Chinese Intelligence Brags of "Thwarting" Thompson Hearings

Page One

Media Also Have Boasting Rights

When Senator Fred Thompson folded his Governmental Affairs Committee hearings into the fundraising scandal on Halloween, the media coverage that night wasn’t treated any differently than any other scandal development. ABC gave it only 19 seconds, and CBS 30 seconds.

NBC aired a two-minute piece, but reporter Lisa Myers concluded: "It didn’t help that while Republicans railed about misdeeds of the Clinton administration, their leaders opposed anything outlawing the huge contributions that helped create the scandal. And few believe these hearings will really fix anything." Developments after that were mostly ignored:

• A strange twist in the Whitewater case arrived on November 6: Whitewater documents, including an uncashed check for more than $20,000 made out to Bill Clinton, were found in an abandoned, tornado-damaged car. Today gave it 17 seconds, NBC Nightly News got to it four days later. ABC and CBS never did.

• The next day, the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee continued its hearings, with White House Deputy Counsel Cheryl Mills admitting she and former Counsel Jack Quinn decided to withhold (for a total of 15 months) a White House staffer’s memo suggesting Clinton wanted the White House Office Data Base shared with the Democratic Party, an improper action. TV coverage? Zero.

• On November 13 and 14, that House committee investigated mysterious donor Johnny Chung, who gave $366,000 in suspicious donations to Democrats and made 51 visits to the White House. Despite Chung testifying in closed session, the hearings were ignored both days. ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News have yet to notice the House hearings since they began in early October.

• On November 14, Washington Post investigator Bob Woodward revealed another breakdown in the fundraising probe: "The FBI has acknowledged overlooking key intelligence information gathered as far back as 1991 that investigators believe shows further Chinese efforts to buy political influence in the United States."

A "senior official" told Woodward documents indicated that Democratic fundraiser Maria Hsia (organizer of the Buddhist temple event) was "doing the bidding" of Beijing as a Chinese agent. Woodward said the FBI found the Chinese equivalent of the CIA boasted it had "thwarted" the Thompson hearings.

CBS gave the story 29 seconds, but ABC and NBC did nothing, even though ABC’s Forrest Sawyer kissed the hearings goodbye on October 31 by noting "Thompson conceded he had not proven his charge that the Chinese government tried to influence the American elections."

In the Media

CNN Touts Paris Over D.C.

Socialism Works

CNN’s weekly magazine show Impact filed a three-part series between October 12 and 26 called "Tale of Two Cities." Reported by Kathy Slobogin and Jim Bitterman, it compared the quality of life in Paris to that of Washington, D.C. Predictably, Washington suffered in comparison, portrayed as a victim of the media’s usual suspect: Not enough government spending.

The October 12 show compared social services in the two cities. From Washington, Slobogin blamed "bad management" and middle- class flight as the cause of the city’s troubles. But in Paris, Bitterman noted approvingly "It all costs money, and some who’ve lived in both capitals believe there’s a different attitude toward spending it here." He concluded: "Have Americans paid the price for that ambivalence [toward spending] in their capital city?"

The October 19 Impact focused on child care. Bernard Shaw introduced Bitterman’s report: "It is often said that the true gauge of the health of any society is how well children are raised. If that’s the case, there’s an unhealthy gap between French and U.S. society...money and management go a long way in explaining the differences between the capitals."

From Paris, Bitterman praised French-style socialism where everything is "free." He gushed, "France takes a lot of things seriously, but probably none more so than child rearing...From even before birth, the free universal health care system constantly monitors a child’s progress. A log book is maintained on the health and illnesses of each one of them; it is required for admission to schools and camps and youth organizations." Bitterman did note that the French pay more in taxes, "two-thirds more than Americans do."

Slobogin took the opposite tack, pointing out Washington spends more per capita on schools with some of the nation’s worst results, while racking up "an astonishing record of mismanagement and waste."

On October 26 the focus was on crime and other social ills. In Washington, Slobogin again stressed bureaucratic corruption, but Bitterman’s report implied money mattered most. After citing French support of gun control as a factor in the low crime rate, he continued: "As serious as their problems might appear to Parisians, they pale in comparison to Washington or other big cities. Mainly because of some fundamental structural differences." Michel Beaujour of the Institute of French Studies explained what Bitterman meant: "Here, practically everything is subsidized or paid for by the equivalent of the federal government."

