Video of Deaths U.S. Caused; Pull the Cipro Patent; Pledge of Allegiance Too Intolerant; "Staunch Republican" Can't Help Poor?
1) ABC and NBC gave life to Taliban propaganda by airing
video of injured civilians. ABC's Dan Harris declared: "U.S.
attacks on a village near Kandahar killed 93 civilians on Tuesday,
including 18 members of one family." Harris prompted a doctor:
"How do you feel when you see these kids?" Harris directed him:
"Angry at the United States?" Peter Jennings mocked Pentagon
denials, but CBS and NBC noted they conceded some mistakes.
2) Are most Muslims anti-U.S.? Depends which week you
watch 60 Minutes. Lesley Stahl argued on October 14: "We have seen
demonstrations growing" as "I haven't seen a single
demonstration in that part of the world for us." But a week later,
Christiane Amanpour played video of demonstrators in Pakistan, and noted:
"Look off to the sidewalk, the shopkeepers aren't joining in. In
fact, nor is most of the country."
3) On Sunday morning Sam Donaldson and Tim Russert gave
legitimacy to the liberal idea of pulling Bayer's patent on Cipro.
Russert pressed: "Canada has removed the patent from the Bayer
company and allowed other pharmaceutical companies to manufacture generic
Cipro....Should we not do that here in the United States?"
4) The Pledge of Allegiance is too intolerant? Reacting to
the decision by the New York City schools to reinstate the Pledge, Ann
Curry highlighted how the ACLU worries those "who choose not to
participate could be targeted for harassment." Curry suggested that
"perhaps the school systems across the country really should be
thinking about renewing a lesson about tolerance."
5) In one of its daily obituaries for victims of the
terrorist attacks, the New York Times reported a man "brimmed with
contrasts." He "was a staunch Republican...but he also helped
nonprofit groups raise money for food and clothing for poor
6) FNC's panel unanimously condemned CNN's decision to
submit written questions for Osama bin Laden to answer on videotape CNN
and NBC on Tuesday night aided the Taliban propaganda effort by airing
graphic video of civilians supposedly injured by U.S. bombing. Though he
conceded "there has been no independent confirmation," ABC's
Dan Harris declared: "U.S. attacks on a village near Kandahar killed
93 civilians on Tuesday, including 18 members of one family." In his
piece for World News Tonight, Harris highlighted terrible things caused by
the U.S. as he relayed how "this boy is one of the injured. His uncle
says he had heard American radio broadcasts promising civilians wouldn't
Harris prompted a doctor: "How do you
feel when you see these kids?" When he replied that he was
"angry," Harris helpfully directed him: "Angry at the
United States?" After the doctor responded affirmatively, Harris
asserted: "Everyone we spoke with at this tiny hospital said the
ongoing raids have made the population here and across the border angry at
the U.S. and supportive of the Taliban."
Anchor Peter Jennings set up the Harris piece
by mocking Pentagon denials of causing any civilian deaths. He listed
several Pentagon denials of other claims which were later contradicted and
then concluded: "And when we asked about two new incidents in which
civilians have been killed, the Pentagon said it didn't know."
In fact, as both CBS and NBC noted, the
Pentagon did concede on Tuesday that bombs went astray. "The Pentagon
acknowledges there have been a few instances of bombs hitting
civilians," CBS's David Martin reported Tuesday night before this
clip from the Pentagon's Torie Clark: "At 11:24 on Saturday a U.S.
Navy F-14 missed its intended target and inadvertently dropped two 500
pound bombs in a residential area northwest of Kabul."
NBC also ran a piece with video of kids
supposedly injured by U.S. bombing, but it aired after Jim Miklaszewski
pointed out that the Taliban are placing military equipment near civilians
and mosques and reporter Ron Allen also found some hatred of America's
enemy: "Everywhere people say they hate America, but many also now
blame Osama bin Laden."
