ABC as Gullible as Pakistanis; CNN: No Proof from Taliban or Pentagon; Wallace American First?; Ex-Beatle Scolded Bush-Basher
1) ABC's Jim Wooten looked at how the U.S. is losing the
public relations battle in Pakistan because the local press compliantly
relays the Taliban's uncorroborated claims about U.S. atrocities. But
that's just what ABC News itself has been doing for the past few weeks.
Wooten dismissed a Taliban claim of 200 killed in a village, an allegation
ABC had relayed, complete with video of a bloody pillow, body parts and
2) CNN unable to judge whether Pentagon or Taliban more
credible. Reporting on the Pentagon charge that the Taliban may poison
U.S. food drops while the Taliban alleges the U.S. is dropping poisoned
food, a befuddled Bob Franken concluded: "The U.S. offers no proof of
its claims, the Taliban offers no proof of its claim." Jeff Levine
was just as unsure: "It's very, very difficult...to assess these
charges, to say what is what and what is right."
3) Second thoughts for Mike Wallace? Twelve years ago he
declared that if he were traveling with enemy soldiers he would not warn
Americans of an ambush. But last week he seemed to backtrack a bit,
telling the Wall Street Journal: "You certainly don't want to do any
harm to this country [or] to the war effort."
4) Actor Richard Gere was booed by a New York City
audience Saturday night for opposing "revenge" against the
terrorists as he advocated turning "that energy" into
"compassion" and "love."
5) Former Beatle Paul McCartney revealed on CBS's 60
Minutes II that he scolded an acquaintance who complained, just after the
terrorist attacks, that "we got this knucklehead for a
>>> "The Life and Death of The
American Spectator." That's the headline over an article in the
November edition of The Atlantic magazine, written by Byron York, a
Spectator veteran now with National Review, which I think many may find of
interest. York reviews the magazine's history, starting in the late
1960s, its move to the DC area in the mid-'80s and the reasons behind
its rise and fall during the 1990s. He offers a good account of how the
"Arkansas Project" was created and the behind-the-scenes inside
battle over it.
spent $3.95 to buy the magazine, but I learned from a plug for it on Jim
Romenesko's MediaNews page that it's also online. The subhead for the
lengthy article: "The conservative magazine survived and prospered
for twenty-five years before Bill Clinton came into its sights. Now the
former President is rich and smiling, and the Spectator is dead." To
read the treatise, go to: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/11/york.htm
on Thursday night looked at how the U.S. is losing the public relations
battle in Pakistan because the local press compliantly relays the
Taliban's uncorroborated claims about U.S. atrocities. But that's just
what ABC News itself has been doing for the past few weeks.
From Pakistan, reporter Jim Wooten recalled on
World News Tonight how, for instance, the Taliban claimed more than 200
civilians were killed by a U.S. bombing of a village, but "days later
when reporters visit the site, they find nowhere near that number of
casualties, but by then, the story is already out: the Taliban
version." Though the Taliban offer "no proof," when
"Pakistan's papers hit the streets" they treat the charges as
Yet, that's just how ABC News has behaved,
even on this very same incident. Far from discrediting the Taliban charge
of over 200 killed in the village, ABC's David Wright more than once
relayed the claim and when he was later allowed to see the sight he did
not undermine the allegation. He reported on the October 14 World News
Tonight/Sunday: "The Taliban claims some 200 civilians in a village
near Jalalabad were killed by a stray U.S. missile. If that's true, it
would be the deadliest strike so far in the war. The Islamic militia
escorted the press to a residential area littered with shrapnel. Inside
one house, a blood-stained pillowcase. Outside another, dozens of dead
sheep and goats as well as what appeared to be body parts. Villagers were
still digging through the rubble looking for bodies. The air has a rancid
Wooten began his unintentionally ironic
October 25 World News Tonight piece, as transcribed by MRC analyst Brad
first week of the air strikes, a stray bomb falls on an Afghan village.