Bitterman continued: "Not only does the national government stand by its capital city, but so too do its residents. Paris is not a city that has been abandoned by the middle class the way Washington has." Bitterman refused to cite possible reasons why Washington residents might have abandoned the city, such as high taxes and mammoth, inefficient bureaucracies.

Co-host Stephen Frazier summed up the series as if he hadn’t watched Slobogin documenting Washington’s financial waste, fingering lack of money as the culprit: "It is belief, our correspondents say, that will bring Washington’s quality of life closer to Paris’s. A belief that Washington should symbolize the nation, not just showcase its history. After belief, they say, the leadership and the money for improvement will follow."

Page Three

Big Government Solutions

Hillary’s "Crisis"

On the night of the October 23 White House conference on the child care "crisis," the three major networks generated public anxiety and rallied support for big government solutions. On NBC, Tom Brokaw began: "It is one of the fundamental changes in America: working mothers, and their most fundamental need is inadequate, inconsistent, expensive and getting more so all the time. It is child care...We begin with the promise of better times. It came from the President and Mrs. Clinton today."

At CBS, Dan Rather declared: "We turn now to this country’s most important investment and two stories that raise the question — who’s watching America’s children? The President and First Lady Hillary Clinton convened a conference today to address what they called ‘the silent crisis’ of American child care."

ABC’s Peter Jennings worried: "Anybody in the country who has small children and has to go to work is faced with a common problem and it doesn’t always matter whether you’re rich or poor. What do you do about getting the kind of quality child care that you think your family deserves. Which is why the First Lady decided today, it was necessary to have a debate." That’s funny: none of the networks included a single conservative counterpoint to the crusade.

All three networks recounted the plight of "victims" of inadequate government involvement in child care. ABC and NBC turned to possible models for change, both involving big government. On ABC, Michele Norris outlined the Clinton model as found in the United States military: "Each center must follow a long list of regulations that covers everything from surprise inspections to the size of each classroom."

NBC’s Tom Brokaw turned to France: "So, how does the United States, the most prosperous nation in the world, stack up against other nations when it comes to child care. Tonight, the French way. Jean Slayman is an American computer expert, married to a Frenchman, living in Paris with her two children. Her French experience tonight, in her own words."

But what of the high taxes used to pay for the system? Slayman explained: "People here don’t seem to be as upset about high taxes. For them, children are a priority."

Janet Cooke Award

Ceasing Tradition of Live Coverage, PBS Pushes "Reform" Models Instead of Money Scandal

Washington Week in Revisionism

PBS cut its teeth on the Nixon administration by running live coverage during the day and repeats at night of the Watergate hearings. It ran Iran-Contra hearings live from start to finish. But the network with the motto "If PBS won’t do it, who will?" went AWOL on the fundraising hearings.

Instead, the Friday night PBS show Washington Week in Review recently took the unusual step of devoting parts of four shows to an analysis of campaign funding. But instead of focusing on illegal fundraising, host Ken Bode promoted campaign finance "reform" — private-money restrictions followed by government- funded elections. For diverting attention from Democratic wrongdoing to promoting liberal "reform" proposals, Washington Week in Review earned the Janet Cooke Award.

In his first taped segment on October 17, Bode began with a state-level reform model: "Kentucky — where America’s favorite vices are big business, fine tobacco, bourbon whiskey, and politics lubricated with lots of hard, cold cash. There was so much loose money in the legislature that the FBI couldn’t help but notice."

An FBI sting caught 18 legislators and lobbyists, including the Speaker of the state House. Bode turned to Joe Wright, until recently the Majority Leader of the state Senate, who said: "The politicians gonna have to get ahead of the curve on this issue. They know what the problem is. They’re a part of the problem. It’s gonna be because of the result of some great scandal, and the kind of which we seem to be on the edges of now — in both parties, for that matter."

Bode asked: "You seem to be saying overall that it’s — the problem is not what’s illegal. The problem is what’s legal." Replied Wright: "Sure it is. Legal contributions to campaigns are the greater problem than anything that anyone has found that was illegal, as far as I’m concerned."