CBS's Martin outlined the Taliban propaganda
strategy which ABC and NBC aided by going beyond words to show graphic
video: "With their communications and air defenses in ruin, the
Taliban can put up very little resistance. The chief weapon seems to be
pictures they say are innocent civilians killed or injured by the
Jennings introduced the October 23 story by
undermining the Pentagon's credibility: "At the Pentagon today,
there was another wrestling match between reporters and those who brief on
the Afghanistan campaign. Yesterday the Pentagon said it knew nothing
about an alleged stray bomb hitting a hospital in Herat in western
Afghanistan. Today a spokeswoman said a bomb had gone astray and landed
near a senior citizens' home. Yesterday the Pentagon said these aircraft
wheels probably came from some Taliban junkyard. Today we're told that a
U.S. helicopter did lose its wheels as it was heading back from a raid.
And when we asked about two new incidents in which civilians have been
killed, the Pentagon said it didn't know. From Pakistan and the
Afghanistan border tonight, ABC's Dan Harris."
Over hospital scenes, Harris asserted, as
transcribed by MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth: "Video phone footage from
Al-Jazeera television today shows body bags lined up in a hospital hallway
in Kandahar. There have been reports of civilian casualties before but
never these kinds of pictures. According to Al-Jazeera, U.S. attacks on a
village near Kandahar killed 93 civilians on Tuesday, including 18 members
of one family. There has been no independent confirmation. Across the
border in the Pakistani town of Quetta, five people arrived today at a
hospital with injuries they say they suffered in another U.S. attack, this
one about 75 miles north of Kandahar. They say 29 people died when their
village was hit Monday night. This boy is one of the injured. His uncle
says he had heard American radio broadcasts promising civilians wouldn't
be targeted, but he says his village was nowhere near any Taliban
positions. Abdul Jabar is the doctor in charge. How do you feel when you
see these kids?"
feel very sad."
"Yes. My sympathies are with the Afghanis."
"Angry at the United States?"
"Everyone we spoke with at this tiny hospital said the ongoing raids
have made the population here and across the border angry at the U.S. and
supportive of the Taliban."
hundred percent of the people are against America."
"Twenty-five-old Sammy Ullah (sp?), who lost three sons Monday night,
says as soon as he recovers, he'll go home and fight. Dan Harris, ABC
Jennings added afterward: "The Pentagon
said again today it does everything it can to avoid civilian
Over on the NBC Nightly News, Jim Miklaszewski
at the Pentagon pointed out: "The Pentagon also admits today there
have been some costly mistakes. Over the past few days two errant bombs
were dropped in a residential neighborhood outside Kabul and a thousand
pound bomb landed next a senior citizen home near Herat. But the Pentagon
disputes Taliban claims that hundreds were killed."
"I dare say just everything we've heard for the last few weeks has
been wrong and outright lies."
"The Pentagon also claims the Taliban is using civilians as human
shields, positioning some of its weapons in civilian neighborhoods and
next to religious mosques."
Anchor Tom Brokaw then set up a follow-up
story: "Now the war zone itself. Exclusive pictures tonight on the
human side of this war through the lens of an Afghan journalist who is
allowed by the Taliban to roam unescorted through the capital of
From Pakistan, Ron Allen narrated over the
hospital video: "In a Kabul hospital, doctors fail to save another
life. A man killed, his distraught son says, by shrapnel from an American
bomb. These exclusive pictures obtained by NBC News, shot with a home
video camera, show desperate conditions inside the capital where hospitals
have only a few hours of electricity each day, no blood in the blood
banks, and little medicine as some wards fill with young victims [video of
screaming kid]. Doctors literally tied this child into a bed to restrain
him. They have no pain killers. 'We try to buy medicines in the
market,' she says. 'The hospital doesn't have any.' Danishe (sp?),
an Afghan journalist whom we met across the border in Pakistan, took the
pictures during the past four days. He says the Taliban's only
restriction was that he not show any military activity.
people thought only the Taliban would be targeted,' he says. 'But now
a lot of civilian areas are being hit as well.' His pictures show
widespread devastation in some neighborhoods, especially those close to
the airport, a frequent U.S. target. Parts of the capital remain
untouched, the central market crowded. But merchants say business is bad.