The Taliban says 200 are dead. Days later when reporters visit the site,
they find nowhere near that number of casualties, but by then, the story
is already out: the Taliban version. It happens nearly every day. In the
Afghan embassy in Islamabad, the Taliban ambassador presents some murky
account of American atrocities or Taliban success. 'This time,' he
says, 'the U.S. is using chemical weapons and targeting civilians, and a
thousand have already been killed.' Often no pictures, no proof. But
when Pakistan's papers hit the streets, look at the headlines. Those
same Taliban claims word for word and many Pakistanis believe every word.
[headline: "1000 Afghanis killed so far, say Taliban"] This
story, the heads of 11 Americans presented to Osama bin Laden."
through translator: "Our newspapers are telling us the truth. They
can see it in front of them, and they are telling us the truth of what's
"And listen to this fellow on the Taliban's credibility.
'They're Muslims,' he says. 'They don't speak lies.' Those who
subscribe to that don't need headlines to persuade them, but the reports
of mounting civilian casualties, true or exaggerated, may jeopardize U.S.
support among moderate Pakistanis."
M Zia Uddin,
Editor of 'Dawn' Newspaper: "The U.S. has never done anything in
this country to win the support of the people of Pakistan. By and large,
the people look at the U.S. as not very friendly to the people."
concluded from Islamabad: "And with the headlines nearly every day
here, America isn't likely to make any new friends."
But how is the Pakistani media any less
gullible to Taliban claims than is ABC News?
Back on October 10, from Northern Afghanistan,
reporter David Wright adopted the Taliban language as he referred to how
the U.S. was killing "innocents." The October 11 CyberAlert
reported that Wright relayed how "eight miles east of Kabul a
family's home was hit. The target may have been an abandoned fort
nearby. 'We were about to get up for morning prayers when the bomb hit
our house,' says the owner, whose wife and two children were
Wright explained how many were fleeing into
Pakistan before blaming the U.S. for bombing civilians: "Many who are
leaving say it would be one thing if the Americans were only bombing the
terrorist camps in Afghanistan, but, they say, the killing of innocents is
not okay. UN officials today accused the Taliban of attacking innocents as
well. The UN says Afghan workers in three cities have been beaten by
Taliban authorities and that several truckloads of aid have been
On the next day's World News Tonight, the
October 12 CyberAlert noted, reporter Bob Woodruff focused on how the
"Taliban believes" the U.S. had killed more than 100 civilians. Woodruff highlighted the claims of two men who
had just fled Afghanistan as he reported that "the Taliban believes
more than a hundred civilians have died in the bombings." They
"believe"? That imputes a level of genuine belief beyond just a
From Chaman, Pakistan, just over the border
from Afghanistan, Woodruff began his dispatch: "At this chaotic
border crossing today, new arrivals, refugees from Kandahar. They say
after a few days of bombs falling outside the city, now they are hitting
the city center. 'Today a bomb exploded on a house,' this man says.
Eight women and their children died on the spot. Two other men told us
that same story. There are other stories too. 'I saw civilians die,'
he says. 'Yes, this morning I saw 20 or 25 killed myself.' The Taliban
believes more than a hundred civilians have died in the bombings, but
there's no way to verify any of it."
Friday night, October 12, showed how it was
possible to not buy into the Taliban propaganda as CBS did not while ABC
did again. "In Kabul, they say, only military targets have been
hit," CBS's Jim Axelrod summarized in relaying the view of some
refugees he encountered. "'No civilians are killed,' says this
man" who suggested "'They say that civilians are killed to
stop America's attacks.'" ABC's David Wright, however,
highlighted how "the Taliban claim that some 200 civilians lost their
lives in the attack on Jalalabad alone." Wright added that the
Taliban had "invited some Western journalists in to see for
themselves. Well we plan to take them up on that and we hope to have that
story in the days to come."
The Taliban had little to fear from Wright's
scrutiny. Two nights later, far from discrediting the Taliban claim which
Wooten a week and a half later dismissed as inaccurate, Wright seemed
to endorse it.
