SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (4886)8/13/2003 1:08:05 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793622
 
Samuelson writes an excellent piece on the "Times"

Smug Journalism

By Robert J. Samuelson

Wednesday, August 13, 2003; Page A27

"Even at the Times' lowest moment, which may be right about now, it is almost impossible to exaggerate the paper's significance. Not only is it bigger and better than its rivals. . . . An event it doesn't cover might, in a manner of speaking, just as well not have happened."

-- Elizabeth Kolbert

in the New Yorker, June 30

No place in American journalism is so smug and superior as the New York Times. Kolbert's casual observation captures the reigning conceit, which she absorbed in 14 years as a Times reporter before leaving. It was this conceit -- the belief that the Times must be right because it is the Times and sets the rules -- that ultimately caused the Jayson Blair debacle. Until that conceit is purged, the Times will remain vulnerable to similar blunders. The people at the Times don't seem to grasp this.

Recently the Times published its examination of the Blair affair, a 58-page report of a committee headed by an assistant managing editor, Allan M. Siegal, and including 21 other Times journalists and three outsiders. Though it received little attention (the Blair scandal is "old news"), it is revealing. Nowhere does the report discuss journalistic "fairness" or "objectivity," two reportorial standards that -- if never fully attainable -- are always worth pursuing. Somehow, nearly two dozen Times reporters and editors didn't dwell on these bedrock concepts in a report titled "Safeguarding the Integrity of Our Journalism."

Indeed, the report deals heavily with personnel policies. One proposal calls for the "appointment of a senior masthead editor . . . for Career Development." Said the report: "In our talks throughout the newsroom, we detected a pervasive desire for such an editor . . . who could serve as a sympathetic advocate and counselor in career planning."

The Times should also "reward courtesy and collegiality and penalize rudeness" among reporters and editors. The paper should "encourage . . . a healthy balance between work and personal commitments." Similarly, the Times should "strengthen the welcome mat" for newcomers by reviving "the New Faces poster and cocktail party." Now, these may be good ideas, but they have little to do with Jayson Blair.

Somewhere, what began as a huge case of journalistic fraud became a pretext for a palace revolt against two unpopular editors -- Executive Editor Howell Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd -- for unrelated grievances. The rap against Raines was that he was tyrannical and played favorites; Boyd was his agent. Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. initially said he would refuse Raines's resignation if it was offered; Sulzberger later admitted that he was "stunned" by the newsroom hostility and then asked (according to Raines) for his editor's resignation.

The point is that both Sulzberger's reaction and the Siegal report aimed more at restoring inside morale than at dispelling outside criticism. True, the Siegal report did propose a "public editor" -- an ombudsman -- to receive and make criticisms of the Times. But the proposal and its acceptance were grudging: The public editor's appointment will last for a year and be reviewed; the editor's independence is compromised by being responsible to the executive editor; and it's unclear how often the public editor will write. By contrast, The Washington Post's ombudsman is totally independent, is appointed for at least two years and -- to prevent subtle pressures -- cannot be employed afterward by The Post.

The preoccupation with staff morale presumes that the Blair scandal stemmed mostly from bad chemistry. The paper fell victim to Blair's pathology of deceit (the theory goes) and the high-handed management of Raines and Boyd. With Blair gone, fixing management would "protect our precious credibility," wrote new Executive Editor Bill Keller to the staff. This nifty theory is remarkable for its self-deception. Of course Raines is arrogant. He recently said: "I don't remember us [the Times] ever getting out-thought." Ever? But his arrogance is not isolated; nor was the Blair scandal the Times' only recent journalistic lapse.

Beginning in 1999 the Times ran articles alleging major Chinese nuclear espionage involving U.S. government researcher Wen Ho Lee; the charges were later dropped as unfounded. In 2002 the Times killed two sports columns that differed with the paper's intensive coverage of the demand that women be allowed to join the Augusta National Golf Club, site of the Masters tournament; after a furor, the columns ran. For years, critics have accused the Times of pursuing "liberal" agendas through its news as well as its editorial pages. Although the charges are often overwrought, they were given credence by Sulzberger's decision to switch the editorial page editor (Raines) to the news pages -- as if the distinction barely mattered. Under Keller, the paper has appointed the deputy editorial page editor as the Washington bureau chief.