Prices for essential goods rising, up 30 percent. This family says they
must survive on only tea and bread. In another neighborhood, it looks like
an earthquake hit. Huge cracks splitting these walls, people moving all
their possessions outside in case their homes collapse. Everywhere people
say they hate America, but many also now blame Osama bin Laden. 'Most
people think he has brought them a lot of problems,' he says, 'and he
should leave.' And while some take the first steps toward rebuilding
houses made of mud, thousands of people load whatever they can find and
flee the capital hoping to find safety in rural areas away from the
60 Minutes offered contradictory takes a week apart on whether Muslims are
angry at the U.S. or supportive of the U.S. war on terrorism. On the
October 14 show, Lesley Stahl argued to National Security Adviser
Condeezza Rice that "one of Osama bin Laden's goals has been to
instigate a war between the West and Islam. We have seen demonstrations
growing, spreading all across that region" and that "I haven't
seen a single demonstration in that part of the world for us."
A week later, however, on the October 21 show,
Christiane Amanpour played video of demonstrators in Pakistan, but then
observed: "Look off to the sidewalk, the shopkeepers aren't joining
in, in fact, nor is most of the country."
Back on October 14, as detailed in the October
16 CyberAlert, Stahl worried: "Now the other night the President said
that we are smoking al-Qaeda out of the caves. One of Osama bin Laden's
goals has been to instigate a war between the West and Islam. We have seen
demonstrations growing, spreading all across that region. Is it possible
that some how he has smoked us out, that he has gotten us into this
situation that he set out to get us into?"
Next, Stahl argued: "I haven't seen a
single demonstration in that part of the world for us. I haven't seen that
the people are rising up and saying, 'oh yes, it's wonderful that we're
going to root him out.' And in fact, I just keep hearing more and more of
this spreading hatred for us."
When Rice pointed
out that the demonstrators number in the thousands in nations with
millions of residents, Stahl countered: "Well,
with all due respect, it does seem that the populations of these countries
as we continue to bomb and as we continue to have missiles go off course
and hit civilians, that we are instigating not less, or support for us,
but a growing sense that we're bullies."
Fast forward a week and 60 Minutes supported
Rice's point. As taken down by MRC analyst Brian Boyd, on the October 21
edition, Amanpour observed over video
of protest marchers: "From the day America began its war on terrorism
this is what the world has seen of Pakistan: street protests, angry
people, fundamentalists demanding their government stop siding with the
"I kill you, I kill you."
"And there's another burning effigy of President Bush in what's
become daily street theater."
protester: "We will continue protesting unless America is destroyed
or stops attacking Afghanistan. Even if the police fire on us we are not
afraid to die."
"But look off to the sidewalk, the shopkeepers aren't joining in, in
fact, nor is most of the country."
"If American people need help, Pakistan give them help. We all hate
"Bush, I kill you."
protester: "Taliban forever."
"Once the demonstrators pass, life resumes its normal rhythm...That's
because most Pakistanis are, in fact, moderate Muslims part of the vast
so-called 'silent majority.' They want nothing more than to be part of the
modern world and they are resisting being dragged under by a medieval
interpretation of Islam."
follow Canada into battle....with a German pharmaceutical company. Without
any regard to property rights, or how it will likely lead to other nations
undermining U.S. patents for products they would like to have made
locally, some liberal Democrats want the U.S. to follow Canada's lead by
withdrawing Bayer's patent on Cipro so that other companies can
manufacture a generic version of it.
Their effort got a boost on Sunday morning
from ABC's Sam Donaldson and NBC's Tim Russert as both gave the idea
credibility by pressing guests about the anti-capitalist concept.
On the October 21 This Week, Donaldson pressed
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott: "Cipro is one of, of course, the
main antibiotics to deal with anthrax. Bayer has the patent on it. Canada
has decided to break that patent and, and have some generic drug made
immediately. And I think you and Senator Kennedy and others are suggesting
that maybe that should be done here. What's your thought?"
Over on Meet the Press, Russert raised the
idea with Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health:
"People now know the drug Cipro."
Russert: "You take it to deal with anthrax.
There''s been a run on it. In Canada-"
"Canada has removed the patent from the Bayer company and allowed
other pharmaceutical companies to manufacture generic Cipro, if you
"Should we not do that here in the United States?"
