Wednesday, July 13, 2005

The Media War

As Michael Goodwin discussed in the New York Daily News, the Karl Rove controversy has highlighted the self-proclaimed war the media is waging against the President and the U.S. government:

The intense grilling that White House reporters inflicted on presidential spokesman Scott McClellan Monday over whether political guru Karl Rove leaked the name of a CIA operative was no ordinary give-and-take. It was a hostile hectoring that revealed much of the mainstream press for what it has become: the opposition party.

Forget fairness, or even the pretense of it. With one of its own locked up - Judith Miller of The New York Times - much of the Beltway gang has declared war on the White House.


Reporters apparently have decided Democrats aren't up to the job. Can't blame them. With Dems reduced to Howard Dean's rants and Hillary Clinton's juvenile jab that President Bush looks like Mad magazine's Alfred E. Neuman, somebody has to offer a substantive alternative. The press has volunteered.


That the mainstream media are basically liberals with press passes has been documented by virtually every study that measures reporters' political identification and issue positions. But bias has now slopped over into blatant opposition, a stance the media will regret. Instead of providing unvarnished facts obtained by aggressive but fair-minded reporting, the media will be reduced to providing comfort food to ideological comrades.


As Goodwin pointed out, the media is "already held in lower esteem by the public than lawyers and Congress." It isn't hard to see why. The openly leftist bias of many in the media has caused journalists and media organizations to lose whatever trust and respect Americans may have felt for them.

I heard one network news reporter include these words in a question for the White House press secretary: "...now that Karl Rove has been caught red-handed...." The fact is, we still don't know whether Rove broke the law; it appears now that he didn't. And we don't know if what he told a Time reporter who called him was the actual leak or if his comment was made after the leak was public, even though it wouldn't be published for another few days.

Despite the fact that so little is known, liberal journalists have already convicted Rove. Would it be so unreasonable to wait until the grand jury investigation is over? At that point we will know if Rove is indicted for a crime, and we should also know if he was the leaker in this case. If the answer to those questions is yes, I'll buy the rope for the media lynch mob. Until then, I'd prefer to wait for the facts.

15 Comments:

Blogger carla said...

OH c'mon Tom. This is completely lame.

We know Rove was the source. That's already been established by the Cooper emails turned over by Time. McClellan has repeatedly lied to reporters when he said Rove wasn't. McClellan deserved his grilling and then some.

It's about time the media got a spine and stood up to these guys.

2:25 PM, July 13, 2005  
Blogger John Walter said...

I agree whole heartedly that the liberal bias in the media is undeniable. Carla: you may do well at "slaughtering sacred cows" of the conservatives, but you never seem to notice the ones on the liberal side of the house. The formost of them is the notion that the media has ever given the Republicans a break.

I think the primary reason the press is going bonkers right now is because Rove has basically made monkeys out of them, using their own biases against them and tricking them, especially in the Plame Affair, to help the very same Whitehouse agenda they so oppose.

I am somehow not nervous about Rove. I suspect he will still manage to eat some of those MSM turkeys alive.

4:54 PM, July 13, 2005  
Blogger sygamel said...

The point is did Rove commit a crime (violate the CAIPA). You know that, Carla.

Whether he's the source or not is related only to Bush's call for any leakers to resign. That's what you should be concerned about until Rove is indicted.

4:54 PM, July 13, 2005  
Blogger carla said...

Lord it's running fast and thick here now.

"Liberal" bias in the media is a fantasy. The media completely gave Bush a pass after 9/11. In fact they're party to the scam of intelligence against the American people regarding Iraq. There are at least two conservative talking heads to every liberal one on the talk shows..and some of the liberals they manage to get on are really more centrists than liberals.

(And if I see the market forces argument posted next..I'll know we've completely gone down the red herring route)

The Republicans have had nothing BUT breaks from the media because for all intents and purposes, they own it.

The press is going bonkers on Rove because McClellan lied to their faces and now he's caught. Bush isn't looking much better either...trotting his spokespeople out to parse Bush's words from the beginning of the investigation in regard to dealing with the leaker. John Walters own blinders have reached the point of comic ridiculous.

Scott..Matt Cooper testified today that Rove was the leaker. I find it difficult to believe that the SP would hold a two year investigation for something that in no way could be a crime. Do you honestly expect that Fitzgerald wouldn't have checked to see if the leak was actually a crime before conducting a criminal investigation of it?

5:21 PM, July 13, 2005  
Blogger sygamel said...