The Siegal committee ignored these issues. The Blair affair was treated as a stand-alone mishap. Here is a culture of arrogance. The thread that connects the Blair scandal with the Times' other lapses is overconfidence -- a faith that it can't be "out-thought." If the Times were serious about self-examination, it would have assigned the task to outsiders. It is hard for insiders to be too critical of their organization for both psychological reasons (their assumptions may be part of the problem) and economic self-interest (they may censor themselves to protect their job).

The Times is a good and sometimes great paper. But it is not perfect or infallible. The humiliation it suffered from the Blair scandal did not produce much humility or learning. Until it's as tough on itself as it is on others, it will not deserve the "significance" now so often accorded it.

washingtonpost.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (4886)8/13/2003 1:12:00 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793622
 
Oh, pity the poor "West Side Liberals" in tinseltown. They helped create Arnold, and now he comes back to bite them! :>)

Hollywood Moguls, Voting A Split Ticket
They Adore Ahnuld at The Box Office but May Balk at the Ballot Box

By Sharon Waxman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 13, 2003; Page C01

LOS ANGELES -- The candidacy of Arnold Schwarzenegger has left the tanned and tucked Brahmins of the Hollywood elite in a bit of a quandary.

"I'm going to have to give him some money," said Tom Pollock, a longtime Democrat who once ran Universal Pictures, where Schwarzenegger made some of his blockbusters. "I'm hoping to get away with two grand." As for voting for the Terminator, Pollock won't say. "He once told me he was going to leave the party over what the Republicans did to Clinton. . . . We'll see."

The race for California governor by one of the entertainment industry's biggest stars is mixing politics, business and society in a most uncomfortable way. On one hand, many of Hollywood's overwhelmingly Democratic power brokers find the bid by an action star to head the nation's most populous state an embarrassment, a confirmation of the worst stereotypes of their industry. Most say they are vehemently opposed to the recall of Democratic Gov. Gray Davis as a matter of principle.

On the other hand, many also have longstanding friendships with Schwarzenegger and his wife, television reporter Maria Shriver. In the country clubs and on the hyacinth-smothered verandas of mansions in Brentwood, Bel Air and Beverly Hills, no mogul worth his Ferragamo flip-flops would ignore the network of social relationships that support his net worth.

"I know Arnold personally. I like him. I know his heart is in the right place," said Haim Saban, one of the Democratic Party's biggest donors and a media mogul who made his first fortune with "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers." Saban, another self-made gazillionaire immigrant with an accent, was calling in from his vacation in Tel Aviv. He mocked Darrell Issa, the Republican congressman who financed the recall effort and then tearfully dropped out of the race, as "an opportunistic crybaby."

But Arnold? "I don't know enough about that side of him to express an opinion on whether he can do the job or not," Saban said diplomatically. "But I'm supporting one person only and that's Gray Davis, period. I don't walk out on my friends when they're down."

Saban said he would vote no on the recall question, and would not vote for any candidate on the ballot to replace Davis. "This whole thing is a joke, an absolute, complete and total joke. I won't have anything to do with it, other than to vote no on the recall," he said.

The politically active people in the industry find themselves deciding among candidates whom they are more accustomed to seeing around the brick-accented pool at the home of Arianna Huffington -- who is also a candidate. At Huffington's frequent salons it would not be unusual to see Schwarzenegger rubbing elbows with the arch-liberal movie star Warren Beatty, or former Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan, a Republican, alongside hairdresser-turned-mogul-turned-producer Jon Peters talking to Democratic candidate Cruz Bustamante or Republican candidate Bill Simon.

This puts some prominent Hollywood figures in a strange position. "Arnold is a really smart guy. I've known him for a long time," said Mike Medavoy, a former studio chief who produced two "Terminator" movies with the movie star as well as the recent flop "The 6th Day." He is often at Huffington's mixers.

But Medavoy is a Democrat, and so far Schwarzenegger has not impressed him as a candidate. "I'd have to hear him out. I have no idea" whether he'd vote for the movie star, Medavoy said. "I want to hear somebody say something. All these platitudes, all this stuff, is ludicrous."

As for Huffington, another good friend: "I have to hear her out. I have to hear everybody out."

But Rob Stutzman, a spokesman for Schwarzenegger's campaign, says many Hollywood figures are stepping forward to support the movie star's candidacy.

