Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996 Friday April 04, 2014 @ 09:03 AM ET 1. Sharyl Attkisson: Morells Bizarre Benghazi Testimony Contradicts Past Claims About Attack On the Thursday edition of WMALs Mornings on the Mall radio show, Sharyl Attkisson spotlighted the Obama administrations many inconsistencies in their claims about the September 11, 2012 Islamist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya. Attkisson outlined, in detail, all of the different stories told about the talking points about the terrorist attack. Former Fox News anchor Brian Wilson and Breitbarts Larry OConnor turned to the former CBS News journalist for her take on former deputy CIA director Mike Morells congressional testimony on the Benghazi issue on Wednesday. She zeroed in on how Morell and others were trying to minimize any perception that the talking points were altered for political considerations. 2. NBC Warns: Supreme Court Opens the Door Even Wider for Unlimited Money in Politics On Thursdays NBC Today, White House correspondent Peter Alexander decried Wednesdays Supreme Court ruling striking down some campaign finance restrictions: So just consider this, in just twelve year from the 2000 elections to those in 2012, total campaign spending in this country doubled from $3 billion to $6.3 billion. And the Supreme Court ruling now opens the door even wider for unlimited money in politics that has obviously already skyrocketed. Alexander assumed viewers agreed with that liberal narrative: And you thought there was already too much money in politics. Fasten your seat belts. From now on, theres gonna be a whole lot more. The Supreme Court struck down a decades-old campaign law... 3. NY Times Lauds New Play on the Signature Triumph of Jimmy Carter and His Rehabilitation Efforts New York Times writer Sheryl Gay Stolberg on Thursday highlighted glowing supporters of Jimmy Carter as she promoted a new Broadway play about the life of the former president. Stolberg parroted that acolytes of Mr. Carter hope that Camp David...will be a powerful reminder of the signature triumph of the Carter presidency and perhaps revive the decades-long effort to rehabilitate him. The play focuses around Carters 1978 efforts to negociate a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. Stolberg allowed the type of self-aggrandizing comments that – if spoken by a Republican – would prompt howls of outrage from the Times. She related, Mr. Carter told the playwright [Lawrence Wright] and the producer that he felt God wanted him to play a role in Middle East peace. 4. MSNBC’s Sharpton Rips Paul Ryan’s ‘Dangerous,’ ‘Ruthless,’ ‘Heartless’ Budget MSNBC’s Al Sharpton was incensed by Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) newly-released budget plan on Wednesday’s PoliticsNation. Referencing President Obama’s comment that “America is a place for everybody,” Sharpton added his own condemnation of Ryan’s budget as he hollered, “America is a place for everybody, not a place for dangerous ideas and a ruthless war on the poor!” 5. NBC and CBS Find Real White House Scandal: Obamas Red Sox Selfie May Have Been Staged After eagerly promoting President Obamas selfie with Red Sox player David Ortiz on Wednesday, Thursdays NBCs Today and CBS This Morning expressed their dismay that Ortiz may have staged the seemingly spontaneous cell phone picture to promote his sponsor Samsung. On Today, co-host Savannah Guthrie lamented: Okay, so turns out that wasnt as spontaneous as it looks. The selfie was captured with a Samsung phone and it turns out, mm-hm, you guessed it, David Ortiz has an endorsement deal with Samsung....I think its kind of ridiculous that its a product placement. And also because I thought it was a really cute moment, so I guess Im kind of disappointed. Sharyl Attkisson: Morells Bizarre Benghazi Testimony Contradicts Past Claims About Attack On the Thursday edition of WMALs Mornings on the Mall radio show, Sharyl Attkisson spotlighted the Obama administrations many inconsistencies in their claims about the September 11, 2012 Islamist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya. Attkisson outlined, in detail, all of the different stories told about the talking points about the terrorist attack. Former Fox News anchor Brian Wilson and Breitbarts Larry OConnor turned to the former CBS News journalist for her take on former deputy CIA director Mike Morells congressional testimony on the Benghazi issue on Wednesday. She zeroed in on how Morell and others were trying to minimize any perception that the talking points were altered for political considerations: [MP3 audio of the full Attkisson segment available here] SHARYL ATTKISSON: ...