Scott..Matt Cooper testified today that Rove was the leaker.

I'm not doubting whether Rove was the leaker -- I'm doubting that he actually committed a crime, i.e. he knew Plame was covert and wished to make that public (CAIPA violation). So let's an indictment.

Ergo, what matters until Rove is indicted is will Bush follow up on his pledge to fire those involved in a leak. Follow? Good.

5:25 PM, July 13, 2005  
Blogger John Walter said...

I think the "Hang Rove" crowd is getting way ahead of themselves. The most that any responsible person has accused Rove of was that he told Cooper that Dick Cheney did not send Joe Wilson to Africa, as Wilson said, but that a CIA employee had arranged the trip. How Cooper got from the point of "CIA employee" to "Valerie Plame" remains unknown. It looks to me as if Rove said the very minimum necessary to correct a conscious lie which Joe Wilson told for the specific purpose of smearing the president. Calling McClellan a liar over this matter is a libel against the Whitehouse spokesman. Unless someone can establish that McClellan personally knew one thing and said another, then he cannot be called a liar. The only person whom we know has actually lied in this whole affair is Joe "Say Anything" Wilson. The person whom we need to be looking at closely is not Rove, but Wilson, who certainly seems to have gooten his wife a cushy job (undue influence) in a supposedly apolitical government agency (conflict of interest) and calls her an "operative" so that nobody can expose her without supposedly breaking the law (false pretences). If Rove ever gets charged on this issue, the prosecution will be hard pressed to show that what he did wasn't actually a service to the American people.

7:22 PM, July 13, 2005  
Blogger Tom Carter said...

Here are the facts about Rove, folks:

1. No one knows if Rove violated the law on protecting CIA officers. It's a very narrowly drawn law, and it's hard to break. By most accounts I read, it's unlikely that he's in violation.

2. Cooper called Rove, talked no more than two minutes on other subjects, and in the last few seconds Rove warned him not to go with the Wilson story and mentioned Wilson's wife's job. It was on background. Maybe the grand jury will find that this was an improper leak or something, but it seems shaky to me.

3. When Cooper spoke to reporters after his grand jury testimony, he did not reveal the content of his testimony, as far as I know. Did he name Rove as his source for the Plame story, and/or did he name other sources? We don't know.

4. We don't know who Judith Miller's source or sources were because she didn't name any sources. Maybe Rove wasn't one of them. We don't know.

No matter how extreme a liberal one is or how much deep, personal, irrational hatred one may harbor for the President and everyone around him, there is very little known right now about what Rove did. Why not just give it a break for a while and find out the truth? Like I've said before, if Rove is guilty I think he should pay the price. But I'm just not into lynching.

11:45 PM, July 13, 2005  
Blogger carla said...

The most that any responsible person has accused Rove of was that he told Cooper that Dick Cheney did not send Joe Wilson to Africa, as Wilson said, but that a CIA employee had arranged the trip.

Factually incorrect. Wilson never claimed that Cheney sent him to Niger. Wilson has always said that it was a CIA arranged trip.

How Cooper got from the point of "CIA employee" to "Valerie Plame" remains unknown.

Maybe he did a Google search for Joe Wilson's wife. It was never a secret that Joe Wilson was married to Valerie Plame. It was a secret that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.

Calling McClellan a liar over this matter is a libel against the Whitehouse spokesman.

Since McClellan repeatedly told the press that Rove wasn't involved, I doubt you'll get that libel charge to stick.

The only person whom we know has actually lied in this whole affair is Joe "Say Anything" Wilson.

What did Wilson lie about? Please be specific.


The person whom we need to be looking at closely is not Rove, but Wilson, who certainly seems to have gooten his wife a cushy job (undue influence) in a supposedly apolitical government agency (conflict of interest) and calls her an "operative" so that nobody can expose her without supposedly breaking the law (false pretences). If Rove ever gets charged on this issue, the prosecution will be hard pressed to show that what he did wasn't actually a service to the American people.

Since when is going to Niger a "cushy" job? This is ridiculous. Outing a CIA agent is now considered by rightwingers to be a "service to the American people."?

You make me sick.

6:18 PM, July 14, 2005  
Blogger carla said...

1. No one knows if Rove violated the law on protecting CIA officers. It's a very narrowly drawn law, and it's hard to break. By most accounts I read, it's unlikely that he's in violation.

We know that prosecutors do not convene grand juries, take testimony and do investigations if there is no possibility that a crime has taken place. If Plame's outing was not a crime, there would be no reason for the SP to exist.

