Sept. 11 Not "Terrorism" to BBC; Hugging a Victim = "Taking Sides" to Larry King; Geraldo: Monicagate Distracted FBI From Bin Laden
1) Since the airport security bill would still allow
private screeners at some airports, Dan Rather called it a
"watered-down compromise bill."
2) Four out of five questions posed by Nightline host
Chris Bury were hostile to the Bush plan to try suspected terrorists in
military tribunals. He suggested that the plan would demonstrate
"hypocrisy" since the U.S. would "essentially doing the
same thing" the U.S. condemned Peru for doing in the case of Lori
Berenson.
3) Hugging a victim equals "taking sides" in the
war on terrorism? When ABC’s Barbara Walter revealed that she offers
comforting hugs to September 11 victims whom she interviews, CNN’s Larry
King pounced: "What about those who might say, should the journalist
hug someone? Should a journalist take sides?"
4) Update: On Thursday Gallup posted an analysis about the
poll cited in the November 15 CyberAlert. Gallup discovered:
"The only organization that gets a negative rating by the public is
the news media. A majority, 54%, disapprove of the way the media are
handling the war on terrorism, while 43% approve."
5) The BBC World Service has decided to not call the
events of September 11 "terrorism," the Guardian reported. A BBC
official worried that describing the attacks as terrorism "could
downgrade your status as an impartial and independent broadcaster."
6) Geraldo Rivera on his first day on FNC: "I would
bet you that I can find you 4,000, 5,000 FBI agents who wish to God they
weren’t assigned to Whitewater, Monicagate, Bill Clinton -- that instead
they were on the trail of Osama bin Laden and the people who were plotting
mass murder against us." Plus, a reminder of Rivera’s liberal
crusading over the years on CNBC.
1
Republicans
caved in on the airport baggage screening issue, but since the deal struck
still would allow a few airports to not have screeners on the federal
payroll, Dan Rather called it a "watered-down compromise bill."
Rather set up a story on the November 15 CBS
Evening News: "Holiday travel is coming up fast now, so as CBS’s
Bob Schieffer reports, at long last there’s talk of a watered-down
compromise bill ready for takeoff."
Schieffer explained the provision which led
Rather to call it "watered-down": "To satisfy conservatives
worried about enlarging the government, a few airports will be allowed to
experiment with a combination of federal supervisors and private baggage
screeners. Other airports can opt for a similar program in two
years."
2
ABC’s
Chris Bury, hosting Wednesday’s Nightline, suggested that the Bush
proposal to try suspected terrorists in a military tribunal would
demonstrate "hypocrisy" since the U.S. would "essentially
doing the same thing" the U.S. condemned Peru for doing in the case
of Lori Berenson.
Bury’s assertion came in the last question
of five he posed, four of which were hostile to the military trial plan,
MRC analyst Jessica Anderson observed.
On the November 14 Nightline, Bury interviewed
former Deputy Attorney General George Terwilliger, who supports the
military trial plan, and Georgetown University law professor David Cole,
who opposes it. Bury’s questions:
-- "George, isn't it a stronger statement
for the United States and its legal system to show terrorists and the rest
of the world that this system is resilient enough even to handle such
crimes as the attacks September 11th?"
-- "David Cole, at the same time we have
handled other terrorist cases in the legal system, including of course,
the World Trade Center bombing that convicted Ramzi Yousef, the McVeigh
case. We have used the legal system to handle this kind of thing
before."
-- "George, why is this so extraordinary
that a United States court could not handle it?"
-- Bury’s only question which challenged
opposition to the plan: "And George, let's bring in David Cole here.
What about that point, that sources and intelligence methods would be
compromised by a public trial?"
-- "I just want to bring up one other
point in the international community and the environment with which we're
operating. Isn't it a matter of hypocrisy for the United States to condemn
such trials as the one of Lori Berenson, who was accused in Peru by a
military tribunal. The administration, both administrations have just
castigated the Peruvian government for that, and at the same time, set up
a system whereby we would essentially be doing the same thing?"
