PBS 'Frontline' Tonight Tackles Media and the War

PBS Producer Says He Just Couldn't Find Conservatives To Speak on Terrorism Media Bias
Posted by Tim Graham on February 13, 2007 - 17:02.

Several national newspapers praised the four-hour PBS Frontline series beginning Tuesday night titled "News War," on how Team Bush (and Team Nixon before that) undemocratically waged war on the press. There's not much on whether the press was undemocratically waging war on the elected president in those cases. (Who, pray tell, voted for the New York Times to run the country?) The man setting the table for the first two hours is Arun Rath, whom the South Asian Journalists Association website jokingly notes "acquired a semi-classical education at Reed College in Oregon ('Atheism, Communism and Free Love')." What a surprise for an NPR/PBS producer.

In a new interview on the SAJA website, Rath explained how he was somehow completely incapable of tracking down conservatives to comment on the show's arrogant liberal thesis, namely that the press is crucial to save democracy from freedom-crushing Republicans:

We tried without success for nearly a year to get someone from the administration to talk to us, but at the last minute we scored an interview with Dan Bartlett. That, and a number of other key interviews came about from simple persistence and effort over a long time by a number of producers.


We were originally going to feature a lot more about the rise of conservative media in this series, but it just wouldn't fit in the end; plus we'd tried without success to get interviews with the big names at Fox News, and to talk about conservative media without such key players (Rush Limbaugh et al also turned us down) felt a little weak.

Suffice it to say PBS has not contacted the news watchers at the MRC. It's probably also easily guessed they didn't call the many conservative talk show hosts and members of Congress who could build up a decent head of steam about the arrogance of Obama-worshipping newspapers who wage war on the war on terror.

Several national newspapers praised the four-hour PBS Frontline series beginning Tuesday night titled "News War," on how Team Bush (and Team Nixon before that) undemocratically waged war on the press. There's not much on whether the press was undemocratically waging war on the elected president in those cases. (Who, pray tell, voted for the New York Times to run the country?)

The CIA's former executive director and a defense contractor were indicted yesterday by a San Diego grand jury for allegedly corrupting the intelligence agency's contracts, marking one of the first criminal cases to reach into the CIA's clandestine operations in Europe and the Middle East.

Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, a longtime logistics officer who was the CIA's top administrator from November 2004 until last May, was accused of using his seniority and influence at a prior CIA job in Europe to steer business deals to his longtime friend Brent R. Wilkes, a California businessman and top Republican fundraiser.

While the probe has threatened to sweep in other members of Congress, some uncertainty surrounds it. A key U.S. attorney involved in it -- Carol C. Lam in San Diego -- has been fired by the administration for unspecified "performance-related" deficiencies along with a handful of other federal prosecutors. Lam oversaw the Foggo investigation and is to leave Thursday. The head of the local FBI field office praised Lam's performance and said her firing appeared to be "political," an accusation that the Justice Department has denied.

Radio Station Cries 'Enough' -- Won't Quote From Certain News Stories Relying on Unnamed Officials
By Greg Mitchell - E & P
February 13, 2007

After the latest widely-publicized stories in national newspapers about weapons from Iran allegedly killing Americans in Iraq -- based completely on unnamed sources -- at least one smaller news outlet has had enough of it.

The news director of the public radio station in Santa Fe, New Mexico, has directed his staff to "ignore national stories quoting unnamed sources." He also called on other news outlets to join this policy.

Bill Dupuy sent the following to his news staff.

Effectively immediately and until further notice, it is the policy of KSFR's news department to ignore and not repeat any wire service or nationally published story about Iran, China, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia or any other foreign power that quotes an "unnamed" U.S. official.

What we have suspected and talked about at length before is now becoming clear. "High administration officials speaking on the condition of anonymity," "Usually reliable Washington sources," and others of the like were behind the publicity that added credibility to the need to go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Our news department covers local news. But, like local newspapers and others, we occassionally are taken in by national stories that we have no way to verify.

This is a small news department with a small reach. We cannot research these stories ourselves. But we can take steps not to compromise our integrity. We should not dutifully parrot whatever comes out of Washington, on the
wire or by whatever means, no matter how intriguing and urgent it sounds, when the source is unnamed.

I am also calling on our colleagues in other local news departments -- broadcast and print -- to take the same professional approach.

We tried without success for nearly a year to get someone from the administration to talk to us, but at the last minute we scored an interview with Dan Bartlett.

I wonder,does this also apply to "unnamed sources" that leak anything that could possibly be damaging to the administration?

mysteryman wrote

Quote:

I wonder,does this also apply to "unnamed sources" that leak anything that could possibly be damaging to the administration?

That's the wrong question...unless you support authoritarian control of information by the state or by anyone who holds power, that is.

Imagine that the 2008 election leads to a Dem administration. Then imagine that this Dem administration lies about something very important to the nation and its citizens or imagine that this Dem administration violates the laws and/or the constitution.

Would you wish that some whistle-blower, aware of these violations but at personal risk if he openly reveals them, cannot get the information out to citizens because NBC and Fox and the Washington Times will not carry any story where the source is unnamed?

Would the press, living under this Dem administration, have the primary function or responsibility of avoiding doing any "damage to the administration"? Would it be unpatriotic if the press "damaged" a criminal or a deceitful Dem administration?

Why not consider that the proper role of the press is to serve as watcher of and critic of whoever is in power, whether Dem or Republican?

blatham wrote:

mysteryman wrote

Quote:

I wonder,does this also apply to "unnamed sources" that leak anything that could possibly be damaging to the administration?

That's the wrong question...unless you support authoritarian control of information by the state or by anyone who holds power, that is.

Imagine that the 2008 election leads to a Dem administration. Then imagine that this Dem administration lies about something very important to the nation and its citizens or imagine that this Dem administration violates the laws and/or the constitution.

Would you wish that some whistle-blower, aware of these violations but at personal risk if he openly reveals them, cannot get the information out to citizens because NBC and Fox and the Washington Times will not carry any story where the source is unnamed?

Would the press, living under this Dem administration, have the primary function or responsibility of avoiding doing any "damage to the administration"? Would it be unpatriotic if the press "damaged" a criminal or a deceitful Dem administration?

Why not consider that the proper role of the press is to serve as watcher of and critic of whoever is in power, whether Dem or Republican?

It is a fair question.

If a news agency pladges to not use any unconfirmed or unnamed sources regarding the govt,then that should hold true for ALL unnamed or unconfirmed reports they get.

They cant have it both ways.

Thomas Jefferson, on the necessity of a free press (1787)

The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.