Cooper called Rove, talked no more than two minutes on other subjects, and in the last few seconds Rove warned him not to go with the Wilson story and mentioned Wilson's wife's job. It was on background. Maybe the grand jury will find that this was an improper leak or something, but it seems shaky to me.

That's Rove's side of the story. Cooper's is different. I suggest you read both sides.

When Cooper spoke to reporters after his grand jury testimony, he did not reveal the content of his testimony, as far as I know. Did he name Rove as his source for the Plame story, and/or did he name other sources? We don't know.

Yeah we do:

http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archives/2005/07/cooper_gives_it_1.html

No matter how extreme a liberal one is or how much deep, personal, irrational hatred one may harbor for the President and everyone around him, there is very little known right now about what Rove did. Why not just give it a break for a while and find out the truth? Like I've said before, if Rove is guilty I think he should pay the price. But I'm just not into lynching.

Or you could just quit swallowing the rightwing talking points and do some investigating on your own.

6:21 PM, July 14, 2005  
Blogger John Walter said...

I make you sick, Carla? Gosh!

You know, I would take your righteous indignation a lot more seriously if the only time I ever see you come even close to supporting security and defense personel wasn't when you use it as a way to bait Republicans.

9:02 PM, July 14, 2005  
Blogger Tom Carter said...

Carla, I've read all sides of the story. I think you're getting a little hysterical over this Rove business. And by the way, the post you referred to, and the E&P article you linked to in it, don't confirm what Cooper told the grand jury because he didn't say. Period. He's waiting to write a big story about it, which I guess is a legitimate choice for him.

You need to learn a lot more about the law involved. It's highly unlikely that anyone violated it, especially Rove. As I said, no one, including you, knows whether the law was violated, and you'll run a lot less risk of looking foolish later if you just cool it now. We'll all know soon enough.

It's interesting how ultra-liberals who have always sneered at the CIA (and the military) are suddenly concerned about national security and intelligence operations. Here's just one of many examples:

Senator Chuck Schumer, then a member of the House, was one of only 32 members (out of 435) who voted against the law protecting the identities of covert CIA officers. Later, he strongly objected to Justice Department plans to enfore that law. Now, he's all worried about protecting CIA officers, claiming that Rove broke the law with no evidence to support that claim, and demanding that Rove either be fired or that his security clearance be revoked.

Hypocrisy, plain and simple.

12:20 AM, July 15, 2005  
Blogger Zipcard2 said...

Valerie Plume does not fall in either A i or ii or B i or ii as described in the law below: (taken from Section 426. Definitions of the US Code Title 50.Chapter 15.SubChapterIV)

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an
intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed
Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member
is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within
the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship
to the United States is classified information, and -
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an
agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance
to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an
agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or
foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;

People in D.C. knew who she was and where she worked. She had friends. She worked behind a desk. Also doesn't look like she is undercover here. http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a164/zipcard2/Family/031202_VF_ValeriePlame.jpg Here is the happy couple posing for a magazine.

12:54 AM, July 15, 2005  
Blogger Zipcard2 said...

I meant "Plame" typo. Sorry Tom.

12:57 AM, July 15, 2005  
Blogger Tom Carter said...

Zip, you're right, of course. Everyone who knows anything at all about this law is making the same points. Unfortunately, far-left liberals are so blinded by hatred and all-consuming frustration that facts don't matter.

However, as I've said before, if Rove is guilty of intentionally leaking the fact of Plame's employment as a means of attacking her husband, then Bush ought to kick his butt out of the White House. No one knows yet if that is true, and it's looking more and more like it may not be. Everyone should just take a few breaths, calm down, and wait for the facts to emerge, as they most certainly will.

1:09 AM, July 15, 2005  
Blogger Zipcard2 said...

Tom, There are 3 things fueling this issue.
1) Wilson is upset because he was questioned on his findings in his report and challenged on his claim about VP Cheney

2) Wilson is also trying to sell a book

3) The dems/libs will do anything to go after Rove and Bush and this looks good although all the evidence isn't in yet.

Funny that carla seems to know what was said in front of the Grand Jury. I was under the assumption as was the entire country that Grand Jury testimony is secret until the indictments are actually handed down.

The link I gave to the photo was in error, it was moved it now is:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a164/zipcard2/031202_VF_ValeriePlame.jpg
God Bless!

1:27 AM, July 15, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home