Terwilliger
countered: "Chris, you surely don't suggest that there is a parallel
between whatever Lori Berenson was allegedly involved in and what happened
in the United States on September 11th? It's not hypocritical at all. This
was a crime against all civilized and law-abiding nations."
Some conservatives also oppose the plan, such
as William Safire in Thursday’s New York Times, but that does not excuse
Bury from his duty to equally challenge advocates on both sides.
3
Journalists
are human too, even if Larry King thinks it violates a journalistic norm.
When ABC’s Barbara Walter revealed Wednesday night that she offers
comforting hugs to September 11 victims whom she interviews, CNN’s Larry
King pounced: "What about those who might say, should the journalist
hug someone? Should a journalist take sides?" Walters replied:
"I don’t care." But she quickly made clear she does her
hugging off the air.
Walters appeared on the November 14 Larry King
Live. King queried: "You've been doing this for a while, but everyone
has different thoughts. What is it like for you to interview people in
severe emotional distress?"
Walters
explained: "I don't say, ‘How do you feel?’ I don't put a
microphone. I try to listen to them, because just to let them talk and not
to deliberately try to make them cry. You know, what could be easier than
asking that kind of a question? And to really have the kind of compassion
and sensitivity that you would have if you were talking to a relative. I
think of it that way, if this were my sister, this were my child, how
would I want to be treated? And I hug them.
"When we went to Windows on the World and we
talked to many of the employees, some of them who were immigrants, you
know, who were custodians in the building or busboys and so forth, and I
think of what their lives -- these are people who don't have money, who
lots of times don't have insurance, although Windows on the World has
been, I think, very good to them and tried very hard. I hugged them. I
mean, yes, I'm a journalist, but I have feelings and a heart. And some of
them just wanted to be hugged and just cry."
King pounced:
"What about those who might say, should the journalist hug someone?
Should a journalist take sides?"
Walters insisted: "I don't care. We're not
talking, this is not a question of-"
King: "That's a two-part question."
Walters retreated a bit: "Well, do I hug
them on the air? No. Do I hug them when I see them? I'm a person, and when
someone is in pain and crying, sure I do. That doesn't mean that I can't
also do my job."
4
Update:
The Gallup Organization on Thursday posted a "polling analysis"
about the evaluations generated by their new poll which asked: "Do
you approve or disapprove of the way the following people are handling the
war on terrorism since September 11th?"
The November 15 CyberAlert cited the
public’s disapproval for the news media, but noted Gallup had not posted
that finding in their November 14 summary of the poll. They did on
Thursday: "The only organization that gets a negative rating by the
public is the news media. A majority, 54%, disapprove of the way the media
are handling the war on terrorism, while 43% approve." For the full
rundown of the public’s approval ratings, go to:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010926b.asp
For the November 15 CyberAlert item on the
poll, refer back to:
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2001/cyb20011115.asp#2
[Web Update: On November 16 Gallup posted a
polling analysis which explored the finding
about disapproval for the news media: "High Approval for Most
People/Institutions Handling War on Terrorism; But majority of Americans
disapprove of news media's performance." It relayed how "just
43% of Americans approve of the way the news media have been handling the
war, and 54% disapprove."
Gallup added these details: "Approval
ratings for the news media vary somewhat among demographic subgroups, but
even the most positive groups show no more than half who approve, far
below the approval rating of all other people and institutions mentioned
in the poll. Exactly 50% of males under the age of 50 approve of the news
media, as do 50% of Democrats and 50% of people who did not attend church
in the past seven days. By contrast, only 38% of older males, 33% of
Republicans and 33% of people who attended church in the past seven days
indicate their approval."
For more, go to: http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr011116.asp]
5
Following
in the footsteps of Reuters, the BBC World Service has decided to not call
the events of September 11 "terrorism," a Guardian story on a
media conference reported on Thursday.
The BBC’s Deputy Director of News
maintained: "However appalling and disgusting it was, there will
nevertheless be a constituency of your listeners who don't regard it as
terrorism. Describing it as such could downgrade your status as an
impartial and independent broadcaster."