[T]he people defending the administration on the Benghazi talking points...led by Morell, are working so hard to try to dispel any idea that there was political motivation to leaving out the notion of terrorism, that theyre all wrapped up in defending, what they admit, is bad intelligence decisions. In other words, he spent yesterday defending why they went with the faulty intelligence that advanced...the bad narrative that was untrue – and...without anybody pointing out he was doing this, [he] just kept saying why that was the right decision – even though it resulted in the wrong intelligence. It was a little bit bizarre. Wilson led into the segment with Attkisson with a clip from the former deputy directors testimony, where he read an e-mail that he got from the chief of station in Libya that said...This was not a protest that spiraled out of control. It was an attack. The WMAL host underlined that that detail did not make its way into the talking points, which were repeated one day later on national TV by Susan Rice. The former Fox News journalist then introduced Attkisson as someone who has covered this Benghazi story to a great deal of acclaim, and pointed out that the now-independent journalist used her Twitter feed last night...pumping all of these details – your observations – about the big hearing...where Deputy Director Mike Morell testified. You find a number of inconsistencies in what he says, and what we know about the story from past statements. Attkisson first gave little bit bizarre label and summary about Morells testimony. When Wilson followed up by stating that we were wrong, but we werent political – was the argument he was trying to make, she continued that the former intelligence official is reputed to be someone who is fantastic in intelligence and very good at his job. He then admitted to all kinds of mistakes that sounded like rookies: for example...not listening to the people on the ground; and valuing the intelligence of the analysts in Washington, D.C., who had no information from people on the ground in Libya at the time. OConnor then highlighted how Rep. Mike Rogers, during the hearing, accused the Obama administration of forwarding the talking points to perpetuate its own misguided political agenda. Attkisson replied that its still hard...to know that we have the entire story. There are still gaps. Morell was communicating with White House officials, including the now-chief of staff, Denis McDonough, who then was serving in a different role. But there was communication and there were meetings going on between the top deputies. And if its true that Morell made the changes that he made for the reasons he made, its very unclear why hes so clear in all of these details 18 months later – that nobody was clear about when asked immediately after it happened. The former CBS journalist then gave her outline of the Obama administrations changing claims about the Benghazi talking points – something she also did in her write-up about Morells testimony for her personal website, and how his claims on Wednesday fit into that matrix: ATTKISSON: So, on Friday November 16, 2012 – were talking a month after it happened – [David] Petraeus, who was Morells boss at the time – director of the CIA – testified to members of Congress that it wasnt the CIA that revised the talking points to take out terrorism and al Qaeda. Now yesterday, Morell said it was. So if true, then Petraeus told Congress something that was untrue. The...State Department said that, at the time, they didnt make the changes. Then, the CIA – an official from the CIA – told reporters, back in November of 2012, the edits were made at – quote, a senior level in the inter-agency process – and they said that was so that al Qaeda wouldnt be tipped off as to what the U.S. knew, and to protect sources and methods. But then – because everybody was asking different agencies – in November of 2012, a source from the Director of National Intelligence – DNI – told Margaret Brennan, who works for CBS News – one of my former colleagues – that they made the edit, as part of the inter-agency process, because...they werent sure about the links to al Qaeda – that it was too tenuous to make public. Morell said something entirely different, by the way, yesterday. He said that the reason he took out al Qaeda – now he admits he did – was because the only way we knew al Qaeda was potentially involved was through classified intelligence. So, he couldnt say that publicly. To which, members of Congress reacted saying, well, how does that give up any intelligence – to simply say that we believe al Qaeda was involved? But back to November of 2012, Morell, at the time, gave a different account. He met with Republican Senators [John] McCain, [Lindsay] Graham, and [Kelly] Ayotte, and he told them that the FBI did it. So, he said the FBI removed the reference- WILSON: Yeah. He retracted that pretty quick, though, didnt he? ATTKISSON: Yeah. So, immediately after he made that – because on that day, I spoke to Senator Graham right after he got this answer, and Graham said...the FBI did it – well, Graham called the FBI, and the FBI went ballistic, and said, absolutely not...we