Over matching video of destroyed building,
clumps of clothing and dead animals, on the October 14 World News
Tonight/Sunday, Wright asserted from Jabal Sarazh, Afghanistan:
today, for the very first time the Taliban allowed foreign journalists to
document the damage. The Taliban claims some 200 civilians in a village
near Jalalabad were killed by a stray US missile. If that's true, it would
be the deadliest strike so far in the war. The Islamic militia escorted
the press to a residential area littered with shrapnel. Inside one house,
a blood-stained pillowcase. Outside another, dozens of dead sheep and
goats as well as what appeared to be body parts. Villagers were still
digging through the rubble looking for bodies. The air has a rancid
point during the tour, angry villagers tried to mob the journalists. The
Taliban militia had to restrain them. The villagers shouted anti-US
slogans and expressed their support for Osama bin Laden. 'America is
asking us to hand over Osama,' said this man. 'Here in Afghanistan,
everyone is Osama.'"
ABC's eagerness to pass along Taliban claims
continued this week, as detailed in the October 24 CyberAlert. Though he
conceded "there has been no independent confirmation," ABC's
Dan Harris declared on the October 23 World News Tonight: "U.S.
attacks on a village near Kandahar killed 93 civilians on Tuesday,
including 18 members of one family." 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 be targeted."
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."
For more details and a matching RealPlayer
video clip, go to: http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2001/cyb20011024.asp#1
more believable: That the Taliban would put poison into the food dropped
by the U.S. in order to show evil U.S. intentions or that the U.S. would
poison the food in order to kill Afghan civilians? If that's not a tough
one for you, then you are too jingoistically pro-U.S. to work for CNN
where, MRC analyst Ken Shepherd observed, two reporters seemed open on
Thursday to either possibility.
"The U.S. offers no proof of its claims,
the Taliban offers no proof of its claim," reporter Bob Franken
relayed in a judgment free way at a bit past 8am EDT on October 25.
Franken's assessment came a few hours after Jeff Levine treated each
claim as equally tough to prove or disprove: "Now, overall it's very,
very difficult, of course, to assess these charges, to say what is what
and what is right and what is wrong."
At about 5:20am EDT from the Pentagon, Levine
checked in: "Well, in the last couple of days, food has surfaced as a
major new weapon in the Afghan war and both sides are hoping to use this
tool to win a kind of propaganda victory. The latest accusation is that
the U.S. has used the humanitarian relief effort to poison the Afghan
people. Now, the Pentagon is heatedly denying that charge."
Stufflebeem: "We are confident in the information that we have that
they may intend to poison one or more types of food sources and blame it
on the Americans. We are releasing this information preemptively so that
they will know if the food comes from Americans, it will not be
Levine: "Now, the U.S. is actually warning
the Afghan people not to eat food provided by the Taliban, nor to consume
food coming from Taliban sources, for example, Taliban controlled Red
to note: "Another situation that comes up is that military equipment
is being stored near precious sites, near religious sites. For example, as
this picture shows, a helicopter is being parked near a mosque. The idea
apparently is to draw fire to the mosque. Now, what happened in this case,
says the Pentagon, is that the helicopter was destroyed but the mosque was
But then Levine portrayed the conflicting
claims as tough to judge: "Overall it's very, very difficult, of
course, to assess these charges, to say what is what and what is right and
what is wrong. However, both sides will continue to make these
accusations. They're both very, very anxious to win the battle for public
Three hours later, at about 8:15 EDT, anchor
Paula Zahn set up another look at the same story: "What some might
call a shocking new revelation from the Pentagon, officials say the
Taliban may intend to poison food brought into Afghanistan for
humanitarian relief and blame it on Americans. The Taliban denies this,
saying they would never poison their own people but Bob Franken is
standing by, he of course is on duty at the Pentagon this morning with
some reaction to these reports."
Franken treated the claims of both sides as
equally credible: "I think that one of the wars that's going on is
a propaganda war. We've been witnessing for the last several weeks
countering claims about casualties. Taliban making claims about civilian
casualties, the Pentagon very sensitive to that, saying that the Taliban
claims are significantly exaggerated. There is that battle that's been
going on, there's been a battle about bombs and what their purpose
really is, we've been listening to that.
one about food. And the Taliban, as you pointed out, claiming, first, that
the United States was trying to poison food. The United States, at its
briefing, saying that in fact, the concern was that the Taliban would be
poisoning the food so it could blame the United States. So you can see the
kind of battle that was going on. The U.S. offers no proof of its claims,
the Taliban offers no proof of its claim. The U.S. claimed in the briefing
that it was relying on credible sources, others told us that those were
After a soundbite from Stufflebeem, Franken
confusingly concluded: "And Paula, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan
said that this was just the United States claiming that the Taliban was
poisoning the food as it [the United States] poisoned the food so it had
somebody to blame and as a result the Afghanistan people had to be wary
about poisoned food. Did you follow that?"