Wright pushed through a "reform" bill that qualified candidates for Governor for $1.2 million in taxpayer matching funds once they raised $600,000. Bode asked: "How about the fact that many voters have doubts about using public money for political campaigns?"

Wright replied: "What the public has to understand: Their tax dollars are already being spent on the politicians. People are spending large sums of their personal money to have access. They get the special tax breaks through the legislation that’s passed. Their tax dollars are already being spent. It’s just not itemized as it would be if we had campaign finance reform." Bode added: "And it’s probably costing them more this way than it would the other way."

In the first test of the new system, the 1995 gubernatorial race, both major candidates accepted restrictions and government funding. Declared Bode: "At least by the numbers, it was a success. The cost of the gubernatorial campaign dropped from $24 million to $10 million. So there was a lot less money for television ads."

Bode did not explore why the reduction of TV ads is self- evidently good, although it’s obvious TV ads can dilute the power of media outlets to define elections on their own terms.

In between interviews with three crusading reporters and Wright, Bode brought on U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, "the leading opponent of campaign finance reform," to declare Kentucky’s law "an abysmal failure...As a result of not raising enough money, the Republican candidate was simply unable to do the kind of advertising that he needed to do to win the race. I’m sure the Democrats love the system."

Bode came out of the segment declaring: "In Kentucky, it wasn’t the people who cared, it was the political class that got tired of the way politics was done in the state. They got ahead of the people and did it."

On October 24, Bode listed some of the Senate hearings’ revelations, and then returned to criticizing Republicans for hypocrisy: "For all the headline-grabbing excesses of the Clinton-Gore campaign, the Republican Party won the soft-money race hands down. In fact, Republicans have raised and spent more soft money than the Democrats in every single presidential campaign, and they remain the most vocal opponents of campaign finance reform."

On October 31, Bode turned to another state model, Vermont: "Like native son Calvin Coolidge, Vermonters are unpretentious and thrifty. It just seemed wasteful to spend all that money to run for public office. So the new law requires that candidates for Governor accept strict limits on what they can raise and spend. To qualify for public funding, candidates can only accept contributions of $50 or less."

Again, after filling the segment with "reform" activists, Bode allowed one soundbite from one opponent from the Vermont Right to Life Committee. On the Washington Week Web site, Bode declared in "Bode’s Notebook" that Vermont presented "a good start for a small state and an important starting point for dozens of other states."

On November 7, Bode returned to those hated TV ads, critiquing an ad conservatives ran against Montana Democratic House candidate Bill Yellowtail. Bode brought in liberal academic Kathleen Hall Jamieson to denounce it: "This is guerrilla warfare in a political context in which a group with no accountability, including no require to disclose [sic], can walk into a television station, put money down on the table, and if the television station is not vigilant, can air something which is unfair, untrue, get it on and off the air before the press even has time to find it or to scrutinize it."

He also screened a positive DNC ad that clearly promoted Clinton which noted "Republicans in Congress cut Medicare by $270 billion dollars," which was criticized for playing "fast and loose with the rules" — but not for its inaccuracy.

While Bode was busy promoting states he thought were models for liberal reforms, he did not report states with fewer "reforms." Virginia has virtually no contribution limits yet just held a scandal-free statewide vote. The Canadian province of British Columbia provides a preview of where Bode’s rules might lead. As David Frum considered in the November 17 Weekly Standard, opponents of the socialist government were fined without trial for buying small ads denouncing the government’s tactics. Can campaign "reform" lead to government policing of nonprofit groups in their attempts to persuade the public? PBS didn’t ask.

The Washington Week Web site noted the special "reform" focus of the four shows was funded by the Ford Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, and the Schumann Foundation, all liberal philanthropies heavily involved in the fight to drain private contributions from elections. If campaign funding unfairly influences politicians, how does liberal foundation funding affect public TV programs? That’s another money question never asked on PBS.

NewsBites

Cuddly Killer. Sure, we all know the public side to Jiang Zemin: he can force abortions on his population, torture Christians for their beliefs and crush democratic movements before lunch. But did we ever get to know his cuddly, sensitive side? During Jiang’s recent trip to America, a few reporters got to know him better. On October 26, New York Times reporter Seth Faison insisted the Chinese despot’s "penchant for unexpectedly displaying his artistic talents — Mr. Jiang also likes to play piano and recite poetry — points to an unpredictable, wacky side as well."

