| |
|
By Curtis Houck
Sometimes, the jokes and stories write themselves, folks. On Monday morning’s MSNBC Live, host Stephanie Ruhle turned to none other than fake news anchor Dan Rather to decry President Trump’s tweet calling for a “FAKE NEWS TROPHY” and smugly defend the news media as the one “red beating heart of freedom and democracy.”
Ruhle returned from a commercial break to bewail “President Trump taking a direct aim at American journalists” and quote his tweet about the faux trophy contest between all the networks except Fox News for which “is the most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President (me).”
She then trumpeted a joke about Trump being fake news and then brought on Rather:
Wait, if the winner receives the fake news trophy, does that mean that the President is currently holding it? Joining me now is veteran American journalist and icon, President of News and Guts Media Dan Rather. Also the author of the book What Unites Us. Dan, welcome. What is your reaction to President Trump directly attacking, deny gaiting, American journalists? Over the weekend, the President saying, again, complimenting Fox News and going after CNN International.
Rather sighed, stating that “it’s disappointing” for Trump to go after the media, but predicted that “he isn’t going to look good” “over the arc of history” for attacking the press.
Ruhle tried to coax more out of Rather, letting the cat out of the bag that the media don’t like the President because of what he thinks about them, thus making them more biased in their reporting against him.
“It's always been strained, but now, can the press even give — the President says the press won't ever give me a fair shake. But can it give him a fair shake when he calls them fake news day in and day out,” she complained.
The disgraced ex-CBS News anchor started out on the right note, arguing that reporters should “set that aside and just do our job, try to do quality journalism of integrity” and, if they do that, “journalism, as a whole, is going to be okay.”
However, he only tacitly alluded to his own indiscretions, admitting that “we make mistakes”with he himself “certainly hav[ing] made my share” because “[j]ournalism is not an exact science.”
Sure, it’s true that everyone makes mistakes, but you know what is an exact science? Not lying and whether it’s Mike Barnicle, Dan Rather, or Brian Williams, some in the media shouldn’t be preaching that lesson when they themselves commit journalism’s number one sin to only see their careers rehabilitated.
Rather continued, offering this insane quote that might one day be found in Notable Quotables:
It's a kind of crude art. Nobody can do it perfectly and the idea of a free press is not that the press has to be right all the time, but it has to be free and, again, I come back to — I think most Americans understand that a free and independent, fiercely independent press, fiercely independent when necessary, is the red beating heart of freedom and democracy.
He also offered Trump some advice, suggesting that he “stop digging” holes for himself when it comes to “his press relations” which also could have helped his own case in 2004, but what’s done is done.
“We're always handy to blame and some of it we bring on ourselves. But I keep going back, you know, you look at the history of the country and we're going to be alright. We're going to get through this. Your question is, is the press going to be in continuing trouble? I think for the rest of the Trump presidency, I had hoped when President Trump came into the presidency, he might change some,” Rather added before encouraging the President to read his book What Unites Us.
(h/t: Washington Free Beacon's Alex Griswold)
Here’s the relevant transcript from November 27's MSNBC Live with Stephanie Ruhle:
MSNBC Live with Stephanie Ruhle
November 27, 2017
9:44 a.m. Eastern
 STEPHANIE RUHLE: Welcome back. I'm Stephanie Ruhle. President Trump taking a direct aim at American journalists. This morning, yet again, he tweeted this just moments ago: “We should have a contest as to which of the networks, plus CNN and not including Fox, is the most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President (me). They are all bad. Winner to receive the FAKE NEWS TROPHY!” Wait, if the winner receives the fake news trophy, does that mean that the President is currently holding it? Joining me now is veteran American journalist and icon, President of News and Guts Media Dan Rather.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: President vs. the Press; Trump Goes After Press with Agenda Stalled]
Also the author of the book What Unites Us. Dan, welcome. What is your reaction to President Trump directly attacking, deny gaiting, American journalists? Over the weekend, the President saying, again, complimenting Fox News and going after CNN International.
