GINA COBB

L.A. Times' Tim Rutten Says CNN "Corrupt" in Handling of Debate

In a surprising piece (coming from a left-leaning writer in a left-leaning newspaper), Tim Rutten at the Los Angeles Times cries foul on CNN's handling of the most recent Republican presidential debate.

Rutten questions why CNN spent the first 35 minutes of the debate on the issue of illegal immigration, which is not one of the top concerns of the American people as documented by public opinion polls, and accuses CNN of focusing on immigration in order to boost its own ratings:

So, why did CNN make immigration the keystone of this debate? What standard dictated the decision to give that much time to an issue so remote from the majority of voters' concerns? The answer is that CNN's most popular news-oriented personality, Lou Dobbs, has made opposition to illegal immigration and free trade the centerpiece of his neonativist/neopopulist platform. In fact, Dobbs led into Wednesday's debate with a good solid dose of immigrant bashing. His network is in a desperate ratings battle with Fox News and, in a critical prime-time slot, with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. So, what's good for Dobbs is good for CNN.

In other words, CNN intentionally directed the Republicans' debate to advance its own interests. Make immigration a bigger issue and you've made a bigger audience for Dobbs.

That's corruption, and it's why the Republican candidates had to spend more than half an hour "debating" an issue on which their differences are essentially marginal -- and, more important, why GOP voters had to sit and wait, mostly in vain, for the issues that really concern them to be discussed.

Captain Ed thinks Rutten is over the top in accusing CNN of outright corruption, and I'd have to agree that the evidence to support that charge is thin at this point, but Rutten certainly is correct in questioning CNN's judgment in the questions it chose to highlight in the debate. 

As I and other commentators have pointed out, the questions CNN selected are ones that would be primarily of interest if one wanted to undermine the candidates and advance a Democratic Party agenda.  Not coincidentally, it turns out that one prominent question was asked by a member of a Hillary Clinton campaign steering committee who was not identified as such during the debate, and several other questions were asked by persons already publicly committed to other Democratic candidates (none of whom were disclosed as such).

Beyond that, Rutten is right to take offense at CNN's selection of a question that forced candidates to take a position on the inerrancy of the Bible:

Me Fox News

Since we're having a relaxing, kicked-back kind of weekend here, how 'bout catching up on something you might have missed a while back -- a transcript from Fox News Sunday --

-- translated for cavemen.

MSNBC's Shuster Digs Pit for Rep. Blackburn; Falls Into It Himself

He who digs a pit for another falls into it himself.

MSNBC's David Shuster is the latest pit-digger to illustrate the familiar adage. 

In an interview with Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) on Tucker Carlson's show on Monday evening, ostensibly to discuss MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" ad, Shuster sandbagged Rep. Blackburn with a demand to know the name of the last soldier from her district who had died in Iraq.  When Blackburn said that she did not know, he stated the name of a fallen soldier and then needled Blackburn for not knowing the soldier's name.

One little problem.  The fallen soldier was not even from Rep. Blackburn's district.

From Mark Finkelstein at NewsBusters:

SHUSTER: Let's talk about the public trust. You represent of course a district in western Tennessee. What was the name of the last soldier from your district who was killed in Iraq?

MARSHA BLACKBURN: The name of the last soldier killed in Iraq from my district? I do not know.

SHUSTER: OK, his name was Jeremy Bohannon. He was killed August the ninth, 2007. How come you didn't know the name?

Even after Blackburn expressed her appreciation for our soldiers' sacrifice, and detailed the extensive outreach she and her office does to military families in her district, Shuster continued to attack her for not knowing Private Bohannon's name.

SHUSTER: Well, you weren't appreciative enough to know the name of this young man . . . I still think it's a little bit surprising that you didn't know the name of this last soldier killed in Iraq who's only 18 years old yet you do know so much about the MoveOn.org ad and the tactics you didn't like.

It now turns out that Army Private Jeremy Bohannon had not, contrary to Shuster's claim, lived in Rep. Blackburn's congressional district. As blogger Conservative Belle brought to NB's attention, and as she has written about at her site, Private Bohannon lived in Bon Acqua, TN. Checking his nine-digit zip code reveals that he in fact lived in Tennessee District 8, represented by John Tanner, a Democrat.