Wallace having second thoughts about being a reporter first and an
Last Friday, October 19, on the
"Taste" page of the Wall Street Journal's "Weekend
Journal" section, Eric Gibson picked up on a recent CyberAlert item
which recounted remarks by Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace made during a
1989 PBS show. Gibson wrote of the media's quest to provide interview
forums to killers, such as Osama bin Laden and Ted Kaczynski:
at work here is the notion that journalism is an absolute value that
trumps all others. Nowhere was this idea expressed more categorically than
by Mike Wallace, the veteran 60 Minutes correspondent, in a 1989 panel
discussion on journalistic ethics. He was presented by the moderator with
a hypothetical case: An American camera crew traveling with enemy forces
learns of an impending ambush against American soldiers. Does a journalist
have 'a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save'
the American soldiers? 'No, you don't,' he replied. 'You're a
Gibson called Wallace to ask him about his
policy and learned: "Now that terror has made landfall in
unprecedented ways, Mr. Wallace is rethinking his earlier views.
'Look,' he said on the phone this week, 'if you have an opportunity
to talk to someone the world would love to see up close and under genuine
scrutiny by a mature reporter, you know your instincts will tell you,
'Let's go.' But 'you certainly don't want to do any harm to this country
[or] to the war effort.' In the current climate, he adds, 'you are
going to think and think and think before you do that kind of thing.' So
where exactly do you draw the line? 'You're asking for a rule of thumb.
And I don't think there is one. I really don't.'"
For more on the 1989 PBS panel discussion with
Wallace and Jennings, refer back to the October 10 CyberAlert: http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2001/cyb20011010.asp#4
Richard Gere was booed by a New York City audience Saturday night for
opposing "revenge" against the terrorists as he advocated
turning "that energy" into "compassion" and
The booing, from the same Madison Square
Garden audience of rescue and police personnel and their families which
also booed Senator Hillary Clinton, took place during the "Concert
for New York" fundraiser shown for nearly six hours on Saturday night
by cable's VH1 channel.
MRC analyst Patrick Gregory took down Gere's
poorly received remarks, which FNC's Hannity & Colmes highlighted on
Gere complained on stage to a chorus of rising
boos: "The horrendous energy that we're all feeling, and the
possibility of turning it into more violence, and revenge, we can stop
that. We can take that energy and turn it into something else. We can turn
it into compassion, and to love, and to understanding."
Gere paused as the booing grew louder, then
acknowledged: "That's apparently unpopular right now, but that's
Beatle Paul McCartney scolded an acquaintance who complained, just after
the terrorist attacks, that "we got this knucklehead for a
President," McCartney revealed Wednesday night on CBS's 60 Minutes
McCartney, organizer of the October 20
"Concert for New York" fundraiser broadcast by VH1, was profiled
by Dan Rather on the October 24 edition of the CBS magazine show. At one
point, as he and Rather sat in the Ed Sullivan Theater, where the British
group made their U.S. debut in 1964, McCartney explained why he arranged
the concert event. MRC analyst Brian Boyd took down his reasoning:
want to do it because the Mayor and the President have told me that this
is the way to go, and what, who am I to argue with that? Let's listen to
the bosses, for one. Let's show some respect. I think the day it happened
I heard someone say, 'Well, we got this knucklehead for a President.' I
said, 'Okay, listen to me, stop there. Yesterday he might have been a
knucklehead. Today he's not. Listen to me, he's your President. Get with
it.' And you know, I'm not normally that political, but I think that
you've got to do that in these circumstances. You certainly don't want the
Indians fighting the Indians. I mean, people have got to rally. So I'm
doing it and if one or two people might think it's cynical, so what? You
know, I don't care. I'm doing it for reasons I know are good reasons. And
it will help people."
A reassuring rebuke from someone foreign-born
who appreciates the Unites States the role of citizens in a time of war. -- 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