DAN RATHER: Well, first of all, it's disappointing. We hope that when someone's elected president, they see themselves as President of all Americans, every American and each time President Trump does one of these things, frankly, I think over the long haul, over the arc of history, which is what I'm trying to deal with in the book What Unites Us, he isn't going to look good for this. President Trump, you know, he was elected to — on the basis of some fear and some resentment but also elected because he said he was going to do some things. On policy, you can debate policy, but on such things as these direct attacks on the press, particularly when he does it with individual members of the press, such as ridiculing the reporter who had physical challenges during the campaign, that sort of thing, it reflects badly on him, reflects badly on party and that is not to say that there aren't a lot of Americans who say that's it, President Trump, get at them. But, you know? Americans are smart. I have such confidence in the audience. They can separate bull shine from brass tacks and they recognize what this is.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: President vs. the Press; Trump Attacks Media as Putin Launches Press Crack Down]
RUHLE: But talk about the role of the media within this administration, especially when President Trump is constantly calling legitimate news organizations fake news. The relationship between the President and the White House is very contentious. It's always been strained, but now, can the press even give — the President says the press won't ever give me a fair shake. But can it give him a fair shake when he calls them fake news day in and day out?
RATHER: Well, it doesn’t make it any easier, but our job is to set that aside and just do our job, try to do quality journalism of integrity. If we keep doing that, we as individual journalists and journalism as a whole is going to be okay. Look, we make mistakes. I certainly have made my share. Journalism is not an exact science. It's a kind of crude art. Nobody can do it perfectly and the idea of a free press is not that the press has to be right all the time, but it has to be free and, again, I come back to — I think most Americans understand that a free and independent, fiercely independent press, fiercely independent when necessary, is the red beating heart of freedom and democracy. Now, at any given time, a certain number of Americans may say, listen, I'm glad the President is giving it to the press. But if you look over the arc of history, Stephanie, presidents who have been very hostile to the press have not wound up very good in terms of having their likeness carved into Mt. Rushmore or anything approaching that. But we have a long way to go in the Trump presidency and what interests me and disappoints me is he keeps digging a hole deeper and deeper. You know that old cliche, if you're in a hole, stop digging. In terms of his press relations, he just keeps digging. It's not to say the press doesn't make mistakes. We do make mistakes.
RUHLE: But on some hand, is it working for him? You know, Peggy Noonan had a great piece out this weekend where she was saying this is a day of reckoning in terms of sexual misconduct. She applauded all of those journalists out there who are lifting this veil and ending this time and revealing so many awful realities while, at the same time, Politico has a piece out, saying Roy Moore gets elected. You know who's to blame? The media and if you look at the distrust for the media, it is at an all-time high, so are we doing our best work? Is there a risk that the media is going too far?
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: President vs. the Press; Trump: Press “Dishonest, Corrupt, and/or Distorted in Its Political Coverage of Your Favorite President (Me)”
 RATHER: Sure, there's always that risk and in some individual cases, you know, I thought the Politico article frankly went too far. It's very easy when things aren't going well to blame the press. We're always handy to blame and some of it we bring on ourselves. But I keep going back, you know, you look at the history of the country and we're going to be alright. We're going to get through this. Your question is, is the press going to be in continuing trouble? I think for the rest of the Trump presidency, I had hoped when President Trump came into the presidency, he might change some.
RUHLE: He's not going to.
RATHER: No, now it's very clear, he's not going to change. He is playing to his base. His base is only 38, 39 percent. That's not enough to win.
RUHLE: President Trump watches a ton of cable news. What's your message to him?
RATHER: Read What Unites Us, Mr. President.
RUHLE: There you go, Dan, thank you so, so much.
RATHER: Thank you, Stephanie.
RUHLE: You want Donald Trump to read it and please, you should as well. What Unites Us. Dan Rather.
|
|
By Chris Reeves
On Monday’s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough and rest of the show’s liberal pundits expressed their extreme frustration with President Trump for one of his Thanksgiving weekend tweets where he criticized CNN International as being “a major source of (Fake) news.” Former Obama White House Press Secretary and guest panelist Josh Earnest responded by lamenting that Trump was “undermin[ing]” “journalists who [are] on the front lines” “risking their lives,” but failed to mention that his former boss spied on several American journalists and press outlets for seeking information on government leaks and even threatened journalists with prosecution for reporting on them. With absolutely no evidence, Scarborough came to the conclusion that Trump’s comments were intended to encourage “tyrants” to “jail” or “do worse” to American reporters because the press “won't kiss [Trump’s] ass every day on the air.”