"You know, I think we need to maybe backtrack for a second and take a
look at all of this hullabaloo about Cipro. Cipro was the recommended
medication for anthrax. But there's a lot of other drugs that, given the
strains that we've been exposed to here in this country, those strains
are quite sensitive. And it isn't just Cipro. It's the class of
antibiotics within -- Cipro falls into, the fluoroquinolones. There's
generic penicillin, there's doxycycline, there's the other types of
Tetracycline. So there are enough drugs to handle anthrax."
school kids say the Pledge of Allegiance is offensive and intolerant to
the hosts of NBC's Today which demonstrated how, to at least some in the
media, not "offending" anyone in the U.S. who is not a citizen
is more important than affirming loyalty. On Friday morning, NBC brought
aboard Ninfa Segarra, the President of the New York City School Board, to
defend its resolution to require that the Pledge of Allegiance be said
each morning by school kids.
NBC's Ann Curry, MRC analyst Geoffrey
Dickens noticed, went to the concerns of the ACLU which claims "that
those young people who choose not to participate could be targeted for
harassment." After her colleague Matt Lauer worried about how some
kids will be ostracized, Curry suggested that in addition to
"renewing...a symbol of patriotism," that "perhaps the
school systems across the country really should be thinking about renewing
a lesson about tolerance."
That's right, the kids in schools in
Southern Manhattan who saw the World Trade Center explode are the ones who
need a lesson in tolerance.
Curry began the interview segment late in the
October 19 show by letting Segarra outline why the schools had decided to
reinstate the long-ago discontinued practice of having kids say the
Pledge. Curry then pounced: "You know the Supreme Court decision way
back in the '40s limits, basically prevents you from requiring, forcing
students to say the Pledge. But you know the American Civil Liberties
Union is very concerned about your resolution. They are saying basically
that those young people who choose not to participate could be targeted
for harassment. And The New York City school system has a lot of people, a
lot of students and perhaps even teachers who are not American citizens,
isn't that correct?"
If they don't believe in pledging allegiance
to the nation giving them a free education, then why should anyone care
about offending them? They are the ones acting offensively.
When Segarra noted that no one will be forced
to take the Pledge, Lauer remained troubled: "But how would you do
that? I mean if you are in a classroom of 30 students and five sit in a
corner and don't stand and put their hands on their hearts as the Pledge
is recited aren't the other kids going to ostracize them a little
Curry soon elaborated on Lauer's concern:
"But part of the thinking behind some of the criticism is that
perhaps maybe an addendum to a renewing of, of a symbol of patriotism that
perhaps the school systems across the country really should be thinking
about renewing a lesson about tolerance. Now is the school district, you
are focusing on that in a new way?"
Segarra assured Curry that remains a concern.
"staunch Republican" contravenes helping "raise money for
food and clothing for poor children," the New York Times contended in
one of its daily obituaries for a victim of the terrorist attack on the
World Trade Center. Sadly, the New York Times could not keep the liberal
tilt of its staff from infecting its commendable effort, which will take
about a year, to run brief obituaries every day until it has done one on
Under the heading of "Defying Easy
Categorization," the October 19 Times item began:
C. Murphy's life brimmed with contrasts and deep loyalties. He was a
staunch Republican who invested in real estate and race horses. But he
also helped nonprofit groups raise money for food and clothing for poor
children in his native Clifton, N.J."
As James Taranto, author of
OpionionJournal.com's "Best of the Web" column commented:
"If the Times thinks there's something unusual about Republicans
helping poor children, it should say so on its editorial page, not in a
news article -- and especially not an obituary."
To read the entire article about Murphy's
life, go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/19/nyregion/19MISS.html?pagewanted=all
Murphy is the eighth item and the link does
require a New York Times online registration.
week on Brit Hume's show, FNC's panel unanimously condemned CNN's
decision to submit written questions to Osama bin Laden. "If anyone
is going to give a signal to sleeper terrorists, it would certainly be
Osama bin Laden. So this is really very dangerous ground," declared
Fortune's Jeff Birnbaum.
Fred Barnes observed that "if somebody
from the White House came and said, you know, if you submit some written
questions to the President, you know, we'll get some answers for you, and
he'll give them on tape and we'll give you the tape and you can run it, no
network would have anything to do with it." Barnes argued: "They
wouldn't do it for Bush, and in World War II they wouldn't have done it
for Hitler, either." Hume pointed out how presenting questions in
advance in writing violates CNN's own guidelines.
