money, but last year
the Washington Post made Bush's point.
Repeated Shaw's Liberal Questions: Why Didn't the PBS Anchor Balance
Questions from the Left with Questions from the Right?" Picking up on
this morning's CyberAlert, the MRC's Tim Graham suggested some comparable
conservative agenda questions Lehrer could have asked. To read the Media
Reality Check distributed this afternoon by fax, go to:
To see it as an
Adobe Acrobat PDF file, go to:
night's debate was the top story on both NBC's Today and CBS's The Early Show
today, while ABC's Good Morning America spent the first few minutes on the
fact that their correspondent, Morton Dean, had safely escaped from covering a
shoot-out between the Israelis and Palestinians. As they did after last week's
debate, all of the programs carried brief interviews with both presidential
candidates, although this time neither George W. Bush nor Al Gore appeared
live. Instead, they taped interviews with network correspondents soon after
last night's debate.
All three programs also reported on polls showing that
voters thought Bush had won the debate. Good Morning America's Jack Ford asked
both Bush and Gore about ABC's poll, which found 46 percent of voters thought
Bush won the debate, compared with 30 percent for Gore and 18 percent which
declared it a tie. But on NBC's Today, MRC analyst Geoffrey Dickens noticed,
co-host Matt Lauer acted as if the results didn't mean much:
"Here's what our
overnight polls are telling us. When we asked people who had won the debate a
slight edge for George W. Bush: 40 percent of respondents to the NBC poll said
the Texas Governor won last night, 37 percent said Al Gore was the winner.
Then when we asked people who they would vote for if the election were held
today it's 46 to 41 percent for Bush. Of course you have to remember that last
week's snap polls weren't entirely accurate so we're gonna have to see how
this whole thing plays out."
NBC's Tim Russert argued
that Gore was weakened by last week's condemnations of his irritating
interruptions and sighs. Lauer reminded Russert: "When we talked about Al
Gore, Tim, you said he needed to ease off a bit, he needed to back off, not
come off as condescending or irritating. How did he do in, in that area?"
"He tried so hard, Matt," Russert empathized,
"it almost made him tentative. And that was the key. Did he lose some of
the passion and emotion and spark that has been a centerpiece of his campaign
by being almost too restrained. He tried to lay out a premise against the
Governor's record in Texas but never brought it to full closure. It will be
quite interesting to see what happens in the third debate. Whether or not Al
Gore can maintain this, kind of aloofness from battle, if you will."
Russert added: "But he's got to be careful because
there was one Al Gore as the Vice President, another Al Gore at the
convention, another Al Gore at the first debate and another Al Gore at the
second debate. He's got to be very, very careful he doesn't keep
re-introducing a new and different person to the American public. He has to
have one consistent image of just who he is."
on an error Bush made in discussing the sentences received by a trio of Texas
murderers, reporters this morning ended their half-hearted hunt for Gore
gaffes and began trying to blur the distinctions between the two on issues of
In his interview, ABC's Ford demanded of Bush: "You
had said, during the course of your response in the debate, that the three
people involved in the death of James Byrd were going to get the ultimate
penalty, the death penalty." Bush admitted he'd made a mistake:
"Yeah, unfortunately I was wrong. Two of them were going to get the
ultimate penalty." The other murderer was sentenced to life in prison.
MRC analyst Jessica Anderson observed how a few moments
later ABC played Ford's interview with the Vice President, but instead of
quizzing Gore about any mistakes he might have made (see item #3 below), Ford
hammered again on Bush's self-admitted slip: "Governor Bush was asked a
question about hate crimes law in Texas, and as part of his answer he stressed
the fact that three men had been sentenced to death as a result of the killing
of James Byrd. Well, it turns out that he was wrong. Only two men were
sentenced to death there." Ford then pitched this softball to Gore:
"Is that the type of error, the type of mistake that the Bush campaign
has criticized you for making?"
Never pressing Gore to defend any of his debate
statements, Ford gave Gore this chance to play the victim: "Let me ask
you this, and this is really more of a personal question. You're the Vice
President of the United States. You've had a distinguished career in the House
and in the Senate, and yet you find yourself on stage, in front of family
members and tens of millions of people, with a moderator asking questions
about your integrity and your credibility. Does that hurt?"
