1. Rather Praises Mapes, CBS News: "Kingdom of Journalistic Knights"
Interviewed by Tina Brown in a session aired Sunday night on CNBC, Dan Rather praised Mary Mapes, the producer of the 60 Minutes story based on forged memos, as "a very good pro," and insisted that "she's the kind of professional that the audience should want in television." Asked by Brown if "after the flap over the National Guard story, do you feel inhibited?", Rather contended he's never "inhibited when it comes to news and trying to do fair-minded, accurate reporting on important stories." Then Brown wanted to know: "What are the realistic chances that you're going to be able to do a story that really shakes and rattles the Bush administration?" Rather maintained they are "excellent" since "CBS News has a culture, has a history that those of us who work here, it's very real -- that we see it as a sort of magical mystical kingdom of journalistic knights."

2. Off-Topic Poll Touted as Showing Opposition to Ending Filibuster
Three days after Brian Williams touted on the NBC Nightly News an irrelevant poll finding about the filibuster debate as indicative of public opposition to the Republican plan to block the unprecedented Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees ("by a margin of 56 to 34, Americans want the Senate to weigh in on the President's judicial nominees rather than giving them blanket approval"), the AP followed suit with an AP/Ipsos poll. A Saturday AP headline declared, "Poll: Most Want Thorough Check of Judges," as if that can only be accomplished by filibustering them and any not filibustered will not get a thorough review. The AP's Will Lester trumpeted: "About four in five Americans want the Senate to thoroughly examine the President's nominees to be federal judges -- an attitude shared by a majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents questioned in a new poll. The rest say those nominees should get the benefit of the doubt and get approved by the Senate without much scrutiny, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday."

Rather Praises Mapes, CBS News: "Kingdom
of Journalistic Knights"

     Interviewed by Tina Brown in a session aired Sunday night on CNBC, Dan Rather praised Mary Mapes, the producer of the 60 Minutes story based on forged memos, as "a very good pro," and insisted that "she's the kind of professional that the audience should want in television." Asked by Brown if "after the flap over the National Guard story, do you feel inhibited?", Rather contended he's never "inhibited when it comes to news and trying to do fair-minded, accurate reporting on important stories." Then Brown wanted to know: "What are the realistic chances that you're going to be able to do a story that really shakes and rattles the Bush administration?" Rather maintained they are "excellent" since "CBS News has a culture, has a history that those of us who work here, it's very real -- that we see it as a sort of magical mystical kingdom of journalistic knights."

     Rather appeared Sunday night in a taped interview on CNBC's Topic [A] with Tina Brown, a show that has been cancelled by the network. Brown spent most of her time with Rather commiserating with him about how, the wake of the cancellation of 60 Minutes Wednesday, news can survive on broadcast network television when it must produce good ratings and proper demographics.

     Brown treated Rather as a victim, rather than a perpetrator of a journalistic fraud, and worried not about fixing CBS News but whether CBS and Rather may be "inhibited" now from taking on the Bush administration. In these two exchanges Rather praised May Mapes and showed he's still capable of delivering one of his trademark Ratherisms in gushing about the glories of CBS News:

     -- Brown: "Now, when you got the Peabody Award, you were up there on stage with Mary Mapes, the producer who produced both the Abu Ghraib segment and, of course, the National Guard segment, which in a sense, you know, obviously wounded your career so tremendously. How was it for you to be up there with Mary Mapes receiving that award also knowing that in a way much of what she contributed to ended your time there very sadly?"
     Rather: "Well, without addressing the core premise of the question, Mary deserved to be there, the Abu Ghraib story was an important story, Mary was key in developing the story. All of us worked hard on it, but Mary was key. And she deserved to be on the stage. Mary's a very good pro. She's the kind of professional that the audience should want in television. And having said that, that's the way I felt. And I was glad she was there."

     -- Brown: "What is the chance that management in sense will allow you now to go off and do major investigative story that takes on the administration? I mean, after the flap over the National Guard story, do you feel inhibited?"
     Rather: "No, no. being inhibited when it comes to news and trying to do fair-minded, accurate reporting on important stories, being inhibited about that is not in my nature. And widely believed it may not be, but true it is, that I don't feel any pressure not do such stories."
     Brown: "Let's be realistic though. If you're going back now to work, I gather, on 60 Minutes 1, you're going back to re-join that show, what are the realistic chances that you're going to be able to do a story that really shakes and rattles the Bush administration?"
     Rather: "Excellent. The Bush administration, the Democratic leadership or any future Democratic Presidents. CBS News has a culture, has a history that those of us who work here, it's very real -- that we see it as a sort of magical mystical kingdom of journalistic knights -- and I know I can mentally hear people rolling their eyes, that's the way we feel."