"We've seen his friends be very supportive, many of whom are Democrats," he said, citing actor Tom Arnold, who was complimentary to Schwarzenegger on television in recent days. "He's a Democrat. It's evident that with Arnold being governor, Democrats, Republicans, independents, members of all parties will be very enthusiastic about him, and he'll be able to represent all of them."

Hal Lieberman, who produced "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines," Schwarzenegger's latest blockbuster, agreed. "I don't feel in an odd position," he said from his office on the Universal lot. "I think Arnold is extremely serious-minded about everything he does, he's a terrific guy." Asked if he would vote for him, Lieberman said: "I'd have to ask my wife. She's a Democrat. Politics for me are something personal."

But he added: "I certainly support him in what he's doing. He's a terrific candidate." Would he work for the campaign? "I'd be flattered if he asked me," said Lieberman, caught off guard. "The answer is most likely yes. I'm not there yet."

It is a cliche to observe that the Hollywood power elite are mainly Democratic, but it also happens to be true. Studio honchos donate money to both parties for pragmatic reasons, but donations to the Democrats far outstrip those to Republicans. There are some prominent Republicans here -- former Warner Bros. chief Terry Semel, lawyer Bruce Ramer and writer-director Lionel Chetwynd, for example -- but they are a small group, and hardly competition for the billionaires who distribute millions to Democratic causes.

Some of Hollywood's big names were unwilling to comment about Schwarzenegger's candidacy this week. Jeffrey Katzenberg, a leading Democrat who heads DreamWorks SKG, declined by e-mail to comment. Sidney Sheinberg, a liberal political activist and former chief at MCA-Universal Studios, said through an assistant that he preferred not to talk about it. David Geffen, another DreamWorks principal and Democratic activist, did not return calls seeking his views.

But others in Hollywood, farther removed from the hierarchy of money and Monday box office grosses, had plenty to say, none of it positive. Left-wing writer-director David O. Russell ("Three Kings"), who often has political gatherings at his home, referred to Schwarzenegger as "a mediocre Republican celebrity" who is gliding by without having to express a political opinion. "I'd sure prefer it if people saw the issues and thought about those," he said.

"I think he's a joke," said Sylvia Desrochers, a publicist for some of Hollywood's younger actors and directors, such as Sofia Coppola. She said she was speaking for herself. "I'm angry he's running. The recall would've been a media circus anyway, but it's worse now. I feel like he's doing this because his career is struggling. I don't take it seriously. I don't know if he knows how our government works."

An executive at Warner Bros., speaking on condition of anonymity, said people in Hollywood were likely to support Schwarzenegger publicly out of loyalty -- and self-interest. "I'm assuming a lot of people may not vote for him but think he's smart and bright and will support his campaign," the executive said. "We're a practical country. If he wins they want to make sure he knows they supported him."

And who better than Hollywood's glad-handing moguls to glad-hand a movie star candidate? In a place where stroking celebrities is a survival skill, it seems second nature. "To his face they'll probably say, 'I'm going to vote for you,' " Medavoy said. "It's like a guy walking out of the theater from a movie he really hates and saying to the director, 'You did it again.' Whatever that means. 'Nobody else could've done it.' "

But, Medavoy added, "when you go in the booth, you're in there by yourself. If people have half a brain, they'll support someone who's going to help the state. If they think Arnold will, they'll back him. If they won't, they'll give lip service."

He warned: "There's too much at stake here for our children, for us, to make a simple choice based on friendship."

If Hollywood is less than thrilled with Schwarzenegger's candidacy, some say it has only itself to blame. After all, the pop culture icon is the creation of the massive machine that for decades has churned out blockbuster movies.

"He's like the golem," said producer Ludi Boeken. "All these Jewish Democratic studio people created this Terminator which has conquered the world for them, just like the golem, created by Jews in Prague in the Middle Ages. The golem was bigger and stronger than normal mortals. And once they woke him up, he controlled those who created him.

"He has a life of his own, he's uncontrollable, and he's the Republican candidate. Now all these left-wing liberals are biting their lips and saying: What did we create?"

washingtonpost.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (4886)8/13/2003 2:50:53 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793622
 
THE POLITICAL LIFE - DICK MORRIS

Bias-mongers on rocks as viewers taste straight news

I am sure we were all surprised to learn in the Aug. 11 issue of The New York Times that people are "burned out on serious news." How else could the bastion of establishment journalism account for the falloff in network news viewership and, unnoted in the article, the newspaper's own decreasing circulation?

