ABC’s PR "Boon" for the Taliban; Geraldo Scolded the Media; NBC’s Today: Gore Really Won Election; Tell Taliban Where We Will Bomb
1) ABC’s Dan Harris conceded
on Tuesday’s World News Tonight that the Taliban invited him into their
territory because of the "rising civilian casualties" which they
see as "an enormous public relations boon to them."
2) Geraldo Rivera, yes Geraldo, scolded the media for
"losing its nerve." He mocked his colleagues: "You’ve all
seen the melancholy reports over the last few days. ‘Our bombing’s not
working, we’re slaughtering innocent civilians, our allies, the
so-called Northern Alliance are all bluster, no belly, the Taliban’s
winning, Ramadan is coming, winter is coming, woe is us!’"
3) What better time than three weeks into the war to
question the legitimacy of the Bush presidency. Tuesday’s Today brought
aboard Jeffrey Toobin, who declared: "I do conclude that, based on
what I saw in a year of investigation, that Al Gore won this
election." Katie Couric quoted from his book: "‘The bell of
this election can never be un-rung and the sound will haunt us for some
time.’"
4) During Tuesday’s Pentagon briefing a reporter
actually suggested to Donald Rumsfeld that, in order to minimize civilian
casualties, the U.S. drop "leaflets days in advance of an air strike
to get residents out and saying, ‘This could become a military
target.’" A dumbfounded Rumsfeld stared speechless for several
seconds as he formulated a reply.
>>> New NQ now online, thanks to the
MRC’s Mez Djouadi and Kristina Sewell: The October 29 edition of Notable
Quotables, the MRC’s bi-weekly compilation of the latest outrageous,
sometimes humorous, quotes in the liberal media. To access the issue, go
to:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/notablequotables/2001/nq20011029.asp
For the
Adobe Acrobat PDF version, go to: http://archive.mrc.org/notablequotables/2001/pdf/oct292001nq.pdf
<<<
1
ABC’s
Dan Harris conceded on Tuesday’s World News Tonight that the Taliban
invited him into their territory because of the "rising civilian
casualties" which they see as "an enormous public relations boon
to them."
Harris, who has spent the last two weeks in
Pakistan narrating Al-Jazeera video of supposed U.S. atrocities when he
was not showing ones he found through victims who crossed the border into
Pakistan, was amongst the Western reporters the Taliban brought to the
Kandahar area. Shortly after his arrival, he checked in with Peter
Jennings via videophone.
Jennings inquired: "Why do you think they
want you there?" Harris replied: "I would say it’s because of
the rising civilian casualties, what they claim is a rising number of
civilian casualties. I think they see that this is an enormous public
relations boon to them."
Nice catch there by Harris, saying it’s
"what they claim" after he stated it as a fact himself.
The Taliban couldn’t have picked a network
more eager to showcase supposed victims of U.S. bombing and willing to
relay Taliban propaganda. From the table of contents of recent CyberAlerts,
the output of Harris and his colleague David Wright:
-- Terrorists killed 16 Christian worshipers
at a church in Pakistan on Sunday, but instead of mentioning that ABC
focused on highlighting two civilians killed by U.S. bombing. "An old
woman cried out to God in pain," David Wright relayed before
stressing: "The victims included
children as young as four." For more, go to: http://archive.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2001/cyb20011030.asp#3
-- 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 dead goats. For details: http://archive.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2001/cyb20011026.asp#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?" For more, go to: http://archive.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2001/cyb20011024.asp#1
-- "So far this is a war without any
clear-cut victories or defeats," a befuddled David Wright reported
from Afghanistan on ABC’s World News Tonight. Wright relayed how Taliban
troops say they "are still alive and well-armed and that the bombing
isn’t fazing them. ‘We just laugh at these bombs,’ one of the
Taliban escorts said." For details, go to: http://archive.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2001/cyb20011016.asp#1
-- CBS and ABC aired conflicting reports about
civilian deaths caused by U.S. bombing. "In Kabul, they say, only
military targets have been hit," CBS’s Jim Axelrod summarized in
relaying the view of refugees, one of whom 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." For
full quotes: http://archive.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2001/cyb20011013.asp#2
-- ABC devoted a story Thursday night to
supposed atrocities committed by the U.S. against civilians as ABC’s Bob
Woodruff highlighted the claims of two men who had just fled Afghanistan.