After spending some time reading off and criticizing several of Trump’s tweets, the panelists focused in on Trump’s anti-CNN tweet as the the main target of their ire and began to craft the narrative that Trump either doesn’t care about or wants Americans journalists killed in foreign countries:
SCARBOROUGH: So Josh, there, there are, um -- there are a lot of things the President throws out there just to shock and stun people. But let's focus on what is actually very disturbing, and that is a president attacking the free press,-
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: -attacking the free press that continues to actually speak truth to power, that actually continues to tell it straight, making mistakes. We all make mistakes from time to time. But, but, but, but -- doing that and actually denigrating the work of reporters who go out every day across the globe, risk their lives -- as Christiane Amanpour put in a tweet showing a camerawoman that got a bullet through her face and died, um, reporting in Bosnia, every single day risk their lives. And here’s Christiane Amanpour [reading tweet]: “If President Trump-
BRZEZINSKI: Wow, she is amazing.
SCARBOROUGH: -knew the facts, he would” have “never have sent” this “tweet. Here is my (late) camerawoman Margaret Moth, who took a bullet in the face” for “covering the facts and truth in Bosnia.-
BRZEZINSKI: God bless you.
SCARBOROUGH: -#FactsFirst.” And this happens so much with reporters across the globe. This happens so much with CNN, which across the globe really is sort of like the BBC is-
EARNEST: [softly] Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: -across the globe. But it’s -- again, it’s Donald Trump attacking the free press. [...] Here, this is a challenge to the First Amendment of the United States and a free press. And Republicans and Democrats and independents need to all speak up and speak out. There are some things that we have to be united on. Forget all the other tweets this weekend. Forget the nonsense. Forget the constant noise machine. But when he attacks the free press, when he attacks an independent judiciary, when he attacks our constitutional republic, we've got to speak out together.
After this long set-up, Earnest agreed with Scarborough and made the case that Trump was attacking not just “the free press,” but “a foundation of our democracy”:
These are the foundations of our democracy, and certainly a free press constitutes a foundation of our democracy. [...] [T]hat is a critical element of the successful functioning of our democracy. But, Joe, you raise an important point, which is that there's an important difference between, as outrageous as it is, to attack journalists here in the United States who enjoy the protections of the First Amendment to hold people in power accountable. It is another thing altogether to go out and attack independent, professional journalists who are risking their lives in war zones, in some of the most remote places on the planet, to bring us actual information about what's happening around the world. The kind of information, the kinds of stories that arouse our consciousness, to make sure that the United States and people who live here are aware of what's happening around the world and can respond to it. And so when we saw, for example, a couple of years ago, the crisis around the wave of migrant flows from North Africa and the Middle East, there were journalists who were on the front lines who were risking their lives to tell that story. We needed to know what was happening there. And to undermine them in such a gratuitous, flippant way on Twitter is outrageous for anybody to do, let alone the President of the United States who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Earnest’s unspoken hypocrisy on this point was pretty stunning. It should be no secret to the liberal media that President Obama was a notorious abuser of “the free press.”Under the pretext of going after leakers of classified government documents and information, Obama covertly seized and went through the phone records of both editors and reporters working for the Associated Press, labelled Fox News journalist James Rosen as a “criminal co-conspirator” for his investigative journalism, and even took a New York Times reporter to court on criminal charges for refusing to give up one of his sources. There are additional serious allegations that the Obama administration targeted other reporters and political opponents for surveillance (see here for more on that).
Obama’s war on the press actually became so intolerable that the Committee to Protect Journalists (which typically does work supporting journalists who face the threat of imprisonment or extrajudicial killing for their reporting) released an extensively detailed report condemning the Obama administration for its gross opposition to transparency and freedom of the press. Its summary tersely states:
U.S. President Barack Obama came into office pledging open government, but he has fallen short of his promise. Journalists and transparency advocates say the White House curbs routine disclosure of information and deploys its own media to evade scrutiny by the press. Aggressive prosecution of leakers of classified information and broad electronic surveillance programs deter government sources from speaking to journalists.
Instead of bringing up any of the above, Scarborough simply let Earnest portray himself as a champion for journalistic freedom. The host then moved on to make his case that Trump’s tweet was really a dog whistle signaling that Trump would be okay with foreign dictators imprisoning and assassinating American journalists:
SCARBOROUGH: So our law enforcement officers, as you said, domestically, they're always gonna do the right thing and they're gonna protect -- they understand the First Amendment. But let's say there's a CNN International reporter or an NBC News reporter that's in Turkey, and maybe they do something that the government doesn't like. Well, they've already got the message and you've got the President of the United States that says this is fake news, this is propaganda. Maybe we throw ‘em in jail. Maybe we do worse. President of the United States isn't gonna mind. Whereas they would know-
BRZEZINSKI: [talking under Joe] This president is a danger.