Yet the evidence is all there. People don't care anymore. That must be why The Times' circulation has fallen 5 percent and 1.1 million fewer households are watching network television news compared to last year at this time!

Jim Murphy, executive producer of the "CBS Evening News with Dan Rather," attempting to spin why his show has lost 600,000 viewers, notes patronizingly that we poor dears have been through "two years of very heavy-duty, stressful news, from Sept. 11 through the war with Iraq." In his opinion the loss of one-tenth of his show?s audience is part of "a little bit of a break-taking going on across the spectrum."

Shaking their heads in sympathy, cable news networks CNN (down 22 percent) and MSNBC (down 25 percent) bemoan the lack of compelling news to cover. Jack Wakshlag, head of research for the Turner Broadcasting System, which manages CNN for AOL Time Warner, said that the falloff was because none of this year's news had sufficiently "broad appeal" or "emotional tug."

Nonsense.

Don't these folks realize that it is their coverage, their bias, and their slanted news that is leading viewers to turn them off! Fox News, during the same period that caused such clucking by the establishment, had no difficulty adding 200,000 viewers during the news period and many more during prime time.

The Iraq War marked the beginning of the end of network news coverage. Viewers saw the juxtaposition of the embedded correspondents reporting the war as it was actually unfolding and the jaundiced, biased, negative coverage of these same events in the network newsrooms.

While U.S. and British troops advanced without serious opposition and with a minimum of casualties, the media worried loudly about disaster scenarios that never came to pass. The Turks weren?t letting our troops through. There would be no two front war! Our supply lines were over-extended! Guerrilla attacks would leave our troops without food or ammo! Saddam would blow up the oil wells and trigger an eco-disaster from which it would take decades to recover! We were being sucked into house-by-house, street-by-street fighting in the capital! We didn?t have enough troops! And, when the war was won, the networks and the newspapers fixated on the priceless artifacts that had been looted from the Baghdad Museum!

None of it happened. Now with the embedded correspondents withdrawn, these same networks and news sources tell us we face a quagmire in which we will lose dozens of soldiers each month for years and assure us that President Bush lied when he said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When the weapons are found and the killing slows or stops, the networks will have moved on to other stories.

The reason people aren't watching network news and are canceling their subscriptions to establishment press organs is that they are fed up with the manipulation and deliberate juggling of the news they see and read each day. An increasingly educated electorate can spot bias with greater acumen and astuteness than ever before.

Nor is the bias just tilting toward the left. The failure of news organs to cover the concerns of the left wing of the Democratic Party has triggered a disenchantment among those voters every bit as deep as on the right. The ability of leftists like Bill Maher and Michael Moore to attract an audience attests to the alienation of the left from the establishment.

Americans are refusing to be spoon fed anyone's idea of the news. They no longer care to dine on the meal served by Rather or Peter Jennings (Tom Brokaw seems to fare better) or by CNN or MSNBC. They want to make their own choices in the marketplace. The Internet lets them do just that and they are voting with their remote controls to turn off the party line they get on the networks.
thehill.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (4886)8/13/2003 10:27:03 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793622
 
What will Arnold do? Good guesses from an insider who worked for him. Note the Headline writer's use of a Movie title. We will all have his Movie titles memorized, like it or not, by the time this is over. :>)

End of Davis Days
How Schwarzenegger can win.

By Sheri Annis - NRO

In staging a surprise plot twist in the California-recall melodrama, Arnold Schwarzenegger showed that he still knows how to hold an audience.

Now his challenge is to cast himself as the man who can terminate Gray Davis.

In making the announcement with his pal Jay Leno, Schwarzenegger showed that he plays the Hollywood game as well as anyone ever has. When I was the press secretary for his successful initiative for after-school programs last year, I noticed that his gut instincts were often better than those of some cautious political consultants.

While most insiders, including me, thought the megastar would bow to the privacy concerns of his wife Maria Shriver, I believe he realized that if he passed up this golden opportunity, he would not be taken seriously as a potential candidate down the road. An action hero, after all, needs to be part of the action.