For a rundown of CNN's questions, refer to
the October 18 CyberAlert which listed them and outlined CNN's
Hume raised the CNN move of his October 18
show, MRC analyst Patrick Gregory observed. Hume announced on Special
Report with Brit Hume:
turn to another matter that is of some interest. The Al Qaeda network has
asked the Al Jazeera network to air an interview by Osama bin Laden with
CNN, which will take the form of written questions submitted by CNN --
indeed, CNN has already submitted them -- and that bin Laden will then
answer on tape. No CNN person will be present. No follow-up questions will
be possible, therefore. And the tape will then be released. CNN says
it'll choose to use it based on whether it's newsworthy or not. And that
they will share it with anybody who wants to use it, and they'll make such
use of it as they see fit. What about that? Is that an appropriate bargain
to enter into?"
of NPR: "Well, I think it has a lot of pitfalls for CNN, and it's
only a good deal for Osama bin Laden. He gets to have -- now, I'm assuming
-- can Al Jazeera air this, the CNN interview, whether or not CNN decides
to air it at home?"
know of no reason why not."
"Well, that to me, is the most disturbing part of this. CNN gets this
tape, decides it's nothing but the usual propaganda diatribe, and decides
this isn't something we would air. Meanwhile, Al Jazeera puts it on the
air, with the CNN logo. All of a sudden, Osama bin Laden is broadcast to
millions of people in the Middle East, and here, people who get it off the
dish network, with the imprimatur of CNN on it, which makes it much more
legitimate and an even bigger figure than he is today."
Birnbaum: "It strikes me as a
contradiction to the, I think, very reasonable agreement by a lot of
networks not to air the statements of Al Qaeda spokesmen, certainly
immediately after reviewing it, for fear that maybe some sort of signal is
being given to sleeper terrorists in this country. If anyone is going to
give a signal to sleeper terrorists, it would certainly be Osama bin
Laden. So this is really very dangerous ground, and I think that any
network should think twice before pressing to get him to answer questions
in this way."
Fred Barnes of
the Weekly Standard: "Yeah, look where this came from. It wasn't
CNN's idea. It came from Al Jazeera, who said they'd been approached by
somebody who would get these questions dealt with by Osama bin Laden. I
think this is a further propaganda effort by Osama bin Laden, after the
networks dissed that last thing, that his flack -- you know the Ari
Hume piped up:
continued: "Fox didn't run it. Most networks didn't run it. It didn't
work. It was pure propaganda. It was old stuff anyway. We'd heard all
that stuff. It was blather, it was kind of pathetic. So here's a new way
that Osama bin Laden is trying to get his propaganda on the air.
here -- I mean the question I have is the same one you've asked, Brit,
before, and that is: what if somebody from the White House came and said,
you know, if you submit some written questions to the president, you know,
we'll get some answers for you, and he'll give them on tape and we'll give
you the tape and you can run it... no network would have anything to do
"But you won't know where the answers were given, you won't know who
shot them and you won't know when they where given."
"Yeah. They wouldn't do it for Bush, and in World War II, they
wouldn't have done it for Hitler, either."
'Well, what is extraordinary is that CNN is giving up complete control
over all of the credibility that its name imports."
"Let me just show you one other thing. This is an excerpt from CNN's
guidebook for its standards and practices. And it says -- quote: 'It is
permissible to outline, prior to the interview,' this is of course
speaking generally, 'general points of interest and the general subject
areas you intend to cover. You should not provide actual questions to be
asked, promise you will not ask certain questions, or promise how matters
will be treated on the air.' Now, like all such-"
interceded with a quip: "But, Brit, you left off the waiver. They
have a waiver that says, in the case of mass murderers, that rule doesn't
Apparently not. -- Brent Baker
Sign up for
Keep track of the latest instances of media bias and alerts to stories the major media are ignoring. Sign up to receive
CyberAlerts via e-mail.
questions and comments about
You can also 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, go to:
Home | News Division
| Bozell Columns | CyberAlerts
Media Reality Check | Notable Quotables | Contact
the MRC | Subscribe