SCARBOROUGH: -under Barack Obama or under George W. Bush,-
BRZEZINSKI: [interjecting] Or any other president of recent memory.
SCARBOROUGH: -don’t screw -- or any other president -- don't screw with the American journalists, ‘cause if you do, you're gonna get a call from the American embassy in five minutes and things are gonna go badly for you very quickly. That message hasn't been sent by an administration-
BRZEZINSKI: The opposite.
SCARBOROUGH: -that doesn't even have ambassadors in these outposts and has now sent a message to tyrants from Turkey to Russia: do what you want with our reporters because we don't like them-
BRZEZINSKI: [talking under Joe] We don't believe them.
SCARBOROUGH: -because they won't kiss our ass every day on the air-
BRZEZINSKI: Okay. Now watch your language.
SCARBOROUGH: -and spew propaganda 24 hours a day-
BRZEZINSKI: That’s a good point.
SCARBOROUGH: -and lie to their viewers about how we’re doing.
Joe didn’t bother to explain what tea leaves he was reading to arrive at his interpretation of Trump’s statement, and no one else on the panel asked. They simply accepted that Trump was tweeting a global death sentence on journalists:
BRZEZINSKI: Well, I'm just hoping that somebody – and I thought it would be the chief of staff – would get this president in check with his tweets before someone gets hurt. And I am dead serious,-
SCARBOROUGH: [interjecting, talking over Mika] Before someone gets hurt.
BRZEZINSKI: -before someone gets hurt or worse.
Is it really so outlandish to Morning Joe that Trump might just not like what CNN says about him? That he doesn’t necessarily want Brian Stelter to star in a modern remake of MidnightExpress?
See a partial transcript of the segment below:
6:12 AM EST
JOE SCARBOROUGH: So Josh, there, there are, um -- there are a lot of things the President throws out there just to shock and stun people. But let's focus on what is actually very disturbing, and that is a president attacking the free press,-
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: -attacking the free press that continues to actually speak truth to power, that actually continues to tell it straight, making mistakes. We all make mistakes from time to time. But, but, but, but -- doing that and actually denigrating the work of reporters who go out every day across the globe, risk their lives -- as Christiane Amanpour put in a tweet showing a camerawoman that got a bullet through her face and died, um, reporting in Bosnia, every single day risk their lives. And here’s Christiane Amanpour [reading tweet]: “If President Trump-
BRZEZINSKI: Wow, she is amazing.
SCARBOROUGH: -knew the facts, he would” have “never have sent” this “tweet. Here is my (late) camerawoman Margaret Moth, who took a bullet in the face” for “covering the facts and truth in Bosnia.-
BRZEZINSKI: God bless you.
SCARBOROUGH: -#FactsFirst.” And this happens so much with reporters across the globe. This happens so much with CNN, which across the globe really is sort of like the BBC is-
JOSH EARNEST: [softly] Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: -across the globe. But it’s -- again, it’s Donald Trump attacking the free press. And there’s so much of this other nonsense. The NFL’s, [waves his hands around] come on, all this other stuff. He's just purposely trying to pick fights. Here, this is a challenge to the First Amendment of the United States and a free press. And Republicans and Democrats and independents need to all speak up and speak out. There are some things that we have to be united on. Forget all the other tweets this weekend. Forget the nonsense. Forget the constant noise machine. But when he attacks the free press, when he attacks an independent judiciary, when he attacks our constitutional republic, we've got to speak out together.
EARNEST: These are the foundations of our democracy, and certainly a free press constitutes a foundation of our democracy. Even the founders of our country envisioned that independent, professional journalists would be in a position to hold people in power accountable for the way that they wielded the power of the American people. And that is, that is a critical element of the successful functioning of our democracy. But, Joe, you raise an important point, which is that there's an important difference between, as outrageous as it is, to attack journalists here in the United States who enjoy the protections of the First Amendment to hold people in power accountable. It is another thing altogether to go out and attack independent, professional journalists who are risking their lives in war zones, in some of the most remote places on the planet, to bring us actual information about what's happening around the world. The kind of information, the kinds of stories that arouse our consciousness, to make sure that the United States and people who live here are aware of what's happening around the world and can respond to it. And so when we saw, for example, a couple of years ago, the crisis around the wave of migrant flows from North Africa and the Middle East, there were journalists who were on the front lines who were risking their lives to tell that story. We needed to know what was happening there. And to undermine them in such a gratuitous, flippant way on Twitter-
SCARBOROUGH: [interjecting] Right! Well- [trails off].