didnt do it. And Morell had said, oh, the FBI did that to prevent ongoing criminal investigation – compromising it...Well, the FBI had approved the talking points, saying it wouldnt compromise their investigation originally. So, in a matter of hours, the CIA then contacted Graham – again, back in November 2012 – and said, no, no – Morell misspoke.... Yesterday, when Morell was asked about all of that – again, a guy that is typically, by all accounts, so sharp and so on the mark about everything – he just says, well, I got it really mixed up back then. (Wilson laughs) I was wrong. You know, when I said it was the FBI, it was the CIA, and I corrected the record. And I just had it wrong at the time. Near the end of the segment, Wilson pointed out that Morell admitted that he removed talking points that the CIA had provided warnings to the State Department before the attack – even though David Petraeus, who was the director of the CIA at the time, wanted that included. Attkisson responded to this by noting the interesting timing of the former deputy directors actions: ATTKISSON: I was so struck by – and wonder why nobody asked about the fact that what he said – Morell was deputy director at the time – and yet, clearly entirely in charge of everything about the talking points from the CIAs viewpoint – and actually, beyond. He seemed to have a reach, since he was in charge inter-agency, it seemed like he was calling the shots. And no one explained why Petraeus – who actually wanted the warnings that Petraeus put in there originally, or that the CIA put in there originally – acknowledged – or, at least put out there – that the CIA had issued some warnings that there could be something going on, both in Egypt and in Libya. And Morell, interestingly, defended the State Departments interests, not the CIAs- WILSON: Thats exactly right- ATTKISSON: His own agencys interest in getting this material out. Petraeus, according to e-mails, sort of grumbled about it when the final draft went around, and said basically – Im paraphrasing – that the talking points were worthless because they had take so much out; and that he really thought the warning language should be in. And Im thinking, why was he taking a back seat to his deputy – his number two? WILSON: Exactly! ATTKISSON: Now, at the time – Ill just point out – may have nothing to do with it – Petraeus was already under FBI investigation for his alleged extramarital affair. And Peter King, the Republican from New York, did comment later in the hearing – he seems kind of surprised, too – he said, Petraeus seems so passive, and that hed never known Petraeus to be this passive, and why was he – he asked rhetorically – why was he sitting back the way he was? And he asked Morell, when did you learn about Petraeus investigation – the investigation into him over the extramarital affair? And this is when Morell said, oh, I cant remember. And Im thinking, youre the deputy- WILSON: Thats something you would remember – yeah- ATTKISSON: Yeah. Youre a very sharp guy. Youre the deputy. You may have to take over in case this – this potential criminal investigation turns into something, and you dont remember the day – or approximately the day – when you found out this was all going on? WILSON: Right- ATTKISSON: I think, in the next sentence, he said – Morell said – oh, I didnt know until the day before Petraeus resigned. So, in any event, I just find that, like you guys did, odd. -- Matthew Balan NBC Warns: Supreme Court Opens the Door Even Wider for Unlimited Money in Politics On Thursdays NBC Today, White House correspondent Peter Alexander decried Wednesdays Supreme Court ruling striking down some campaign finance restrictions: So just consider this, in just twelve year from the 2000 elections to those in 2012, total campaign spending in this country doubled from $3 billion to $6.3 billion. And the Supreme Court ruling now opens the door even wider for unlimited money in politics that has obviously already skyrocketed. [Listen to the audio] Alexander assumed viewers agreed with that liberal narrative: And you thought there was already too much money in politics. Fasten your seat belts. From now on, theres gonna be a whole lot more. The Supreme Court struck down a decades-old campaign law... View the Video Here After playing a sound bite of Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus explaining that money in politics is speech, Alexander used a sensational analogy to put his own spin on the court decision: What does it mean? Before the Courts ruling, a wealthy donor could only give the maximum contribution, $2,600, to eighteen different candidates for a total donation of nearly $50,000. But now the donor can give that same contribution to an unlimited number of candidates, with no cap on the total cost. Better yet, think of it like youre at a casino where each table has a maximum bet. Now donors are allowed to bet the max on every table in the