James Taranto’s "Best of the Web"
report on OpinionJournal.com highlighted the BBC policy directive as
reported by the Guardian, a left-wing British newspaper. For the daily
"Best of the Web," go to: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/
An excerpt from the November 15 Guardian story
by Matt Wells which is a bit unclear on whether BBC has never used the
term "terrorism" to describe the September 11 attacks, or did
for a while and has recently decided to stop doing so:
The BBC World Service has taken a policy decision not to describe the
attacks on the US as "terrorism."
Mark Damazer, the BBC's deputy director of news, said the service would
lose its reputation for impartiality around the world if it were seen to
use such a subjective term.
While guests and contributors to World Service programmes may describe
the deliberate flying of jet planes into the World Trade Centre as acts of
terror, news correspondents use more neutral terms such as
"attack."
Mr. Damazer, speaking in a debate about television coverage of
September 11 at the Newsworld conference in Barcelona, insisted the
decision was not intended to downgrade the horror of the event. But if the
word terrorism was used there would be implications for the description of
more subjective acts of terror such as those carried out by Hamas in the
Middle East or ETA in Spain.
He said of the attack on the US: "However appalling and disgusting
it was, there will nevertheless be a constituency of your listeners who
don't regard it as terrorism. Describing it as such could downgrade your
status as an impartial and independent broadcaster."
Because of its reputation for impartiality, the World Service has to be
careful about its use of language. It does not usually describe IRA
attacks as terrorism, because they may not be seen as such in a world
context....
END of excerpt
For the story in full, go to:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,593698,00.html
6
Geraldo
Rivera did double duty on Thursday, appearing on both CNBC and FNC. Though
he maintains he’s a "changed man" by the September 11
terrorist attacks, Thursday night on FNC’s O’Reilly Factor, he
defended his view that the pursuit of Bill Clinton was illegitimate by
suggesting it’s culpable for the terrorist attacks:
"I would
bet you that I can find you 4,000, 5,000 FBI agents who wish to God they
weren’t assigned to Whitewater, Monicagate, Bill Clinton -- that instead
they were on the trail of Osama bin Laden and the people who were plotting
mass murder against us."
Earlier in the day, a bit before 4pm EST,
Rivera appeared with David Asman. Brit Hume called in to welcome him to
FNC. Later he showed up in a taped interview with Bill O’Reilly before
doing his 9pm EST CNBC show for the next to last night. In both FNC
appearances, his on-screen identifier read: "War Correspondent."
O’Reilly told Rivera "there’s a
residual anger" against him from FNC viewers over his defense of Bill
Clinton. Rivera defended his defense: "It was a huge national
distraction, going after a guy who lied about getting oral sex from a
woman he wasn’t married to and I think I know a million guys who get
oral sex from a woman they weren’t married to and to impeach the
President over that just didn’t see appropriate."
A "million guys"? Or did Geraldo do
it a million times?
Rivera later argued: "All of us have a
shared guilt right now. And the shared guilt is for the last ten years we
have been horribly distracted. I would bet you that I can find you 4,000,
5,000 FBI agents who wish to God they weren’t assigned to Whitewater,
Monicagate, Bill Clinton -- that instead they were on the trail of Osama
bin Laden and the people who were plotting mass murder against us. I think
it’s time to say, now let’s move forward, let’s all be in this
together, let’s back our President and let’s win this war."
The latter attitude is the new Rivera that FNC
has hired to cover the war, but let’s not forget that the former is the
Rivera who will probably end up with a prime time FNC show once interest
in the war recedes.
Last Friday night on FNC’s 10pm EST War on
Terror show Rivera made clear he does not regret defending Clinton, though
Clinton himself did not show any gratitude. Rivera told Shepard Smith on
the November 9 show that Clinton "never...gave me an interview, you
know, after all, putting so much on the line for Bill and-"
Smith noted:
"You were out there for him."
Rivera agreed:
"I really was. I think if there were one journalist -- you know, and
I understand your viewers' wrath if there's one journalist who really
helped save Bill Clinton's behind, it was me. I don't regret it. I really,
when push comes to shove, he was a liar, a perjurer, but he was basically
an adulterer. I think that's, he had a character flaw. He may still. But
that's basically what it was about. Had he been guilty of peddling nuclear
secrets or doing something more blatant, something more profoundly
affecting the well being of the republic, I would have been on the same
side as the majority of my colleagues in the fourth estate."
For the occasion of Rivera’s last appearance
tonight on CNBC, the MRC’s Rich Noyes reviewed the MRC archives for
highlights of his most obnoxious statements as chronicled in the MRC’s
Notable Quotables:
-- Geraldo Rivera discussing Bill Clinton’s
"heroic re-emergence" at the opening of his new Harlem offices,
on CNBC’s Rivera Live, July 30, 2001: "Now, the return of the
Prodigal Son. The, you know, the man who left office disgraced, burdened
down by at least three major scandals that I can think of, got a hero’s
welcome today, and I couldn’t be happier....After impeachment, after
Pardongate, after the fake stories about their pilfering of the White
House, Bill Clinton’s appearance today in Harlem must have been the feel
good event of the season for the former President, and he soaked up the
sunshine and love."
-- Rivera on Bush as an illegitimate
President, Rivera Live, June 18, 2001: "Did the Supreme Court of the
United States rob the American people of their duly-elected
President?...Yes, says Alan Dershowitz. That history-making heist is
exactly what happened when the justices issued their highly controversial
Bush vs. Gore ruling last December. The 5_4 decision stopped the Florida
ballot recount, as you recall, put George W. Bush in the White House and,
according to Professor Dershowitz, forever tarnished the exalted
reputation of this nation’s highest court. Now the professor backs up
his charges in this hard-hitting and maybe his best, certainly in the
non-fiction area, Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election
2000."
-- Beginning and end of Geraldo Rivera’s
interview with Vincent Bugliosi, CNBC’s Rivera Live, June 25, 2001:
"Should five of our nation’s nine Supreme Court Justices be
imprisoned? That’s the opinion of famed former prosecutor Vincent
Bugliosi. He says the justices who supported George W. Bush in the
election dispute are almost treasonous white-collar criminals. He’ll
explain why."
"It is a
scathing indictment of the high court of the United States, at least these
five conservative justices. And I really, really, I urge law students
especially, but anyone who’s interested in the machinations of the
Court, to check this out. Vincent Bugliosi’s The Betrayal of
America."
-- Rivera to Governor Jesse Ventura, April 23,
2001 Rivera Live on CNBC: "What about the rest of his [President
Bush’s] performance? Aren’t you concerned that some of these moves to
erode some of the legislation designed to protect our environment, this
stuff about arsenic and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, etcetera?
Don’t you think that some of that is excessive in terms of undoing some
of the good work done by the Democrats or the other progressives over the
years?"
-- Rivera denigrating his new employer, FNC,
on the February 20, 2001 Rivera Live, in a segment on the controversy over
Clinton’s pardons: "Now the Teamsters – one million strong –
endorsed Richard Nixon after Jimmy Hoffa was pardoned by Richard Nixon.
Now that, to me, smacks of a quid [pro quo] far more logical than Bill
Clinton taking money for his library, for God sakes, not himself, but for
his library or for the Democratic National Committee....Why is it that on
Fox television you never hear the mention of the Hoffa pardon?!"
-- Clinton has told just one lie? Rivera
referring to Monica Lewinsky, February 15, 2001 Rivera Live: "The
only lie he told was to his wife and to us about it."
-- Geraldo Rivera after humming the theme from
Rocky over footage of Clinton’s pre-speech hallway walk at the
Democratic convention, August 21, 2000 Rivera Live on CNBC: "You’re
going to miss that guy. Don’t tell me you’re not gonna miss that guy.
This is a master. He may be a rogue, but he is an artful and pleasant
rogue and done a hell of a job as President. I’m gonna miss the guy...He
should’ve been the vice presidential candidate."