Does that hurt? Maybe it's time someone started
questioning Ford's gullibility.
reporter last night, nor any correspondent this morning, reported on erroneous
statements made during the debate by Vice President Gore on the subject of
global warming. To bolster his argument that global warming poses a real
threat to the world's safety, Gore cited a discredited study that purported to
show that the North Pole was melting -- the very same study that the New York
Times was ridiculed for putting on its front page last August -- and he
falsely claimed that pollution was on the rise.
Yet even in spite of their recent public embarrassment,
not even the New York Times bothered to refute Gore's claim about the melting
pole. Instead, the Times's debate story, written by Richard L. Berke, included
Gore's comment last night that "I can't promise I will never get another
detail wrong. I can promise you if I am elected president, I will work my
heart out to get it right for the American people."
For more on how the New York Times backed off its story
and to read a Letterman Top List prompted by the Times retraction ("Top
Ten Signs The New York Times is Slipping"), go to:
Some might expect that journalists would react by
holding Gore accountable to his pledge to be more accurate, but they would be
Here's what Gore said last night about global warming:
"I think that in this 21st century, we will soon see the consequences of
what's called global warming. There was a study just a few weeks ago
suggesting that in summertime the north polar ice cap will be completely gone
in 50 years. Already many people see the strange weather conditions that the
old-timers say they've never seen before in their lifetimes. And what's
happening is the level of pollution is increasing, significantly."
Now, the corrections that the network "Truth
Squads" should have made. First, the claim that the "north polar ice
cap" will be gone in 50 years was effectively debunked by climatologist
Fred Singer, writing in the Wall Street Journal on August 28. An excerpt:
A recent New York Times story related that "leads" of open water
in ice fields near the North Pole filled cruise passengers on a Russian
icebreaker with a "sense of alarm." Proponents of the theory of
man-made global warming grasped at the story to vindicate their warnings.
But climate experts report that open water at the North Pole is nothing
They say that after a long summer of 24-hour days it is not unusual to find
open leads just about everywhere -- especially after strong winds break up the
Indeed, a 1969 Dutch atlas contains the following passage: "The North
Pole Ice Sea is never completely frozen; 3-to-30-meter-thick ice floes
continue moving slowly around the pole. At the North Pole the winter
temperature is never lower than -35 degrees Celsius."
The atlas goes on to report that summer temperatures can rise to 10 to 12
degrees Celsius -- which is well above freezing.
Actual observations and data from meteorological instruments such as
weather satellites and weather balloons confirm that polar regions have not
warmed appreciably in recent decades.
Scientists report that the Earth did warm between 1900 and 1940, with the
climate recovering from a previous cold period known as the Little Ice Age. As
a result of these changes -- which have nothing to do with human influences --
it is warmer now than it was 100 years ago.
Singer is with the Science & Environmental Policy
Project. Its Web address: http://www.sepp.org/
Gore also asserted that "the level of pollution is
increasing, significantly." Back on Earth Day, however, environmental
activists were celebrating the decline in pollution over the previous 30
years. The National Journal's Jonathan Rauch pulled together the relevant
statistics for an April 30 story which appeared in the Washington Post's
"Since 1970, the
population has grown by almost a third, and both the gross domestic product
and the number of miles we rack up while driving have more than doubled. Yet
sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide levels are down by two-thirds, nitrogen
oxide by almost 40 percent, ozone by 30 percent; lead has effectively been
banished from the air. In the cities, unhealthy air days are down by more than
half, just since 1988. All told, the volume of toxic substances released into
the atmosphere has dropped 42 percent since then."
In his pledge last night, Gore did preface his promise
to work to "get it right" with "if I am elected
President." The media aren't giving him any reason to start sooner.
Stephanopoulos claimed on Thursday's Good Morning America that Bush got his
facts wrong when he asserted that former Russian Prime Minister Viktor
Chernomyrdin stole IMF money meant to aid the Russian people. Stephanopoulos
called it "a case where Governor Bush is stretching the facts to make a
political point," but the former Clinton White House aide was doing a
little stretching himself.