room, every table in Vegas. A clip followed of Sheila Krumholz from OpenSecrets.org proclaiming: Mega donors have just bought themselves a lot more clout and influence in Washington....And the question is, what might they get in exchange for their donation? Alexander wrapped up the slanted segment by worrying: ...experts say that this latest ruling is gonna sweeten the pot for candidates and for political parties, enticing them to devote even more time...to finding and locking in the countrys most rich and powerful as donors. News anchor Natalie Morales responded with the favorite liberal talking point about the ruling: Its going to open up those floodgates. Neither CBS This Morning nor ABCs Good Morning America mentioned the Supreme Court decision on Thursday. On Wednesday, both NBC Nightly News and CBS Evening News framed the ruling as a blow to democracy. ABCs World News did not cover the story. Here is a full transcript of Alexanders April 3 report on Today: 7:12 AM ET NATALIE MORALES: A big shake-up in the nations capital on Wednesday after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down restrictions on the total amount of cash that a person can give to all federal candidates for office. NBCs White House correspondent Peter Alexander has the story. Peter, good morning. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Campaign Finance Rules Loosened; Supreme Court Strikes Down Money Limit] PETER ALEXANDER: Hi, Natalie, good morning to you. So just consider this, in just twelve year from the 2000 elections to those in 2012, total campaign spending in this country doubled from $3 billion to $6.3 billion. And the Supreme Court ruling now opens the door even wider for unlimited money in politics that has obviously already skyrocketed. [MONTAGE OF 2014 CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN ADS] And you thought there was already too much money in politics. Fasten your seat belts. From now on, theres gonna be a whole lot more. The Supreme Court struck down a decades-old campaign law that capped the total amount of political contributions any one person can give during any single campaign. REINCE PRIEBUS [REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN]: Money in politics is speech, whether youre giving one dollar or a thousand dollars to candidates. It is speech. Its speech through your own resources as to who you want to support. ALEXANDER: What does it mean? Before the Courts ruling, a wealthy donor could only give the maximum contribution, $2,600, to eighteen different candidates for a total donation of nearly $50,000. But now the donor can give that same contribution to an unlimited number of candidates, with no cap on the total cost. Better yet, think of it like youre at a casino where each table has a maximum bet. Now donors are allowed to bet the max on every table in the room, every table in Vegas. SHEILA KRUMHOLZ [OPENSECRETS.ORG]: Mega donors have just bought themselves a lot more clout and influence in Washington. Theyll have an open door, phone calls will be answered. And the question is, what might they get in exchange for their donation? ALEXANDER: So the bottom line here is experts say that this latest ruling is gonna sweeten the pot for candidates and for political parties, enticing them to devote even more time, Natalie, to finding and locking in the countrys most rich and powerful as donors. MORALES: Its going to open up those floodgates. Peter Alexander at the White House, thanks so much. -- Kyle Drennen NY Times Lauds New Play on the Signature Triumph of Jimmy Carter and His Rehabilitation Efforts New York Times writer Sheryl Gay Stolberg on Thursday highlighted glowing supporters of Jimmy Carter as she promoted a new Broadway play about the life of the former president. Stolberg parroted that acolytes of Mr. Carter hope that Camp David...will be a powerful reminder of the signature triumph of the Carter presidency and perhaps revive the decades-long effort to rehabilitate him. The play focuses around Carters 1978 efforts to negociate a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. Stolberg allowed the type of self-aggrandizing comments that – if spoken by a Republican – would prompt howls of outrage from the Times. She related, Mr. Carter told the playwright [Lawrence Wright] and the producer that he felt God wanted him to play a role in Middle East peace. In the first sentence, NYT readers are informed that Jimmy Carter was never a creature of Washington. Stolberg included fawning quotes from suppoprters, including these two: “I believe that he is the least understood living former president, and I do not want either him to pass away, or me to pass away, without people having the full picture,” said Stuart E. Eizenstat, Mr. Carter’s former domestic policy adviser, who is writing a book about the administration. ... The playwright concluded that Mr. Carter’s upbringing in racially segregated Plains — he was a rarity as