The error was later confirmed by Finkelstein, who spoke with an aide in Rep. Blackburn's office. 

Once his error had been proven, Shuster made a terse on-air apology, which presumably was forced by MSNBC.  Video of the Shuster apology is here. As Mark Finkelstein puts it, Shuster's apology "had all the spontaneity of a hostage video."

Not Much Sympathy for Dan Rather

He who digs a pit for another falls into it himself.

Tim Rutten writes in the Los Angeles Times today that Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS is an act of ego.  His opening line:

Dan Rather took the best seat in the house that Murrow built and then left the place a ruin. Now he has returned to torch the rubble.

Rutten elaborates:

The former "CBS Evening News" anchor has a filed a $70-million suit against the network where he worked for 44 years, alleging that the network breached his contract when it asked him to step out of the anchor's chair and pushed him into broadcast obscurity. CBS did this, the suit contends, because of his role in producing what turned out to be a wholly unsubstantiated "60 Minutes II" segment alleging that a young George W. Bush used family connections to obtain favorable treatment that allowed him to evade service in the Texas Air National Guard.

Rather's suit further alleges that CBS' internal investigation -- directed by two outsiders, former U.S. Atty. Gen. and Pennsylvania Gov. Richard Thornburg and ex-Associated Press chief Louis Boccardi -- was a "fraud." According to Rather, Sumner Redstone, chairman of Viacom, the network's corporate owner, along with then-CBS news President Andrew Heyward and Les Moonves, CBS' chief executive, sacked Rather and four other journalists to get the Bush administration off their backs.

"Central to the defendants' play to pacify the White House," the suit contends, "was to offer Mr. Rather as the public face of the story and as a scapegoat for CBS management's bungling of the entire episode -- which, as a direct result, became known publicly as 'Rathergate.' "

Oh, that's how that happened.

Here we thought that trite "Rathergate" business came about because a lot of conservative commentators gleefully pounced on a self-evidently shoddy piece of journalism served up by a newsman they'd long suspected of bias and because he and his network then obligingly confirmed their suspicions by arrogantly defending the indefensible -- bad work.

Now, if you once had thought of yourself as situated at the heart of the journalistic universe for nearly half a century, and suddenly found yourself 75 and toiling for an obscure cable operation that seemed to generate more press releases than viewers, it probably would be much more satisfying to see yourself as the victim of an intricate, high-level conspiracy than as someone undone by the kind of personal screw-up that would make a first-year reporter blush.

The problem is that there's more than one guy's injured vanity at play here. In fact, the adjectives that come to mind as you assess the substance of what Rather now has done are wanton, reckless and irresponsible.

It's a hard-hitting reaction to Dan Rather's lawsuit, especially considering where it's published -- the left-leaning Los Angeles Times.

Read it all here.

Another L.A. Times staff writer, Mary McNamara, isn't impressed with Dan Rather's explanation of his lawsuit on Larry King's show, either.

Nor is left-leaning Newsweek particularly enthusiastic:

Hewitt says he had questioned whether the reporting was biased at a CBS meeting convened to discuss the controversy that began to swell after the story aired. “Let me ask one question,” he recalls addressing the gathering. “If this had been John Kerry, wouldn’t you have been more careful about the story?” A senior CBS News insider said Rather is further damaging his reputation by suing. “I think it looks pathetic,” this executive told NEWSWEEK on condition of not being identified. "It looks like the musing of an older man who can’t let go. This will have no winners. But the biggest loser will be Dan.”

Rather and CBS labored long and hard to dig a pit for President Bush.  When they could not find convincing proof of wrongdoing from Bush's Texas national guard days, they settled for what they had -- evidence that was, in their minds, "fake but accurate." 

Worse, Rather stood by the fake story long after the "evidence" (a memo supposedly typed on an old national guard typewriter that just happened to perfectly match the modern Microsoft Word default layout and font) was proven to be a sham.

Dan Rather helped dig a pit for another man, and now he's fallen into it himself.

There is a way out of the pit, but it involves genuine fairmindedness, sincere regret, a dose of humility and common decency.

Unfortunately, Rather is still digging.