Two weeks later, a producer read a history book before writing the intro for the October 23 Nightline. Anchor Chris Wallace began: "It is part of communism’s tragic legacy that three of this century’s worst famines all took place under communist regimes. Millions died in Stalin’s Russia in the ‘30s. The worst famine ever, more than 30 million dead, came in Mao’s China some 35 years ago. And now, in North Korea, it is happening again. The most telling indication of just how desperate the situation is may be that it has forced this proud and repressive regime to open up, to let some outsiders in so they can tell the rest of the world how much North Korea needs help."

Study

Network Evening Shows Promote Drastic Greenhouse Remedies Without Scientific Debate

A Day in the Media’s Warming Crusade

President Clinton must have found the coverage of his October 22 speech on global warming’s dangers to be very heartwarming. With grim unanimity, the Big Three networks and CNN dutifully ran stories that conjured a chilling future of environmental degradation due to global warming. While each network took the most frightening premises of liberal environmental activists as truth, they gave more skeptical views the cold shoulder.

MediaWatch analyzed the six full stories on global warming that aired on the October 22 evening news shows and discovered a fourfold advantage (12-3) for soundbites from talking heads that supported Clinton’s global warming hypothesis. Of the 12, five featured Clinton himself, and another four were spokesmen from left-wing environmental groups, two of whom claimed Clinton’s plan did not go far enough.

All three opposing soundbites came from business sources, whose profit motives are easily questioned. Not a single skeptical scientist appeared, and while reporters relayed environmentalist claims about melting glaciers and rising sea levels as fact, they ignored alternative data on those claims, as well as polls which show that climatologists don’t believe mankind has fueled warming.

ABC’s World News Tonight. Anchor Peter Jennings introduced John Donvan’s report with the most distorted view of scientific opinion, insisting that the "overwhelming majority of scientists" agree that global warming was caused by man. Donvan’s soundbites tilted to the left 3-0, featuring Clinton, Les Brown of the left-wing Worldwatch Institute, and Clinton aide Gene Sperling.

Leading into ABC’s next segment, Jennings put the blame on greedy Western ways: "To do something about global warming, we will have to come to grips with the fact that North Americans are increasingly driving the kinds of cars and trucks that do the most damage." Reporter Barry Serafin concluded his story by relaying how "environmentalists say along with technology there has to be some pain." For consumers, Serafin suggested, "fees imposed on the purchase of gas guzzlers. And for manufacturers, mandatory higher annual fuel economy standards to try to break the bigger-is-better vehicle habit." Serafin included comments from Clinton, an industry representative and an official from the leftist Natural Resources Defense Council. ABC’s soundbites tilted 5-1 toward warming advocates over two stories.

CBS Evening News. Anchor Dan Rather cast the debate as a battle not between scientific formulations but between dueling agendas: "Reactions tonight from environmentalists and industry are equally heated over whether the real threat is catastrophic climate change or catastrophic change for the economy."

Reporter Scott Pelley then retraced Clinton’s recent South American tour route. Standing on a mountain in Argentina, Pelley proclaimed, "It’s up here, near the roof of Patagonia, that you can see some of the best evidence that the world is warming. The glacier on the peak behind me and all the other glaciers of the Andes have been shrinking...it is happening all around the world — the Earth’s glaciers have been receding at an increasing pace over the last 100 years."

Pelley’s two soundbites both came from the left: Clinton and Tom Karl of the National Climactic Data Center. Although Pelley did point out "some scientists believe the warming is natural, part of a centuries-old cycle," he quickly added, "it is clear that pollution at least hastens the trend. Fumes from this morning’s rush hour will linger for 100 years."

NBC Nightly News. Anchor Tom Brokaw’s summary left science behind: "President Clinton today joined that debate and managed not to satisfy the environmentalists or the industrialists." David Bloom put his wading boots on to deliver this warning from the deep waters of environmental hysteria: "The goal is to stop global warming, which some scientists predict could flood American cities such as Washington, D.C., and south Florida, if the oceans rise just three feet." Bloom’s soundbites went 2-1 for global warming, with Clinton, a Sierra Club leader and a coal mine operator.