a white boy with mostly black playmates — fostered his “immediate kinship” with the dark-skinned Egyptian leader. “He talked of how he loved Anwar Sadat,” Mr. Wright said, “not the usual language of heads of state. The only real hint of criticism came when Stolberg reminded people of Carters more recent history. She noted, He has met with Hamas leaders, criticized Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza, and infuriated many Jews with his 2006 book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” -- Scott Whitlock MSNBC’s Sharpton Rips Paul Ryan’s ‘Dangerous,’ ‘Ruthless,’ ‘Heartless’ Budget MSNBC’s Al Sharpton was incensed by Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) newly-released budget plan on Wednesday’s PoliticsNation. Referencing President Obama’s comment that “America is a place for everybody,” Sharpton added his own condemnation of Ryan’s budget as he hollered, “America is a place for everybody, not a place for dangerous ideas and a ruthless war on the poor!” [Listen to MP3 audio here.] This sort of harsh language permeated the opening few minutes of Sharpton’s show. In fact, right from the very top, the reverend made it abundantly clear how he felt about the Ryan budget: View the Video Here Tonights lead – the president slams Congressman Ryans ruthless budget. In a blistering speech today, President Obama blasted the GOPs new budget and its skewed vision of this country, one where the rich benefit at the expense of everyone else. Sharpton then played an extended clip -- it dragged on for 1 minute and 14 seconds -- from President Obama’s pep rally of a speech at the University of Michigan on Wednesday. A few moments later, he spent another 29 seconds playing Obama’s very passionate finale to that same speech. The clergyman-turned-cable TV host preached that it was “scary” that Rep. Ryan is seeking to chair the House Ways and Means Committee, which holds authority over tax policy and many features of the social safety net. He signaled his agreement with The New York Times editorial board as he worried, “[T]hat would put a man with a very dangerous idea in a position to do serious damage.” After Sharpton introduced his first guests, he snuck in one last dig at Ryan’s budget, calling it “heartless.” Below is a transcript of the April 2 segment: AL SHARPTON: Tonights lead, the president slams Congressman Ryans ruthless budget. In a blistering speech today President Obama blasted the GOPs new budget and its skewed vision of this country, one where the rich benefit at the expense of everyone else. [begin tape] BARACK OBAMA: Here’s the truth. They’re not necessarily cold-hearted. They just sincerely believe that if we give more tax breaks to a fortunate few and we invest less in the middle class and we reduce or eliminate the safety net for the poor and the sick and we cut food stamps and we cut Medicaid and we let banks and polluters and credit card companies and insurers do only what’s best for their bottom line without the responsibility to the rest of us, then somehow the economy will boom and jobs and prosperity will trickle down to everybody. And when I say it that way I know it sounds like Im exaggerating, except Im not. This is their theory. They’re pretty unabashed about it. Look, it does create opportunity for a hand few of people who are already doing really, really well. But we believe in opportunity for everybody, more good jobs for everybody, more workers to fill those jobs, a world-class education for everybody, hard work that pays off with wages you can live on and savings you can retire on, and health care you can count on. That’s what opportunity for all means. [end tape] SHARPTON: Opportunity for all. Thats what the president was pushing out today. Meeting with minimum wage workers, hearing their stories, fighting to give them a raise, trying to give them a chance to climb this country’s ladder of success. Meanwhile, Congressman Ryan’s trying to pull that lighter out from underneath everyday Americans. Today on Capitol Hill he defended his budget cuts to health care, to Medicare, to food stamps, to Pell grants for low-income college students. Why? Because we need to get serious. [begin tape] PAUL RYAN: So if Washington is serious about helping working families, or serious about getting families out of work back to work, then it needs to get serious about our national debt. How do we do it? First, we stop spending money we dont have. [end tape] SHARPTON: We cant spend money we dont have, right? Well, how about the fact that Ryans serious budget gives millionaires a tax break of at least $200,000. Thats serious, all right – seriously flawed. And while this budget might never pass Congress, here’s what’s scary. Congressman Ryan is looking to chair the Ways and Means committee, which has power over the tax code and safety net. As the New York Times says, that would put a man with a very dangerous idea in a position to do serious