Here's what Bush said last night: "I think we can
help, and I know we've got to encourage democracy in the marketplaces, but
take Russia for example. We went into Russia. We said, 'Here's some IMF
money,' and it ended up in Viktor Chernomyrdin's pocket and others, and yet we
played like there was reform. The only people who are going to reform Russia
are Russia. They're going to have to make the decision themselves."
This morning Stephanopoulos admitted that Bush "did
look strong here and this looked like a high point in the debate for Governor
Bush, but on second thought, it looks like he also got some of his facts
wrong. Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, while he did get wealthy through the state
energy concern, there's no evidence at all that he siphoned money off from the
International Monetary Fund. Bush probably brought it up because Gore was
chairman of a commission with Chernomyrdin, so he wanted to tie them together,
but this looks like an example of what Gore has been criticized of in the
past, a case where Governor Bush is stretching the facts to make a political
Stephanopoulos argued that Chernomyrdin didn't directly
take IMF money, billions of dollars of which originated with U.S. taxpayers,
which would be difficult to prove. But there's still a strong case to be made
that Chernomyrdin, a former Gore ally, did get at the money after pumping it
through various corrupt businesses.
Here's how the burgeoning scandal was written up by
Washington Post op-ed writer David Ignatius on August 25, 1999:
Investigators are exploring whether Bank of New York served as one of the
conduits for $200 million or more that may have been diverted from IMF loans
to Russia, according to the Wall Street Journal.
This alleged diversion of IMF funds could be a political hot potato for
Gore. That's because the vice president was a loud advocate of continued IMF
lending to Russia, even as evidence mounted that some of it was being misused
by the business oligarchs and their political cronies.
Also potentially troubling for Gore is evidence that the Russian central
bank speculated with some of the roughly $ 20 billion the IMF has lent to
Russia since 1992. The Post's David Hoffman has reported that the speculation
was allegedly managed through a firm operating in the Channel Island of
Jersey. The Russians would use these funds partly to speculate in their own
securities, buying up short-term government debt known as "GKOs"
when the ruble plummeted and selling them back into the market when the price
Gore's biggest vulnerability may be his close relationship with Russia's
former prime minister, Viktor Chernomyrdin. The vice president formed what
amounted to a political alliance with the Russian premier, despite evidence
that Chernomyrdin was in league with the forces of corruption -- and an
oligarch himself through his holdings in Gazprom, the state natural-gas
monopoly he helped "privatize" under what can only be called dubious
"It was all laid out for Gore...and he didn't want to hear it,"
says one knowledgeable former government official, describing 1995 reporting
on Chernomyrdin's activities. "Our government knew damn well what was
This year, on the July 16 Meet the Press, NBC's Tim
Russert asked Gore if he now thought that Chernomyrdin was corrupt. "I
have no idea," Gore replied. "I think that in his dealings with our
country, he proved to be a person whose word was worthy of respect and we
accomplished a great deal with Chernomyrdin."
Just one debate left before the end comes to the 15
minutes of fame for the "undecided" voters annoyingly showcased by
the networks as the arbiters of who will win.
-- edited Brent Baker
with morning show analysis by Rich
Support the MRC, an educational foundation dependent upon contributions
which make CyberAlert possible, by providing a tax-deductible
donation. Use the secure donations page set up for CyberAlert
readers and subscribers:
>>>To subscribe to CyberAlert, send a
blank e-mail to:
@topica.com. Or, you can go to:
Either way you will receive a confirmation message titled: "RESPONSE
REQUIRED: Confirm your subscription to firstname.lastname@example.org."
After you reply, either by going to the listed Web page link or by simply
hitting reply, you will receive a message confirming that you have been
added to the MRC CyberAlert list. If you confirm by using the Web page
link you will be given a chance to "register" with Topica. You
NOT have to do this; at that point you are already subscribed to
To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail to:
Send problems and comments to: email@example.com.
can learn what has been posted each day on the MRC's Web site by
subscribing to the "MRC Web Site News" distributed every weekday
afternoon. To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Or, go to: http://www.mrc.org/newsletters.<<<
Home | News Division
| Bozell Columns | CyberAlerts
Media Reality Check | Notable Quotables | Contact
the MRC | Subscribe