Now, of course, Schwarzenegger faces the much tougher terrain of a two-month sprint for the governorship, with hordes of reporters turning over rocks to try to unearth dirt about his past. Anchors and commentators wasted no time in ticking off the list of allegations, including his supposed womanizing. But Schwarzenegger shrewdly raised the sleaze issue himself on the Leno show, saying opponents would be throwing the kitchen sink at him. In fact, some media outlets received anonymous copies of the infamous Premiere magazine article, charging him with sexual improprieties, before the Tonight Show appearance. It's worth noting that when Schwarzenegger considered a gubernatorial run last year, Davis's camp blast-faxed the same piece to the press.

Schwarzenegger may face some built-in journalistic bias. When the media look at a Hollywood actor who doesn't do Shakespeare, they don't think there is a lot upstairs. If his handlers shield him too much from the political media, he'll have trouble. After years of being coddled by the likes of Entertainment Weekly and Us magazine, he needs to engage the less-adoring mainstream press.

But here's what many analysts are missing in evaluating whether Schwarzenegger's next starring role will be in Sacramento:

Arnold is the rock star of this campaign. The global media coverage will be intense (as I gathered in fending off an interview request from Good Morning Norway). All these sideshow candidates, from Larry Flynt and Gary Coleman, are bit players who won't detract from the Arnold extravaganza. But it's important for Schwarzenegger to capture a reasonable percentage of the vote to bolster his credibility if he wins.

Inevitably, though, he will need to offer detailed policies on his plans for the economy and, most likely, take a stand on Ward Connerly's Racial Privacy Initiative, which will also be on the October ballot. How he answers these questions could help calm queasy conservatives. But most California Republicans are hungry for a winner who can shake up Sacramento. And Schwarzenegger's pro-choice stance will be a major asset with the state's moderate electorate.

He didn't provide any specifics in his first round of morning-show interviews and hasn't answered reporters' questions since then. The honeymoon could be over pretty soon, if the calls I'm getting from frustrated journalists are any indication.

Those who scoff he's "just an actor" miss the point that he is a successful businessman and real estate mogul who knows how to market a product. He wasn't just the front man for Proposition 49 last year; he helped draft the initiative and made sure any additional spending would be deferred under certain budgetary circumstances.

Most important, he has a powerful narrative behind him. Whatever you think of his politics, the man is an immigrant success story who arrived here as a penniless bodybuilder and found his slice of the American dream. And being married to a Kennedy obviously doesn't hurt. All this will contrast rather dramatically with the career-politician dullness of the aptly named Gray Davis.

Arnold has a quick wit and tends to charm even the most-jaded reporters, some of whom, to my amazement, asked for autographs and high-fived each other during editorial-board meetings last year. One reporter was so excited at a Schwarzenegger phone message that she played it for her mother, sister, and colleagues. That may not happen in this campaign, but his sheer celebrity wattage will help him defuse some of the inevitable barrage of negative press.

He's already turned state politics upside down. By luring a major-league Democrat ? Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante ? into the race, Schwarzenegger obliterated the Democratic party's attempt at unity. Some conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh, find Schwarzenegger too liberal for their tastes, but many California Republicans, having been shut out of power for five years, may dispense with the usual litmus tests if it means sending Davis packing. This is the moment when the party's conservative wing must decide whether ideological compromise is worth a shot at power. Much will depend, of course, on where Schwarzengger comes down on such issues as affirmative action and tax increases.

The skepticism out there may be a blessing in disguise. There's nothing better in politics than being underestimated. Just ask Schwarzenegger's friend Jesse Ventura, who also shocked the establishment by wrestling his way to the governor's mansion.

To be sure, Schwarzenegger still faces a big hurdle. He has to convince the public, and the press, that he understands California's complicated issues, from higher education to water conservation. He didn't provide any specifics in his first round of morning show interviews, and that could wear thin after a couple of weeks. Schwarzenegger doesn't need to get down in the policy weeds, but after years of portraying robots and barbarians, he does need to pass a basic test of political gravitas.

If he does that, he'll likely be rewarded with a new role and, upon taking office the next day, a $38-billion deficit. That's the thing about a winning campaign: You still have to deal with the pesky matter of governing.

? Sheri Annis, a Washington, D.C. media consultant, worked for Schwarzenegger's Proposition 49 campaign in 2002.

nationalreview.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (4886)8/13/2003 10:53:06 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793622
 
This could be a biggie, Nadine.