EARNEST: -is outrageous for anybody to do, let alone the President of the United States who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution.
BRZEZINSKI: [ talking under Earnest] Ugh, I mean what Republican would say this is okay?
SCARBOROUGH: Well, well, well think about this, Harold, do you remember the Guardian reporter that gotten -- got beaten up by a congressional candidate? The dude was immediately arrested. They cuffed him. They threw him in front of-
HAROLD FORD JR.: [interrupting] You’re talking about the fellow that ran for the United States Congress in [inaudible]?
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, yeah, who, who ultimately won.
FORD: Won, right.
SCARBOROUGH: The guy had mug shots probably within, you know, twelve hours. They, they didn't put up with it. So our law enforcement officers, as you said, domestically, they're always gonna do the right thing and they're gonna protect -- they understand the First Amendment. But let's say there's a CNN International reporter or an NBC News reporter that's in Turkey, and maybe they do something that the government doesn't like. Well, they've already got the message and you've got the President of the United States that says this is fake news, this is propaganda. Maybe we throw ‘em in jail. Maybe we do worse. President of the United States isn't gonna mind. Whereas they would know-
BRZEZINSKI: [talking under Joe] This president is a danger.
SCARBOROUGH: -under Barack Obama or under George W. Bush,-
BRZEZINSKI: [interjecting] Or any other president of recent memory.
SCARBOROUGH: -don’t screw -- or any other president -- don't screw with the American journalists, ‘cause if you do, you're gonna get a call from the American embassy in five minutes and things are gonna go badly for you very quickly. That message hasn't been sent by an administration-
BRZEZINSKI: The opposite.
 SCARBOROUGH: -that doesn't even have ambassadors in these outposts and has now sent a message to tyrants from Turkey to Russia: do what you want with our reporters because we don't like them-
BRZEZINSKI: [talking under Joe] We don't believe them.
SCARBOROUGH: -because they won't kiss our ass every day on the air-
BRZEZINSKI: Okay. Now watch your language.
SCARBOROUGH: -and spew propaganda 24 hours a day-
BRZEZINSKI: That’s a good point.
SCARBOROUGH: -and lie to their viewers about how we’re doing.
(...)
6:19 AM
BRZEZINSKI: Well, I'm just hoping that somebody – and I thought it would be the chief of staff – would get this president in check with his tweets before someone gets hurt. And I am dead serious,-
SCARBOROUGH: [interjecting, talking over Mika] Before someone gets hurt.
BRZEZINSKI: -before someone gets hurt or worse.
(...)
|
|
By Kyle Drennen
Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi was actually grilled by moderator Chuck Todd on numerous sexual harassment allegations made against Senator Al Franken and Congressman John Conyers. She had clearly grown accustomed to the usual softball treatment she has received on the network and complained about not being given enough time to bash Republicans.
After spending the exclusive interview pressing Pelosi on the accusations against her liberal colleagues and even pointing out her past defense of Bill Clinton, Todd attempted to wrap up the segment: “Leader Pelosi, unfortunately for time, I’ve got to end it there. I appreciate you coming on.” The House Minority Leader was outraged: “You mean we’re not even going to talk about taxes?”
Pelosi accused Todd of being distracted by the scandals:
See, you have fallen into the place where they are doing something that’s going to increase the debt enormously....It’s going to be a job killer and it’s going to raise taxes on the middle class. And that is – has a big impact on the individual lives of all Americans. And really we should be spending more time on that.
Todd pushed back: “Do you think this other issue isn’t as serious as taxes?” Pelosi replied: “I think it’s – look, as a woman, mother of four daughters, I think it’s enormously important. But I think that we have to have a balance in how we go forward because – ” Todd sympathized: “Trust me, I struggle with this myself every day.” Pelosi warned: “This is giving them cover. There are so many reasons that we should be concerned about the Republican majority in Congress.”
Todd assured her: “I am going to be asking a Republican across the aisle some of these questions in a few minutes.”