He reported that "the Taliban believes more than a hundred civilians
have died in the bombings." They "believe"? For more: http://archive.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2001/cyb20011012.asp#2
-- A night after ABC dedicated a whole story
to how U.S. food drops are just "propaganda," World News Tonight
acknowledged that the Taliban are confiscating food trucks. But David
Wright put the U.S. and Taliban in the same category as he relayed claims
the U.S. bombs are killing "innocents" while "UN officials
today accused the Taliban of attacking innocents as well." For more: http://archive.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2001/cyb20011011.asp#2
-- The U.S. just can’t win. "Are the
U.S. food drops on Afghanistan making matters worse? Some relief agencies
say yes." So declared Peter Jennings on Tuesday night. ABC and NBC
stressed the futility of the effort, how the U.S. bombing, by inhibiting
ground transportation, has made matters worse -- and ABC just dismissed
the food drop operation as U.S. "propaganda." Go to: http://archive.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2001/cyb20011010.asp#1
-- ABC’s Peter Jennings chose on Monday
night to highlight how the food and medicine drops into Afghanistan are
"not popular with everyone" as one group "described it
today as military propaganda designed to justify the bombing." For
more, go to: http://archive.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2001/cyb20011009.asp#1
2
The
media’s bias in questioning the war effort is so great it’s even too
much for Geraldo Rivera, yes, Geraldo. MRC analyst Geoffrey Dickens
noticed that on his CNBC show on Monday night Rivera delivered this
scolding: "The media is, I’m afraid to say, losing its nerve. And
that malignant insecurity is already questioning a war effort that is
scarcely three-weeks old."
On the October 29 Rivera Live, he mocked his
colleagues: "You’ve all seen the melancholy reports over the last
few days. ‘Our bombing’s not working, we’re slaughtering innocent
civilians, our allies, the so-called Northern Alliance are all bluster, no
belly, the Taliban’s winning, Ramadan is coming, winter is coming, woe
is us!’"
He also criticized reporters for not realizing
the Taliban were using, as a "tactical weapon," a Red Cross
warehouse which the U.S. bombed and he castigated reporters for
rationalizing the murder of 16 Christians in Pakistan as coming in
response to the U.S. bombing.
Rivera declared on Monday night: "To me
this latest warning feeds into a disturbing trend that I’ve seen in the
press, at least since last Thursday or Friday. Regardless of the courage
and the commitment of the American public and the American military helped
along by officials who say things that are either incomplete or incorrect
the media is, I’m afraid to say, losing its nerve. And that malignant
insecurity is already questioning a war effort that is scarcely
three-weeks old. You’ve all seen the melancholy reports over the last
few days. ‘Our bombing’s not working, we’re slaughtering innocent
civilians, our allies, the so-called Northern Alliance are all bluster, no
belly, the Taliban’s winning, Ramadan is coming, winter is coming, woe
is us!’ I think it’s time for the nay-sayers to heed the famous
philosopher who said, ‘get over it!’ As Defense Secretary Rumsfeld
said today, ‘This is a marathon, not a sprint.’ And the only war
we’re losing so far is the battle not to lose our nerve."
Later, talking to Washington Post military
columnist Bill Arkin, Rivera wondered: "How in the world can you
judge a tactical approach to a war or even a strategic view of a war in
three weeks? You know to point out civilian casualties without at the same
time pointing out the fact that these guys are stuffing their stuff in
mosques and schools and maybe we, we bombed that Red Cross warehouse
because the Taliban was using that, what that warehouse contained as a, as
a tactical weapon to either keep people on their side or to, to take their
power and project their power even further. Maybe it was a target after
all. I’m just saying how can we not give the benefit of the doubt after
they kill thousands of Americans. This isn’t Vietnam. Vietnamese never
took out the Golden Gate Bridge, they never hit a shopping mall, they
never hit an office tower, they were living over there and maybe they want
to be communists and you know whatever they wanted to be."