Rather v. CBS

Rather v. CBS?

This is going to be a dilemma. 

I don't know which side to root for.

Of course, in litigation, it's often true that nobody wins.

So this could turn out well.

What, Rosie, Leaving So Soon?

Rosie O'Donnell is leaving The View before her term expires, one day after a tense on-air argument with co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck. 

Gateway Pundit has details of Rosie's departure, including the news of an similarly graceless departure by Rosie's producer Janette Barber, who reportedly thought it would be a good idea to draw mustaches on pictures of Elisabeth Hasselback.

Like most Americans, I once thought Rosie O'Donnell was funny or at least mildly amusing.  But as she began to show signs of Bush Derangement Syndrome and even 9/11 "truther" disease, O'Donnell became increasingly annoying.  I can't say I'm sorry to see her go.

Rosie O'Donnell Is Leaving The View

It looks like Rosie O'Donnell finally offended one person too many.  ABC has announced that negotiations for a new contract have broken down and that O'Donnell will be leaving ABC's show The View in June.

Friday Update

Here are some of today's biggest stories and best commentary.  Check back for updates!

NEWS 

Reuters, Senator Kerry Urges Dialogue with Iran, Syria  And Kerry will be meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assadas.  Has Kerry ever met an enemy of America he doesn't like?

Newsday, White House Says Senate Visits to Syria Could Hinder Progress  Even more leading Democratic Senators (and Republican-in-name-only Arlen Specter) rush to get chummy with Syria

Washington Post, Democratic Sen. Johnson in Stable Condition After Brain Surgery  "Stable" sounds like an improvement over "critical"

NEW! Yahoo! News, Johnson Shows Signs of Surgery Recovery  Looking good, but one independent doctor cautions Sen. Johnson still may need more surgery at some point

Associated Press, World's Tallest Man Saves China Dolphins  Long arms come in handy when you need to pull plastic from a dolphin's stomach

New York Times, Reversing Trend, Big Drop Is Seen in Breast Cancer  Most likely explanation is that women have abandoned hormone replacement therapy that was believed to slightly increase breast cancer risk

NEW! Space Station Glitch Possibly Caused by Solar Flare  Solar winds appear to be affecting astronauts' flight

NEW! Washington Post, Castro Near Death, U.S. Intelligence Chief Says  Last seen in an October 28th video 

COMMENTARY

Jawa Report, No Killing "Innocents"-- Innocents = Muslims, Everyone Else Is Fair Game  Anjem Choudary, head of The Society of Muslim Lawyers in U.K., explains that it's O.K. to murder you if you're not Muslim

Powerline, Mr. President, If I May Be So Bold . . .   What to do about Iraq and Iran . . . besides giving up, that is

NEW! Michelle Malkin, What's So Funny About Going to Iraq?  Plus: More Questions for AP  Whatever was left of the AP's reputation for accuracy in Iraq war coverage is slip-sliding away fast

FUN

NEW! Point Five, Windows Middle East Troubleshooter: At Last, A Solution  A little off-color language, but it's amusing

TODAY IS THE LAST DAY TO VOTE IN 2006 WEBLOG AWARDS

Please take two clicks and cast one more vote for this website.  Voting ends today!  Do know what that means?  It means you'll actually be able to visit this website again without finding endless pleas for your vote!  A big thank you to all who have voted. 

Oh, and while you're at it, please cast another vote for Dr. Melissa Clouthier, who always has something interesting up at her website.  Vote for her here.

Big thank yous also for sending kind words and votes my way to The Anchoress, Point Five Blog, and Sister Toldjah.  They all have terrific websites; you can vote for them here:  Anchoress (Lileks is also outstanding but has more than enough votes already) and Sister Toldjah or Point Five (both in the same category along with some other terrific blogs, so you'll have to take your pick).

Why Larry King Won't Be Blogging Anytime Soon

This is too funny:  Larry King admits that he has never used the internet. 

"Do you punch little buttons and things?”

Last night CNN’s Larry King confessed to Roseanne Barr that he’s never used the Internet. King expressed doubt that the Internet was a viable political medium because “there’s 80 billion things on it.” When Barr said she liked the Internet, King acknowledged that “I’ve never done it, never gone searching.”

Barr said King would love the internet if he tried it. King replied, “I wouldn’t love it. What do you punch little buttons and things?” Barr even offered to show King how to use the Internet. King declined.

Hoo boy!  This may explain some of the stuff that comes out of Larry King's show.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go punch some little buttons and things.

Jessica Coleman Update

Just checking on the website before I leave, I see that there's a huge amount of interest in Jessica Coleman.  She is the teenager who tried to kill her own baby before it was born, stabbed it again after it was delivered, and left it to die.  Coleman was interviewed on Oprah Winfrey's show today.

Coleman is now being portrayed as a likeable figure with lessons to teach other young girls.  Yet are the right lessons really being learned?  My earlier post on the subject is here:  "The Likeable Side of Infanticide." 

Update 11/30/06:  I'm told that the story has now been aired on Australian TV.  Feel free to visit my earlier post "The Likeable Side of Infanticide," read the comments, and leave a comment of your own.  (Polite comments only, please.  Strong opinions are OK, but avoid name calling, etc. if you want your comment to be published.)

Lynn Cheney 1, Wolf Blitzer 0

CNN's Wolf Blitzer sprang some off-topic questions on Lynn Cheney on Friday and got his head handed to him. 

Cheney bluntly asked Wolf Blitzer her own questions -- questions that CNN desperately needs to answer:

"What is CNN doing running terrorist tapes of terrorists shooting Americans?"

"Do you want us to win?"

"Why are you running terrorist propoganda?

"Where did you get the film?"

Watch the video here.

More coverage at Newsbusters.

Word of the Day: Shocking

The word of the day seems to be "shocking":

• Jim Webb, Democratic candidate for the Senate in Virginia, wrote graphic things in his novels, including lewd and rude scenes like a father's inappropriate act with a 4-year-old boy, another graphic scene with a stripper, and use of racial slurs for blacks and Vietnamese
• South Park is mocking Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin just weeks after his death, depicting Irwin with a stingray poking from from his bleeding chest
• A man burst into a crowded church in Oregon yesterday, poured fuel on people, and started a fire

The Path to 9/11: Clinton Officials STILL On Same Self-Obsessed Path

"The Path to 9/11" is a five-hour dramatization laying out the history of the Sept. 11 plot from the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.  It is being be aired over two nights on the anniversary of the attack by ABC Television.

The movie reportedly notes lapses by the Clinton administration that may have contributed to 9/11, along with a few missed opportunities by the Bush White House.

Now the Clinton administration is up in arms about the movie, claiming it to be inaccurate.  Samuel "Sandy Pants" Berger, who was national security adviser to President Bill Clinton at the time -- and who was caught removing documents from the national archives by stuffing them in his pants -- calls the scenes involving him "complete fabrications."   

Berger and other former Clinton administration officials of course have reason to be embarrassed about having missed some opportunities to stop Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda before it was too late.  And something must have embarrassed Berger a great deal for him to have knowingly smuggled classified documents out of the national archives.

If anything, the denials of responsibility by former members of the Clinton Administration only convince me further that the Clintonistas are still on the "path to 9/11," figuratively speaking. 

They are still vastly more concerned with themselves and their own personal political fortunes than they are with the mortal threat to America from Islamic terrorists.

They are still self-obsessed today, just as they were demonstrably self-obsessed before 9/11.  Clinton's abuse of the Oval Office for personasl encounters with Monica Lewinsky is just one of the many forms of embarrassing proof of that point.

Self-obsession is hardly conducive to protection of our national security.  Everything becomes a political calculation.  Threats are not considered seriously, extent to the extent that they have political implications, such as a "wag the dog" opportunity.  Do you remember the Afghanistan "Monica missiles," perfectly timed to distract from embarrassing deposition and grand jury testimony involving Bill Clinton's Lewinsky coverup?:

The cruise missile attack came three days after President Clinton, in a deposition with Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s legal team, finally admitted he had had an “inappropriate” relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton gave a brief television address on August 17 during which he seemed nearly out of control with rage. Lewinsky was returning to the grand jury for additional testimony on the day that Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan — giving rise to the nickname “Monica’s Missiles” for the attacks.

That Sandy "Pants" Berger is allowed to speak any public words on behalf of the former Clinton administration today, after having been convicted of stuffing classified national records about 9/11 into his pants and even destroying some of those records, shows you just how shameless the former Clinton administration was and is when it comes to matters of honesty, and how little value it places on truth and accuracy. 

When you want people to believe what you're saying, you don't put forward someone who has pled guilty to a crime of dishonesty (unauthorized removal and retention of classified material).

In fact, the former Clinton administration modus operandi -- to deny and attempt to cover up anything embarrassing, is still in full swing at this late date.  Members of the Democratic Underground are seeking to distort the historical record by "Google bombing" The Path to 9/11 (that is, attempting to dominate the first several pages of Google and Technorati search results about the movie). 

The protests of The Path to 9/11 from former members of the Clinton administration should be ignored as predictable, self-serving, and untrustworthy.

Besides, we know how we got to 9/11, if you really think about it.

Most Americans, not just its leaders, underestimated the threat from Islamic terrorists.  The Clinton White House took weak and ineffectual steps in response to repeated provocation.  And the Bush White House did not immediately launch a war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban upon taking office (there was no immediate known threat and certainly no national consensus to take dramatic action prior to 9/11). 

What history will ultimately judge us all for is not how we failed to adequately anticipate 9/11.  What it will judge us all for is what were are doing about Islamic terrorism today, now that we know the mortal threat we face.

Are you supporting America, it's president, and all decent, civilized nations in their attempts to stop Islamic terrorism, or are you seeking to undermine them at every turn for your own immediate political or economic advantage? 

Are you offering constructive suggestions and practical help in the war on terror, or are you engaging in pointless negativity? 

Are you lobbying on behalf of the soldiers who are fighting the terrorists, or on behalf of the terrorists?  Are you more concerned about how terrorists are doing at Guantanamo than you are about U.S. soldiers, including those facing court martial for one reason or another?  Have you already excused the terrorist while convicting the soldier?

Do you act as if you love your own country, or are you adding your voice to the forces trying to tear your nation apart from inside and outside?

Answer questions like these wisely and well, and the Path to 9/11 won't matter so much.  It will be left in history, and our future will be bright.  Answer these questions poorly, and history will convict us all.

__________________________

Like this?  Take a moment to Digg it.

Update 9/8/06:

Update 9/9/06:  Recommended reading, laying out the evidence that the Clinton administration had several chances to kill Osama Bin Laden and chose not to: Dennis Byrne, Clinton's Artless Equivocation on 'The Path to 9/11'

Reverse Boycott: Support Actors Who Speak Out Against Terrorists

By now you've probably heard of the group of Hollywood actors and other notables who signed a public statement speaking out about the wrongdoing of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas and the need to support democratic societies and stop terrorism at all costs.

What you may not have seen yet is a full list of actors and others who signed the petition.

I think they deserve our support, don't you?

Here is the full list, via Flopping Aces:

Let's support actors who have the courage to speak out against terrorism.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann Off the Deep End?

Judge for yourself.

Matt Lauer No Match for Ann Coulter

Ann Counter continues to easily outpace the mainstream media with insightful thinking and commentary.  Her latest victim -- er, gracious host -- was Matt Lauer of the Today show.

Update 6/7/06: 

There's a meme developing today that Ann was too harsh on the 9/11 widows who have been critical of the administration.  My above post relates to other portions of the interview.  Follow the link above and read Ann Coulter's other interesting and fresh comments.

As for the comment on the widows themselves, it was at least a little bit insensitive, but in fairness it was directed to women who have themselves chosen to assume the public role of critics in the aftermath of their husbands' deaths.  There is probably a small grain of truth in Ann's comments.  Nobody is saying that any of these women would have chosen their husbands' deaths.  I think Coulter's point is that some of them are acting a bit like Cindy Sheehan.

Sure, I would like to see a little more sensitivity from Coulter and many others, but let's not pile on in enforcing an unfair double standard against conservative commentators.  Similar insensitive comments made on a daily basis by commentators on the left seem to come with no price tag at all:

Related Post:

Have the Media Proven Ann Coulter Right?