He again tried to end the interview: “Anyway, Leader Pelosi, I have to leave it there. I appreciate it.” Pelosi scolded him again: “That’s disappointing.” Todd declared that he would be happy to give the Democrat hours of air time: “I wish I had more time. I’m always for more – Go to my bosses, ask for two hours, I’ll take it.”
Here is a transcript of the contentious November 27 exchange:
10:46 AM ET
(...)
CHUCK TODD: Leader Pelosi, unfortunately for time, I’ve got to end it there. I appreciate you coming on.
 NANCY PELOSI: You mean we’re not even going to talk about taxes? See, you have fallen into the place where they are doing something that’s going to increase the debt enormously.
TODD: I’ve been covering it a lot.
PELOSI: It’s going to be a job killer and it’s going to raise taxes on the middle class. And that is – has a big impact on the individual lives of all Americans. And really we should be spending more time on that.
TODD: Do you think this other issue isn’t as serious as taxes?
PELOSI: I think it’s – look, as a woman, mother of four daughters, I think it’s enormously important. But I think that we have to have a balance in how we go forward because –
TODD: Trust me, I struggle with this myself every day.
PELOSI: This is giving them cover. There are so many reasons that we should be concerned about the Republican majority in Congress.
TODD: I am going to be asking a Republican across the aisle some of these questions in a few minutes. Anyway, Leader Pelosi, I have to leave it there. I appreciate it.
PELOSI: That’s disappointing.
TODD: I wish I had more time. I’m always for more –
PELOSI: Let me just say one more thing.
TODD: Go to my bosses, ask for two hours, I’ll take it.
PELOSI: I want to thank our firefighters and our first responders in California for what they did in the fires. Our Thanksgiving is – we prayed for them as a blessing to us. Wishing their families the best.
TODD: A worthy last word. Thank you very much.
PELOSI: Thank you.
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 In a piece that was supposed to be a rolling documentation of the sexual misconduct allegations that have come to light since the toppling of Hollywood Producer Harvey Weinstein, The New York Times had left out a series of accusations against numerous Democratic politicians. And on top of the blatant omissions, the timeline had gone un-updated since November 21 despite a flood of new allegations including one Democratic Congresswoman exposing a former Democratic Congressman.
“Here is a list of such cases, which we will update periodically. The list does not include accusations against men for whom there has been no or minimal fallout,” they wrote, describing how the timeline would operate. But even given their criteria, the page was left untouched for nearly a week.
When it came to the allegations against politicians only three has made the list. Republican Kentucky House Speaker Jeff Hoover, Republican Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, and Democratic Minnesota Senator Al Franken.
The most obvious person missing from the list was Democratic Michigan Representative John Conyers. The accusations against Conyers and the fact that he settled a claim for $27,000 was first broke on November 21, the same day the Times stopped updating their timeline of names. Conyers was the longest-serving member of the House, and over the weekend he stepped down as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee as the Ethics Committee began their investigation.
If that didn’t surpass the Times’ own standard of an accusation needing more than “no or minimal fallout,” then they’re being hypocritical. Written under the “Fallout” column for Hoover, the paper noted how he “resigned leadership position but remained in the Legislature as of Nov. 10.” And the only thing they noted for Moore was that the “Republican National Committee withdrew financing.”
Also missing were the accusations from Democratic Colorado Congresswoman Diana DeGette that former Democratic Congressman/former San Diego Mayor Bob Filner made unwanted sexual advances towards her. While Filner was indeed out of politics, his name should have been included because the accusations involved Congressional Representatives and because his career was sunk by similar allegations. DeGette’s accusations came the day before the Times apparently cut off their updates.
The third instance of a powerful Democrat slipping past the Times’ piece was the recent lawsuit against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. The lawsuit, which was actually reported on by the Times in a separate article, alleges Cuomo was well aware that appointee Sam Hoyt was harassing his workers and did nothing about it.
Although the claims of harassment were not against Cuomo directly, he should have been included because of the active lawsuit, his prominence within the Democratic Party, and because the lawsuit argued that he was “deliberately indifferent” to the plight of the whistleblowers. But the Times never really seem to interested the case. In a phone interview with the accuser’s attorney, Paul Liggieri, NewsBusters was told that the Times had never reached out when writing their report on the lawsuit.
It’s worth noting that Cuomo was also a rumored contender to challenge President Trump in 2020.