On the killings in Pakistan, Rivera
complained: "But this is what I mean about the media play, Bill Arkin,
NBC military analyst/Washington Post military columnist. When the 16
Christians, these 16 Christians were gunned down by three masked gunmen
over the weekend the stories that I read seem to blame the United States
for the fact that these scumbags took machine guns to men, women and
children inside a church. And it was almost as if they were saying,
‘this is in retaliation for American bombing, therefore Americans are at
least indirectly responsible.’ I just, you know why isn’t it that
these, these slaughterers of innocents have done it again? These 16
people, just like the World Trade Center people?"
Indeed, recall from the October 30 CyberAlert
how Dan Rather, on Monday’s CBS Evening News, characterized the
terrorist attack in Pakistan: "In Pakistan, religious tensions are
running higher after the U.S.-led terror war in Afghanistan touched off
such events as a funeral today for Pakistani Christians gunned down during
church services yesterday. Three masked gunmen fired on the Protestant
congregation, meeting in a Catholic church, with automatic weapons,
killing at least 16 people. No one has claimed direct
responsibility."
3
Three
weeks into a war, NBC’s Today show decided, what better time to bring on
a guest to declare: "I do conclude that, based on what I saw in a
year of investigation, that Al Gore won this election."
Today led its 8:30am half hour on Tuesday
morning with an interview with Jeffrey Toobin, the legal analyst for a
competing network, ABC News, about his new book, Too Close to Call: The
Thirty-Six-Day Battle to Decide the 2000 Election. Co-host Katie Couric
quoted from the book: "‘The wrong man was inaugurated on January
20th 2001 and this is no small thing in our nation's history. The bell of
this election can never be un-rung and the sound will haunt us for some
time.’"
Apparently, it’s still haunting NBC News.
On Today, Toobin charged: "Katherine
Harris' office was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican campaign
and they decided that they did not want all the votes to be recounted
because of the potential peril to the Republican's chances. He also
lamented how "Republicans and their supporters were tougher, they
were smarter, they were more ruthless. And the Democrats, whether it's Al
Gore or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, were a little gun-shy and I think they paid
the price."
Couric prompted Toobin: "Also the
Republicans were fueled by their, their hatred of Bill Clinton which you
talk about in the book as well." She ended by wondering: "If in
fact this election was such a mess, and if as you assert the wrong person
is now in the White House, did the media do its job?"
Couric set up the October 30 segment, as taken
down by the MRC’s Geoffrey Dickens: "The 2000 election had the
nation waiting 36 tumultuous days to find out who would be the 43rd
President of the United States. During those chad-filled days we watched
as then Vice President Al Gore addressed the nation and ask that every
ballot be counted while Texas governor George W. Bush countered by making
the point that, every vote had in fact been counted. Now in his latest
book called 'Too Close To Call,' best-selling author Jeffrey Toobin gives
us a behind the scenes account of the strangest election in U.S. history.
Hey Jeffrey, good morning. Welcome back to Today. Nice to see you again. A
lot of people probably feel as if this election seems as if this election
seems like it was a lifetime ago. And you admitted to me during the
commercial the timing could not have been worse for you given what has
transpired in the last, you know, several months."
Jeffrey Toobin:
"I live in the real world and I even live in New York. And I know
that 9-11 really dominates all our thoughts right now. But you know 11-7
as some of us refer to it is a very important event in our history. And I
think, you know as we gain some distance from it and as we see what the
stakes really were in that election it may turn out to be all the more
important to find out, you know what really happened."
Couric:
"Do you feel though that people might want to put that behind them as
they focus on the present and the future?"
Toobin:
"It's a fair point and one, one thing that I'm clear about is that
you know George Bush is the winner. He's the Commander-in-Chief, he's the
President. No dispute from me."
Couric:
"Super popular."
Toobin:
"At the moment, yes. But I do conclude that, based on what I saw in a
year of investigation that Al Gore won this election."
Couric:
"In fact you write Jeffrey, quote, 'The wrong man was inaugurated on
January 20th 2001 and this is no small thing in our nation's history. The
bell of this election can never be unrung and the sound will haunt us for
some time.'"
Toobin:
"This was a bad process in Florida. This was a process that I don't
think lead to the Democratic will of the electorate being, being
vindicated. You know that is a historian's view, that's a journalist's
view. I'm not trying to get the results overturned but I do think it's our
job as citizens to look hard at how our institutions function and I don't
think they function very well."
Couric:
"But even looking at the reports, Jeffrey, following the election
that were commissioned by say the Miami Herald or various news
organizations. I remember looking at them and thinking, I am so confused.
I don't even understand, first the process, you know to some degree, and
then what exactly went wrong."
Toobin:
"Well there are so many things that went wrong. And what's so
interesting about spending a year on this project is that you see that a
lot of what we thought we knew was wrong. For example we always heard, you
even mentioned it at the top, you said, 'Well George Bush said the votes
had been counted and recounted.'"
Couric:
"James Baker, of course, that was his mantra."
Toobin:
"Over and over again. Did not happen. What happened. Remember because
the election was within a half of a percent there was supposed to be an
automatic recount in the first two days after the election. And the
results came out and that's what prompted the Republicans to say the votes
had been counted and recounted. One quarter of the votes in Florida, 1.25
million votes were never recounted. Have never been recounted to this
day."
Couric:
"Because of one woman."
Toobin:
"Because of Katherine Harris. Katherine Harris' office was a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Republican campaign and they decided that they did
not want all the votes to be recounted because of the potential peril to
the Republican's chances. So what happened was all the optical-scanned
ballots, almost all of the optical-scanned ballots, those are the one's
with like the SAT tests-"
Couric:
"Right."
Tobin:
"They were not recounted and have never been recounted to this
day."
Couric:
"Had they been would the results be different?"
Toobin:
"Don't know, don't know. That's not what I base my conclusion on.
What I base my conclusion on is things like 3700, 3400 votes for Pat
Buchanan in Palm Beach, County. Thousands of black voters not,
disenfranchised in Jacksonville."
Couric:
"In fact Ruth Bader Ginsburg, you write, wrote an opinion and then
took it out about the race issue in Florida. Tell me about that. She and
Scalia were butting heads. Justice Scalia I should call him."
Toobin:
"See this, this, again is why it's fun to write a book about this.
That's right, Justice Scalia, just a little respect Katie."
Couric:
"Okay, sorry."
Toobin:
"There was a behind the scenes struggle in the Supreme Court. Justice
Ginsburg who was one of the dissenters said, remember the majority said
that George Bush's equal protection rights were violated. And Justice
Ginsburg said, 'I don't think so. In fact the only equal protection
potentially I see is that of black voters.' So Justice Scalia wrote her a
memo that said, 'you know you are using Al Sharpton tactics in the Supreme
Court.' And Justice Ginsburg, stung by that criticism, withdrew that part
of her opinion."
Couric:
"Why didn't she stick to her guns?"
Toobin:
"Well I can't really answer that question. But I think it illustrates
a larger theme of my book which is that the Republicans and their
supporters were tougher, they were smarter, they were more ruthless. And
the Democrats, whether it's Al Gore or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, were a little
gun-shy and I think they paid the price."
Couric:
"In fact you talk about stylistically the impact that say an Al Gore
had making his case vs. George Bush making his case. But George W. Bush,
President Bush now, seemed to be so much more laid back. You mention that
he was in his pajamas at 9 o'clock night, right when the Supreme Court
decision came down."
Toobin:
"When we were all struggling to make sense of it on the front steps
of the Supreme Court. Remember it was about 10:30 in the east, 9:30 in the
Midwest where then Governor Bush was and he was on the phone with Karl
Rove trying to figure out what it meant. And he mentioned that he happened
to be in his pj's at 9:30, which is, you know that's the way George-"
Couric:
"Well why was that so much more effective stylistically than say Al
Gore who was much more academic in his sort of pursuit?"