-- Bashing Ken Starr. CNBC’s Rivera Live,
October 20, 1999: "Today’s Washington Post [editorial]
says...’Mr. Starr should be remembered as a man who, hampered alike by
intensely adverse conditions and by his own missteps, managed to perform a
significant public service,’ end quote. Missteps? What would The
Washington Post call the Lincoln assassination? Missteps?"
-- Rivera referring to Ken Starr’s
prosecutors in a question to Susan McDougal, April 14, 1999 Upfront
Tonight: "Do you believe that they had, at least indirectly,
something to do with your ex-husband, Jim McDougal’s, ultimate
demise?...Did they help speed your husband’s sickness and his ultimate
death?"
-- March 8, 1999 Rivera Live: "[Susan
McDougal] has been hounded for 15 years by investigators and for the last
five by the investigative terrorist, Ken Starr."
-- Rivera, with "NBC News" under his
name as his identifier, December 22, 1998 Today: "That was the party
with the slender majority and two weeks to live that impeached the man
because they could. It was a spiteful action, an action that they
performed absolutely in violation of the framers’ intent. It was a
legislative coup d’etat, and it has been rejected utterly by the
American people, 73 percent of whom now say they approve of the
President’s performance in office..."
-- Rivera singing his version of Twinkle
Little Star after playing video of U.S. Representative Mike Pappas (R-NJ)
on the House floor singing his version in a birthday tribute to Kenneth
Starr, July 21, 1998 Rivera Live on CNBC: "Twinkle, twinkle Kenneth
Starr, now we see how crude you are/Up above your jury high, like the
judge up in the sky/Twinkle, twinkle little Starr, now we see how wrong
you are/When you drag the agents in, when you bully moms and kin/then you
kiss the treacherous Tripp, twinkle, twinkle DC drip/Twinkle, twinkle
little Starr, now we see how small you are."
-- Rivera on Clinton’s plight, May 19, 1998
Rivera Live: "How much of his vital attention is being consumed by
Ken Starr’s endless probe, by the Monica Lewinsky saga, by the fears
that his trusted Secret Service agents will be forced to rat out the maybe
gory details of his private life....And finally, and most importantly, how
can our bridge to the 21st century feel about the slanderous charge
amounting almost to treason, that for Johnny Chung’s bribe of 100,000
lousy dollars he sold America’s missile secrets to the Chinese, who now
aim their deadly devices at America’s children?....I watch him and I
wonder how he does it. I watch him and wonder how much is too much for any
man."
-- Rivera as a guest expert on NBC’s Today,
November 18, 1998: "I thought that Linda Tripp now takes her place in
the Hall of Infamy as a betrayer of the order of Benedict Arnold in the,
in the, at least in the love ‘90s...I think anybody who wrapped
themselves around Linda Tripp and her tapes is now soiled. You felt the
need to take a shower. What that woman did to her young friend is beyond
the pale. I think it’s much worse than anything Bill Clinton did."
-- Rivera from China where he was covering
Clinton’s visit, on CNBC’s Rivera Live, June 26, 1998: "They
[Linda Tripp and Lucianne Goldberg] wanted to make money on a book but
once push came to shove they were perfectly willing to sacrifice the young
former White House intern on the altar of greed, on the altar of hatred
for Bill Clinton and his administration and I think they’re going to
accomplish that at least in the short term. But if it comes to trial Linda
Tripp will be facing some severe questioning by Monica Lewinsky’s very
capable counsel. And my God, a first year law student hearing those tapes
will be able to make her look like exactly what she is, a treacherous,
back-stabbing, good-for-nothing enemy of the truth."
-- Rivera urging Clinton not to cooperate,
August 6, 1998 edition of Rivera Live on CNBC: "Mr. President, we
love you. I want to hug you, I want to hug you, please do the right thing.
This is nothing, this is nothing. Thomas Jefferson did not have this in
mind, I swear to God....I would give Ken Starr the Nobel Peace Prize were
he to be man enough not to refer a sex lie to the House for
impeachment."
I could go on, but I can’t take much more.