In addition to those unlisted Democrats, there were a plethora of others who went unmentioned by the Times. Similarly, The Daily Wire recently published a piece calling out CNN for failing to mention other Democratic sex scandals, and there notably was a lot of overlap between what CNN and the Times had failed to cover. Many of those Democrats were forced to resign their positions and two of them were arrested.
(H/T to Daily Caller Associate Editor Peter Hasson)
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 On Monday, President Trump caused a stir in the liberal media when he mocked Democratic Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas” during an Oval Office event to honor the work of Navajo code talkers during World War II. The Big Three Networks rushed to claim Trump was whipping around a racial slur, but meanwhile, they brushed over where the moniker came from: Warren’s dubious claims she was of Native-American heritage, which she used to gain an advantage in forwarding her career.
“Democrats quickly called it a racial slur. Warren called it disturbing,” highlighted Correspondent Nancy Cordes during CBS Evening News. “President Trump has used that name to peg his progressive foe many times before (…) It's a reference to the Massachusetts Senator’s past claims of Cherokee ancestry.” She followed that up with a clip of Warren defending herself, but no explanation about how she used those claims to get ahead or any background to the controversy.
To kick off NBC Nightly News, Anchor Lester Holt declared: “It is a derogatory nickname he often uses to attack Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren but the place and momenthas the White House tonight defending the President from accusations of racial insensitivity.”
White House Correspondent Kristen Welker downplayed Warren’s lying as best she could, only noting how “Warren came under fire as a Senate candidate for claiming Native-American ancestry during her academic career.” But Welker touted the way in which the Senator “lashed out” at the President. “It is deeply unfortunate that the President of the United States cannot even make it through a ceremony honoring these heroes without having to throw out a racial slur,” Warren spat in an interview.
And while delivering his report on ABC’s World News Tonight, White House Correspondent Jon Karl barely touched Warren’s deception. He merely stated:
The three Navajo heroes, all in their 90s, reacted with silence. The venue was new, but the insult is one the President used over and over again during the campaign to attack Senator Elizabeth Warren, who came under fire in 2012 for claiming, without any proof, to have native American heritage.
In a report by CNN from the Summer of 2016, they document just how dubious Warren’s claims of Native-American heritage were. “Warren says, yes, she is, and points to ‘family stories’ passed down to her through generations as evidence,” wrote Gregory Krieg. “In that account and others, a genealogist traced Warren's Native American heritage to the late 19th century, which, if true, would make her 1/32 Native American. (However, the legitimacy of those findings has been debated.)”
The CNN piece actually noted how The Washington Post’s fact checkers had thrown up their hands and gave up trying to figure out if Warren’s claims were accurate.
Krieg also reported how the Senator had benefited professionally from people believing she was Native-American. “Harvard Law School in the 1990s touted Warren, then a professor in Cambridge, as being ‘Native American,’” he continued. “They singled her out, Warren later acknowledged, because she had listed herself as a minority in an Association of American Law Schools directory.”
The Big Three Networks failed to do their due diligence and fully cover the origin of Trump’s criticism. Maybe because they were more eager to slam their favorite punching bag, or perhaps it’s because Warren was rumored to be thinking of challenging Trump in 2020.
Transcripts below:
ABC
World News Tonight
November 27, 2017
6:35:36 PM Eastern
(…)
JON KARL: The three Navajo heroes, all in their 90s, reacted with silence. The venue was new, but the insult is one the President used over and over again during the campaign to attack Senator Elizabeth Warren, who came under fire in 2012 for claiming, without any proof, to have native American heritage.
DONALD TRUMP: Did you ever hear of Pocahontas? Huh? It's Pocahontas, Elizabeth Warren.
(…)
...
 CBS Evening NewsNovember 27, 2017 6:36:33 PM Eastern
ANTHONY MASON: A United States Senator is accusing the President of a racial slur directed at her. Here's chief congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes.
[Cuts to video]
(…)
NANCY CORDES: Democrats quickly called it a racial slur. Warren called it disturbing.
ELIZABETH WARREN: I guess he thinks it's going to shut me up, and all I can say is, hasn't worked in the past, not going to work in the future.
CORDES: President Trump has used that name to peg his progressive foe many times before.
(…)
CORDES: It's a reference to the Massachusetts Senator’s past claims of Cherokee ancestry.
WARREN: But the truth is the truth. I believe my mother.