     Quite telepathic.

Off-Topic Poll Touted as Showing Opposition
to Ending Filibuster

     Three days after Brian Williams touted on the NBC Nightly News an irrelevant poll finding about the filibuster debate as indicative of public opposition to the Republican plan to block the unprecedented Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees ("by a margin of 56 to 34, Americans want the Senate to weigh in on the President's judicial nominees rather than giving them blanket approval"), the AP followed suit with an AP/Ipsos poll. A Saturday AP headline declared, "Poll: Most Want Thorough Check of Judges," as if that can only be accomplished by filibustering them and any not filibustered will not get a thorough review. The AP's Will Lester trumpeted: "About four in five Americans want the Senate to thoroughly examine the President's nominees to be federal judges -- an attitude shared by a majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents questioned in a new poll. The rest say those nominees should get the benefit of the doubt and get approved by the Senate without much scrutiny, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday."

     Lester justified the poll question by asserting that "Republicans say" that "great deference" should be "given to the President, while Democrats say...those put forward should be closely scrutinized." But what the public thinks about that has no reflection on the specific question of changing 200 years of Senate tradition to use filibusters to block judicial nominees.

     The exact question in the AP/Ipsos survey: "As you may know, the President nominates federal judges, but the appointments must be approved by the U.S. Senate. Do you think the Senate should:
     "Give the President's judicial nominees the benefit of the doubt and approve them without a lot of scrutiny? [18 percent]
     "Take an assertive role in examining each nominee?" [78 percent]

     Of course, committee hearings and floor debates provide penalty of opportunity for Senators to take an "assertive role in examining" nominees without resorting to the filibuster. The problem with the AP question is that it determined the public's view on an issue not in question now in the Senate.

     The May 19 CyberAlert recounted: NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams trumpeted Wednesday night how "a brand new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll" shows "that by a margin of 56 to 34, Americans want the Senate to weigh in on the President's judicial nominees rather than giving them blanket approval" -- as if that's at issue. In fact, no one is calling for "blanket approval" since, if the filibusters against judicial nominees were eliminated, those now blocked would still have to earn the backing of the majority of Senators, just like every other judge the Senate has ever approved. On Thursday's Today, Matt Lauer highlighted for Tim Russert the same irrelevant question, but then Lauer cryptically referred to how the public was "evenly split pretty much on the whole filibuster issue." Indeed, in a poll question NBC Nightly News ignored, and for which Today provided no further detail, respondents split 32 opposed versus 31 in support (with 19 neutral and 13 not caring) on whether they backed Congress in "considering putting an end to the Senate's filibuster procedure" for "judicial nominees." For details: www.mediaresearch.org

     The wording of the question NBC used to illustrate public opposition to ending the filibuster for judicial nominees: "Should the Senate generally confirm the President's judicial nominees as long as they are honest and competent, or should the Senate make its own decision about the fitness of each nominee to serve?"

     An excerpt from the May 21 AP story, picking up after the lead quoted above, in which reporter Will Lester noted how more want conservative than liberal judges and more are comfortable than uncomfortable with Bush's judgment in picking judges, two findings which could have been his lead:

....The widespread desire for an aggressive role by the Senate is one of the few aspects of this divisive issue that gets widespread agreement.

Respondents favored conservative over liberal judges in general, 47 percent to 39 percent. As for a possible Supreme Court nominee, 52 percent said they felt comfortable that President Bush would pick the right kind of justice, while 46 percent said they weren't.

Senators are locked in a fierce fight over what is required to approve the more controversial federal court nominees. Republicans want them approved by a simple majority, while the Democrats want to require the 60 votes needed to override a blocking filibuster. The Democrats say a minority party needs the method to ensure checks on the majority.

Both sides point to the Senate's constitutional duty to "advise and consent" on presidential nominations. Republicans say that means great deference is given to the president, while Democrats say it means those put forward should be closely scrutinized....