CNN’s The World Today. Reporter Carl Rochelle opened: "With cars, trucks, and smokestacks belching greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at every increasing rates, President Clinton used the National Geographic Society as a forum to reveal his proposal to curb what some scientists say is a cause of global warming."

Although both Rochelle and Bloom declared "some" scientists believe in warming, neither cited what the majority of scientists thought. Rochelle quoted Michael Oppenheimer of the liberal Environmental Defense Fund: "If we don’t act we’re going to have record heat, record drought..."

Anchor Leon Harris subsequently noted European criticism that the proposal wasn’t drastic enough and then, over satellite photos, presented "proof that pollution is gnawing away at the Earth’s ozone layer is becoming even more pronounced." Next, Sharon Collins reported on businesses selling cleaner technology. In the two full stories, CNN soundbites favored global warming advocates by 3-1.

Reality Check. Nearly 100 climate scientists signed the Leipzig Declaration in 1996, expressing doubts about the forecasting accuracy of computer models. No network cited that fact nor a poll highlighted in a May 23 report from the National Center for Policy Analysis which sank Jennings’ assertion of what the "overwhelming majority" of scientists think: "A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions."

Networks also failed to consider arguments suggesting warming fears are misplaced: While David Bloom foresaw a D.C. underwater, the May 23 NCPA analysis noted sea levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years, a trend far predating mankind’s Industrial Revolution (and industrial pollution).

While CBS’s Scott Pelley relayed scary anecdotes about melting glaciers, Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project added context in a September 2 analysis: "Glaciers have been retreating for more than 10,000 years, a phenomenon generally regarded as a good thing."

Singer added, "There was a strong warming trend between 1850 and 1940, as the world recovered from the Little Ice Age. But there has been no significant global warming since 1940 and, according to weather satellite data, none at all in the last two decades." Singer’s focus on long term temperatures would have provided a valuable point of view from a scientist with long work in the field of climatology.

On the Bright Side

Where’s Charlie Trie?

Koppel: "Well, I think it is. Don’t you?"

Back Page

Huang Scored Better Than Thompson

Networks Helped Clinton

Not only were the Senate fundraising committee hearings buried by the deaths of Versace and Diana, but a new study from the Center for Media Public Affairs (CMPA) discovered that Democrats got much better press than Republicans. The CMPA story count matches previous MediaWatch studies which determined that network stories on Versace outnumbered ones on fundraising by six-to-one and pieces related to Diana outdistanced fundraising by seven-to-one.

CMPA looked just at the 35 days when hearings were held and found that on the broadcast network evening news shows in July "there were nearly twice as many stories on serial killer Andrew Cunanan (67) as there were on the hearings (37)." The second round "produced fewer than one fourth as many stories (19) as the death of Princess Diana (88)."

The President fared better than anyone else in the few stories which did air. CMPA "noted every positive and negative evaluation about all individuals involved in the controversy" whether from a reporter or in a soundbite in order to measure "each individual’s success or failure in getting the media to carry his/her side of the story."

"No one was more successful in this endeavor than Bill Clinton," the September/October edition of the group’s newsletter documented. "Just as we found in our 1994 report on the Whitewater controversy, the President fared better than either his political opponents or other members of his own administration in getting his side of the story out over the airwaves. Three out of every four evaluations of Mr. Clinton were favorable or supportive of his behavior, a far higher positive proportion than any other individual received."

In fact, Clinton collected the least negative press (at 25 percent) of all those measured. He rated far better than Fred Thompson who got 79 percent negative versus 21 percent positive press. Even John Huang did slightly better than Thompson: 69 percent negative to 31 percent positive. And Charlie Trie fared only a little worse than the Senator, as 17 percent of network assessments of the fugitive were positive. Al Gore went 50-50 and ex-Energy Secretary O’Leary garnered 36 percent positive press, 15 points better than Thompson.

As CMPA explained: "Democrats on the whole fared better than Republicans in defending their motives and behavior over the airwaves. Overall, members of the Clinton administration received nearly balanced coverage (46% positive to 54% negative)." In contrast, "evaluations of Republicans were 70 percent negative overall, and Republicans in Congress fared even worse — 74 percent negative."