(…)
NBC Nightly News
November 27, 2017
7:01:28 PM Eastern
LESTER HOLT: Good evening. Welcome. In a moment that may very well have caused some people who witnessed it to wince, President Trump at a White House event honoring World War II Native-American code talkers used the nickname Pocahontas to mock a political nemesis. It is a derogatory nickname he often uses to attack Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren but the place and moment has the White House tonight defending the President from accusations of racial insensitivity. At a time, his administration rushing to ink a tax reform bill cannot afford a distraction. Our Kristen Welker has the story for us.
(…)
KRISTEN WELKER: That Pocahontas quip, an insult he has hurled at Massachusetts Senator Warren before. Warren came under fire as a Senate candidate for claiming Native-American ancestry during her academic career.
(…)
WELKER: Today in the Oval Office, those Native-American veterans didn't react but senator Warren lashed out.
ELIZABETH WARREN: It is deeply unfortunate that the President of the United States cannot even make it through a ceremony honoring these heroes without having to throw out a racial slur.
(…)
|
|
By Kyle Drennen
On CBS’s Face the Nation, moderator John Dickerson asked his political roundtable if there were any stories they felt were not getting enough news coverage. Predictably, the liberal journalists on the panel fretted that Republican efforts on the state level to “ban abortion” and engage in “voter suppression” were happening “completely under the radar.”
After Dickerson encouraged the pundits to highlight “something that you’ve noticed that’s been happening that deserves more attention that’s out there,” USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page chimed in: “If look at even a hot-button issue like abortion, Republican state legislators have managed to pass bans on abortion in some circumstances.”
She warned viewers:
Just in the last six months since the last election, in five states, bans on abortion in certain circumstances. Eleven states, major restrictions on abortion. In three states, new restrictions on funding for Planned Parenthood.
Page seemed to even use the issue to make a get-out-the-vote pitch to Democrats: “And that shows the importance of the midterms next year, not just for Congress, for these state legislatures too.”
Slate Magazine’s Jamelle Bouie followed up by claiming that supposed GOP efforts to keep minorities from voting were being ignored: “I think lost in these conversations about African-American voters is the very real fact that efforts at voter suppression are ongoing in the states. Efforts to sort of restrict access to the ballot.”
He then started hurling accusations at the Trump administration: “And then, on the federal level, it is simply the case of President Trump’s cabinet members – Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been remarkably successful at turning the Justice Department’s mission away from its charge of defending the civil rights of Americans.”
“And I think that’s going completely under the radar in our sort of focus on whatever the President is saying on any given day,” Bouie concluded.
Dickerson didn’t actually require his guests to bash Republicans, they could have mentioned any topic, but both just naturally had the instinct to attack the GOP.
Here is a transcript of the November 27 exchange:
10:42 AM ET
(...)
JOHN DICKERSON: I want to end with a philosophical question – Susan, I’ll start with you – which is there’s a lot of things that get covered but there’s stuff that doesn’t get covered in these periods. And I wondered if each of you have an idea, something that you’ve noticed that’s been happening that deserves more attention that’s out there. Susan?
 SUSAN PAGE: You know, one of the things that we’ve talked about on this roundtable is how the Republicans have been unsuccessful in delivering anything since winning unified control of the Washington capital. But if you look at state capitals, that’s not the case, big Republican gains there.
If look at even a hot-button issue like abortion, Republican state legislators have managed to pass bans on abortion in some circumstances. Just in the last six months since the last election, in five states, bans on abortion in certain circumstances. Eleven states, major restrictions on abortion. In three states, new restrictions on funding for Planned Parenthood.
So the Gridlock that has affected Washington has not affected state capitals. And the Republicans who have made big gains there. And that shows the importance of the midterms next year, not just for Congress, for these state legislatures too.
DICKERSON: State legislatures.
 JAMELLE BOUIE [SLATE MAGAZINE]: So in our conversation about Alabama, we talked about black voters in the state and their enthusiasm their enthusiasm. Before the Virginia election, there was a lot of talk about black voters and their enthusiasm, but I think lost in these conversations about African-American voters is the very real fact that efforts at voter suppression are ongoing in the states. Efforts to sort of restrict access to the ballot.
And then, on the federal level, it is simply the case of President Trump’s cabinet members – Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been remarkably successful at turning the Justice Department’s mission away from its charge of defending the civil rights of Americans. And I think that’s going completely under the radar in our sort of focus on whatever the President is saying on any given day.
(...)
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment