Brown Skips Own Error, Scorns Bush’s
Clinton-Like Word Parsing
On his first night back since falsely impugning President Bush, by highlighting an already-revealed fraudulent Web site report about how a CIA consultant claimed to have informed Bush, before his State of the Union address, about the falsity of the report about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa, CNN anchor Aaron Brown failed to offer a correction.
Instead, he lectured Bush about truthfulness and credibility: “The President campaigned for the job in part on the notion that he was the anti-Clinton, a man who said what he meant, meant what he said, no sentence parsing needed. Square that with today and critics who say you've got a bonanza for sentence parsers and at least the makings of a credibility gap.”
Jeff Greenfield warned: “So, are there any long term consequences to these battles over words? Well, remember in Vietnam the controversy over how we got into that war grew as the body count did.”
As recounted last week in CyberAlert, Brown led the Wednesday, July 9 NewsNight with attacks on the administration’s credibility, but Brown stretched his own credibility by picking up on a rumor, “a story that's been circulating on the Web today that there was at some point a conversation between the President and a CIA consultant where the consultant directly told the President that this African uranium deal was bogus.” Brown’s raising of such an uncorroborated story befuddled CNN reporter David Ensor, who speaking slowly as he fumbled for words, told Brown: “I have no way to confirm that story and it is somewhat suspect I would say...”
Brown didn’t cite his source, but he was quoting from a posting on CapitolHillBlue.com. But they, it turns out, retracted their one-source story at about 6pm EDT, four hours before Brown went on the air. CapitolHillBlue.com Publisher Doug Thompson discovered that his source, one Terrance Wilkinson, who identified himself as a CIA and FBI consultant, was a fraud.
For a full rundown on the Brown/Ensor exchange and an excerpt of CapitolHillBlue.com’s correction, go to: www.mediaresearch.org
Following his Wednesday night picking up of an unsubstantiated rumor, Brown was off on Thursday and Friday night and fill-in anchor Daryn Kagen made no mention of Brown’s gaffe.
Upon Brown’s return on Monday night, he was much more interested in the credibility of others than in correcting his own error. Brown opened the July 14 NewsNight:
“Good evening again, everyone. It is amazing the trouble 16 words can cause. The administration spent the weekend trying to end the controversy over that now infamous line in the President's State of the Union speech and the President did the same, but clearly it's not over. Many Democrats are having a field day, an issue that may have some stick but it isn't just Democrats and it isn't just politics. It is the credibility of the President and the administration the next time intelligence is used to justify an action. So, for now, the issue remains alive and once again begins the whip...”
Following a report from Bob Franken, Brown set up a look from Jeff Greenfield at whether the Bush team is mimicking the word-parsing of the Clinton era: “The President campaigned for the job in part on the notion that he was the anti-Clinton, a man who said what he meant, meant what he said, no sentence parsing needed. Square that with today and critics who say you've got a bonanza for sentence parsers and at least the makings of a credibility gap. Here's CNN's Jeff Greenfield.”
Greenfield began with a soundbite from Condoleezza Rice on Sunday’s Late Edition: “It is 16 words and it has become an enormously overblown issue.”
Greenfield: “That is the core of the case the administration was making on the Sunday talk shows. Which 16 words? These.
Bush during State of the Union address: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Rice on Late Edition: “We're talking about a sentence, a data point, not the President's case about reconstitution of weapons of mass destruction or of nuclear weapons in Iraq.”
Greenfield: “So, why the furor? Why is the Bush administration facing its most serious credibility test? Because words, especially words used by people with great power have to be taken seriously. Their use or misuse is what George Orwell was getting at in the famous essay when he wrote that if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. In fact, the misuse of language is one of the big problems Republicans had with the last President, remember?”
Bill Clinton: “”I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
Greenfield: “Only words, but to Clinton's critics they spoke volumes.”
Clinton: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word is, is.”
Greenfield: “So, if this President's case for war, the most serious matter any President faces, rests even in part on a questionable fact that's going to cause a controversy. But it can also lead to carelessness on the other side of the aisle. Look at this ad that the Democratic National Committee recently began airing.”
Bush in SOTU: “Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Greenfield: “Hold it. What happened to the attribution that it was the-”
Bush: “British government.”
Greenfield: “-British government that supposedly learned this? Can the Democrats say well we only left out five words? Of course not. Finally, listen to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld on Meet the Press.”
Rumsfeld: “Put the quote back up.”
Greenfield: “Why, moderator Tim Russert wanted to know, did he brush aside an estimate by the army chief of staff that quote, 'several hundred thousand,’ unquote, U.S. forces might be needed when, in fact, there are still some 150,000 forces in Iraq?”
Rumsfeld: “I think right now we have 147,000. That's what I said. That is not several hundred thousand. That is half of several hundred thousand.”
Greenfield: “So, are there any long term consequences to these battles over words? Well, remember in Vietnam the controversy over how we got into that war grew as the body count did. So, if 150,000 or 200,000 or 300,000 U.S. forces are presiding over a more peaceful and stable Iraq, then this controversy probably goes away. If the picture is one of continuing disorder and conflict and casualties, then it doesn't. Jeff Greenfield, CNN, New York.”
But we are stuck depending on the media to learn which reality is prevailing.
mediaresearch.org |