Watts: 'BBC tried to mould my story'

Julia Day
Wednesday August 13, 2003 "The Guardian"

Newsnight reporter Susan Watts today denounced the BBC's "attempts to mould" her stories in what she believed was a misguided strategy to corroborate Andrew Gilligan's controversial report on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

In an extraordinary development at the Hutton inquiry today, Watts revealed she felt compelled to seek separate legal representation because of pressure from her BBC managers to reveal David Kelly as her main source in order to corroborate Gilligan's story - a move she felt "was misguided and false".

When the inquiry counsel, James Dingemans QC, had completed his questioning of her today, Watts said she wanted to explain why she had appointed her own QC.

"I felt under some considerable pressure from the BBC. I also felt the purpose of that was to help corroborate Andrew Gilligan's allegations, not for any news purposes," said Watts.

Mr Dingemans then asked Watts whether she thought her Newsnight stories corroborated Gilligan's allegations, including whether Alastair Campbell had inserted the 45 minute claim into last September's Iraq dossier.

"No I don't," she replied. "I felt there were significant differences between my reports and his reports."

"I felt the BBC was trying to mould my stories so they reached the same conclusions [as Gilligan]. That's why I sought independent legal advice. I'm most concerned about the fact there was an attempt to mould [my stories] so they corroborated [Gilligan's stories] which I felt was misguided and false," Watts said.

She described how at two separate meetings with her Newsnight editor, George Entwistle, on Monday June 30, with and the BBC's news director, Richard Sambrook, three days later, she had been pressed to reveal whether Dr Kelly was the source of the stories she broadcast at the start of that month.

Watts said she refused to name him because she felt she had a duty to protect his identity.

She changed her mind following Dr Kelly's appearance before the foreign affairs select committee on July 15.

"When he gave evidence to the foreign affairs select committee I formed the view that he would have relieved me of my duty of confidentiality to him and I would have revealed my source if I had been called before the committee," she added.

Watts said she took her decision when she read Dr Kelly's response to a committee question asking him directly whether he was the source of one of her Newsnight stories and he had responded: "No".

"It was hard to discern his response immediately but, when I saw the transcript the next day, he appeared to deny he was the source. This factor relieved me of my obligation to protect," she added.

She then revealed Dr Kelly's identity as her main source on Friday July 18, the day the weapons inspector's body was discovered near his Oxfordshire home.

That day she spent most of that day in a BBC news suite along with her solicitor and other BBC executives and journalists.

The day was spent working on the statement, published on Sunday July 20, in which the BBC finally admitted Dr Kelly was the source of its stories about the Iraq dossier.

"For the whole of that day I was in the news suite where that process was taking place. I sat separately, with my solicitor, from the other people involved in a separate room," Watts said.

"I wouldn't complain about that process. Everyone was very upset. But I was concerned it might appear that it was Dr Kelly's death that prompted me to reveal his identity," she added.

In a morning full of extraordinary revelations, Watts also accused Dr Kelly of being "less than frank" when he gave evidence to the FAC.

Watts said she viewed Dr Kelly's evidence to the committee on the internet and also read his transcript the following day.

In his evidence, Watts said, he appeared to distance himself from the quotes he had given her and which she had used in her broadcast.

She added: "On listening to that evidence... I would have felt he had relieved me of my obligation of confidentiality to him."

She insisted she did not name Dr Kelly because of his death but because of his evidence to the FAC.
media.guardian.co.uk



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (4886)8/13/2003 11:37:58 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793622
 
"Footballs" notes that the Israeli raid the Pals used to blame their bombing on was on a Bomb Factory! Not one US media story I have read mentions that fact.

Arab News: "Palestinians Hit Back"

The ever-disgusting Arab News headlines their story about today's Palestinian jihad bombings: Palestinians Hit Back .http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=30249&d=13&m=8&y=2003 Notice how they say the bombings were in retaliation for an Israeli raid on a "refugee camp," but leave out the tiny detail that the raid targeted a freakin' bomb factory. (The Arab News isn't the only news service to leave out that little insignificant fact; almost every story I've read today has done the same thing.)

Also ... notice how the word "suicide" is nowhere to be found in the Arab News story.
littlegreenfootballs.com