damage. Thats why this fight matters. Thats why the president isnt backing down. [begin tape] OBAMA: We’ve got to build a middle class, we’ve got to get opportunity for everybody who strives for it. We’ve got to make sure everybody, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, with or without a disability, folks in the inner city, folks outside the borders of the city, everybody’s got a chance. America is a place for everybody. Thats what we’re fighting for. Thats what I need you to get out there and talk about. Thank you. God bless you. God bless America. [end tape] SHARPTON: America is a place for everybody, not a place for dangerous ideas and a ruthless war on the poor. Joining me now is Congresswoman Donna Edwards, Democrat of Maryland, and the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart. Thank you both for coming on the show tonight. REP. DONNA EDWARDS: Thank you. JONATHAN CAPEHART: Thanks, Rev. SHARPTON: Congresswoman Edwards, let me start with you. President Obama called out Ryans heartless budget. Are we going to see more of this from Democrats in the coming months? EDWARDS: Well, I think absolutely. I mean, if anybody ever wondered what it is that Republicans would do if they were fully in control, well this is it. The Ryan budget slashes everything from education to medical research to transportation and infrastructure funding to ending Medicare as we know it. And that is true in this budget. And so in case we wondered what Republicans would do if they had every branch of the government, this is it and it’s bad for the American people. -- Paul Bremmer is a News Analysis Division intern. -- Paul Bremmer NBC and CBS Find Real White House Scandal: Obamas Red Sox Selfie May Have Been Staged After eagerly promoting President Obamas selfie with Red Sox player David Ortiz on Wednesday, Thursdays NBCs Today and CBS This Morning expressed their dismay that Ortiz may have staged the seemingly spontaneous cell phone picture to promote his sponsor Samsung. [Listen to the audio] On Today, co-host Savannah Guthrie lamented: Okay, so turns out that wasnt as spontaneous as it looks. The selfie was captured with a Samsung phone and it turns out, mm-hm, you guessed it, David Ortiz has an endorsement deal with Samsung....I think its kind of ridiculous that its a product placement. And also because I thought it was a really cute moment, so I guess Im kind of disappointed. Fill-in social media anchor Tamron Hall tried to buoy Guthries spirits: But was it a product [placement]? He says he wasnt paid for it....And you cant see the brand of the phone. We only know the brand after the whole dust-up. Guthrie cheered up: Alright, Im coming around. So we can still love that moment and think its sweet and innocent? On This Morning, White House correspondent Bill Plante reported: ...it turned out that the selfie was an orchestrated stunt. The White House says the President had no idea when he posed for what seemed like a spontaneous snap, that it was part of a promotion deal by Samsung, the manufacturer of the phone. Moments later, he somberly added: Well, the White House is not happy about this, but theyre not making any public requests to take down those tweets. They dont want to appear heavy-handed. Like Guthrie, co-host Gayle King voiced her disappointment: Big Papi [David Ortiz] let me down. He doesnt know me, I like him, but I just think, ahhhhh....it does bother me. Co-host Norah ODonnell concluded: Its a question about whether its respectful to the President to be promotional with the President of the United States. CBS had no problem being promotional of President Obama when it thought the photo-op was genuine. On Wednesdays This Morning, co-host Charlie Rose touted: The Boston Globe says the Red Sox visited the White House Tuesday. The World Series champions met President Obama. They presented the forty-fourth commander-in-chief with the number forty-four jersey. Slugger David Ortiz took a picture with the President, he then tweeted, quote, What an honor! Thanks for the #selfie, @BarackObama. NBCs Today devoted an entire segment on Wednesday to how the selfie created a good day Washington. And all three networks happily cheered the Presidents recent joke interview with comedian Zach Galifianikis to push ObamaCare, while ignoring problems with the law. -- Kyle Drennen Comments/subscription problems, e-mail: [email protected] CyberAlert is free to you, but it takes a research and monitoring operation to produce. 1900 Campus Commons Dr. 6th floor | Reston, VA 20191 US This message is one of seven e-newsletters published by the Media Research Center. This email was sent to [email protected]. To ensure that you continue receiving our emails, please add us to your address book or safe list. Got this as a forward? Sign up to receive our future emails.
Posted on: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 09:27:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015