     END of Excerpt

     For the AP story in full: story.news.yahoo.com

     For the AP's posting of the "topline" results, see this PDF: www.ipsos-na.com

     Previous CyberAlert items on media hype for distorted polls regarding the blocking of Democratic filibusters:

     # April 26 CyberAlert: ABC and the Washington Post touted how a new poll found two-thirds opposed to a rul change to end Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees, but the language of the question led to the media's desired answer. "An ABC News poll has found little support for changing the Senate's rules to help the President's judicial nominees win confirmation," World News Tonight anchor Charles Gibson trumpeted Monday night. The Washington Post's lead front page headline, over a Tuesday story on the poll, declared: "Filibuster Rule Change Opposed." But the questions in the poll failed to point out the unprecedented use of a filibuster to block nominees who have majority support while they forwarded the Democratic talking point that "the Senate has confirmed 35 federal appeals court judges nominated by Bush" and painted rules changes as an effort "to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees," not as a way to overcome Democratic obstructionism. See: www.mediaresearch.org

     # April 27 CyberAlert: FNC's Brit Hume on Tuesday night pointed out how the wording of a Washington Post/ABC News poll led to its finding of overwhelming opposition to blocking Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees, an observation made in Tuesday's CyberAlert, and Hume noted how differently-worded polls led to opposite results. "If you doubt whether the framing of a poll question can influence the outcome," Hume asked, "consider this. When a Republican poll said quote, 'Even if they disagree with a judge, Senate Democrats should at least allow he President's nominations to be voted on,' 81 percent said they agreed." In addition, a Rasmussen survey found that when asked "should the Senate rules should be changed so that a vote must be taken on every person that the President nominates to become a judge?", 56 percent responded affirmatively. See: www.mediaresearch.org

     # April 28 CyberAlert: In a Wednesday online chat session, Washington Post National Editor Michael Abramowitz defended Washington Post/ABC News poll questions which CyberAlert and others argued had wording which inevitably led to the finding that an overwhelming majority oppose blocking Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees when other polls have found the opposite. "Filibuster Rule Change Opposed," declared the April 26 Washington Post lead front page headline even though the questions did not mention filibusters. Abramowitz maintained that the Post's polling chief, Rich Morin, "is scrupulously fair." Abramowitz asserted: "I thought the questions in this case were fine." Morin defended himself: "I believe the question does not plant biases that would unfairly favor Democrats or disadvantage Bush or the Republicans." www.mediaresearch.org

     # May 2 CyberAlert: In defending the wording of a Washington Post poll, which the paper plastered at the top of Tuesday's front page under the headline, "Filibuster Rule Change Opposed," Washington Post Ombudsman Micheal Getler cited a March Newsweek poll which also found majority opposition to ending Senate filibusters of judicial nominees. But that poll's formulation was just as slanted as the Post poll's wording, in contrast to a Rasmussen poll, that Getler didn't acknowledge, which used wording that led to a finding of opposition to the Democratic tactic. The Newsweek poll inaccurately told those surveyed that the filibuster "tactic has been used by both Democrats and Republicans to prevent certain judicial nominees from being confirmed." Like the Post poll, Newsweek treated Republicans as the ones wanting to use a political maneuver to their benefit: "Senate Republican leaders, whose party is now in the majority, want to take away this tactic by changing the rules to require only 51 votes..." See: www.mediaresearch.org

     # May 3 CyberAlert: Another distorted poll on the use of the filibuster by Senate Democrats to block judicial nominees. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday afternoon described how the filibuster tactic can be "used to prevent the Senate from passing controversial legislation or confirming controversial appointments by the President, even if a majority of Senators support that action." But then instead of posing the question at hand, whether the public agrees with the unprecedented Democratic use of the filibuster to deny votes to appeals court nominees, the poll posed a broader question not at hand: "Do you favor or oppose the use of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate?" Most, naturally, favored it as CNN's Bruce Morton relayed in a Monday Inside Politics story, as if eliminating the filibuster was an issue in play. See: www.mediaresearch.org

-- Brent Baker

---

Sign up for CyberAlerts:      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. Subscribe! Enter your email to join MRC CyberAlert today!   questions and comments about CyberAlert subscription      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: http://www.mrc.org/cybersub.asp#webnews

 

---

Home | News Division | Bozell Columns | CyberAlerts 
Media Reality Check | Notable Quotables | Contact the MRC | Subscribe