Toobin:
"Because George W. Bush said to his people, principally, James Baker,
'get it done, period. I don't want to know the details. Get it done.' And
so that's why the Republicans had protestors in the streets, the Democrats
didn't. That's why the Republicans had governors and senators down in
Florida, the Democrats didn't. That's why the Republicans, you know-"
Couric:
"Also the Republicans were fueled by their, their hatred of Bill
Clinton which you talk about in the book as well."
Toobin:
"Bill Clinton is the great specter behind the scenes on both sides
here. You know the impeachment struggle, which I wrote my last book about,
I really didn't realize how closely tied these stories were. The
Republicans transferred all that energy, all that passion to getting this
election won and it really worked."
Couric:
"In closing, if in fact this election was such a mess and if as you
assert the wrong person is now in the White House did the media do its
job?"
Toobin:
"Well this was a hard thing to cover. I mean we were all struggling
to figure out what Florida election law was. You know I think the value of
looking back at a subject like this is you see a lot of what you didn't
see for the first time. I think the media did okay. I think we stumbled
along the way we usually do. And we did a better job than we might have.
But this is a big story in our history and I think it will only seem
bigger as the time passes."
Couric:
"Well I think it's great that you've been able to shed some light on
the whole process even though what your shedding light on isn't very
pretty. The book is called 'Too Close to Call.' Jeffrey Toobin good to see
you again. Don't be a stranger. Come back. I know you're on the other show
occasionally, whatever. Anyway thanks Jeffrey. If you would like to read
an excerpt from 'Too Close To Call,' you can log onto our website at
today.msnbc.com."
The direct address
for the excerpt: http://www.msnbc.com/news/649298.asp
This isn’t Toobin’s first book to review
events from a left-wing perspective. A couple of years ago he penned Vast
Conspiracy: The Real Story of the Sex Scandal that Nearly Brought Down a
President. It was about the right-wing effort to use the Lewinsky incident
to bring down President Clinton. A January 13, 2000 CyberAlert item
reported: Good Morning America featured ABC News legal analyst Jeffrey
Toobin as Charlie Gibson noted how in his book he wrote that "Clinton
was, by comparison, the good guy in this struggle" while
conservatives "were willing to trample...the Constitution in their
effort to drive him from office."
For details, and a photo of Toobin, go to: http://archive.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2000/cyb20000113.asp#3
4
Leave
the military work to the military, please. During the Pentagon briefing on
Tuesday afternoon, a reporter suggested to Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld that, in order to minimize civilian casualties in Afghanistan,
the U.S. drop "leaflets days in advance of an air strike to get
residents out and saying, ‘This could become a military target.’"
A stunned Rumsfeld stared forward for several seconds speechless as he
formulated a reply.
The question during the October 30 briefing
came from a male reporter whose voice I could not identify, so not anyone
such as CNN’s Jamie McIntyre, CBS’s David Martin, ABC’s John McWethy
or NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski.
Whoever he was, he inquired: "You said
that the air strikes are deliberately designed not to hit residential
centers, but you also say that the Taliban is hiding weapons, stockpiling
weapons in residential areas. Have you ruled out the possibility of
dropping leaflets days in advance of an air strike to get residents out
and saying, ‘This could become a military target’? Is that something,
without discussing future operations, could you see that possibly coming
to fruition?"
Rumsfeld was dumbfounded. After a few seconds
of silence, he repeated the recommendation: "We drop leaflets?"
He then explained what’s wrong with the idea: "The likelihood, of
dropping those kinds of leaflets, of course, would tell the innocent
people that they should stay out of mosques, but it would also tell the
other people they should stay out of mosques. It is not quite clear to me
how we would advantage ourselves."
As Fred Barnes suggested on Tuesday’s
Special Report with Brit Hume on FNC, that was a query straight out of a
Saturday Night Live parody of stupid and naive questions posed by
reporters during the Gulf War.