Media Matters: Torture, handshakes, and Pulitzers, oh my!
This Week's Top Story:
Apparently, torture is friggin' hilarious to media conservatives
For most rational human beings, even the notion of torture is bone-chilling. Media conservatives, on the other hand, apparently find it hilarious. Following President Obama's release of four previously classified Justice Department memos that had authorized the use of harsh interrogation techniques on detainees -- including "stress positions," "cramped confinement," "sleep deprivation," and "the waterboard" -- numerous conservatives in the media have downplayed, mocked, and jeered the notion that those practices constitute torture. Hard to believe? Here are just a few of the many examples:
- Conservative leader and radio host Rush Limbaugh asserted, "If you look at what we are calling torture, you have to laugh," said that "if somebody can be water-tortured six times a day, then it isn't torture," and claimed that "appeasers" have "water[ed] down" definition of torture like "NOW gang" did with definition of domestic violence.
- Radio host G. Gordon Liddy compared the proposed technique of placing a detainee who "appears to have a fear of insects" in "a cramped confinement box with an insect" to his appearance on a game show, stating, "I went through worse on Fear Factor."
- Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee mocked the same technique: "Look, I've been in some hotels where there were more bugs than these guys faced." Huckabee went on to state that under the Obama administration, "We're going to talk to them, we're going to have a nice conversation, we're going to invite them down for some tea and crumpets." Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson replied, "That usually works with your kids, too, right? When they're in trouble for something, they just tell you everything." To which her co-host Steve Doocy joked, "Mr. Moussaoui, it's time for you over in the time-out chair."
- To buttress his support of torture, Fox News' resident conspiracy-theorist-in-chief Glenn Beck aired a clip from Fox's 24.
When they weren't bowled over with laughter, many media conservatives were serving up the dubious claim that harsh interrogation techniques used on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed "stopped an attack on the Library Tower in Los Angeles." The claim conflicts with the chronology of events put forth on multiple occasions by the Bush administration. Indeed, the Bush administration said that the Library Tower attack was thwarted in February 2002 -- more than a year before Mohammed was captured in March 2003. Facts be damned, Fox News and others pressed forward with the story repeatedly. Typifying the use of this story, Sean Hannity claimed this week that enhanced interrogation techniques "saved an American city, Los Angeles."
The hysterical nature of coverage surrounding the torture issue by conservatives didn't reach everyone in the media. This week, Fox News' Shepard Smith stood out among his colleagues at the conservative news network when he said of torture, "We are staring into an abyss and it's staring back at us, and we don't do it. We are America."
Other Major Stories This Week:
I'm sorry "diplomacy" isn't in our vocabulary (as well as "consistency" and "truth")
This week, media conservatives went into a frenzy over Obama's handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez during the Summit of the Americas on April 17. For example, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich asked of the handshake, "[W]hat signal does it send to other dictators?" adding that "it sends a very sad signal about human rights around the world." Not to be outdone, a Fox News military analyst said Obama and Chavez were "fist bumping and making lovey dovey," and CNBC's Larry Kudlow opined about Obama and Chavez's "Boyz N The Hood handshake."
Numerous conservative media figures claimed that Obama's actions at the Americas summit showed "weakness." If that wasn't enough, some dived off the deep end altogether. Limbaugh asked, "Do you realize that Obama and Chavez have more in common than they do not?" while Hannity wondered aloud whether Obama "even likes" America, since he "has so completely condemned his own country." And Hannity was hardly alone in his ridiculous characterization that Obama was "palling around" with Chavez.
Interestingly enough, a Media Matters search of the Nexis database found no examples in 2002 of Fox News personalities criticizing President Bush's handshake with Uzbekistani President Islam Karimov, which took place during a White House photo op in March of that year. According to a State Department report issued prior to that photo op, Karimov was "chosen president in a 1991 election that most observers considered neither free nor fair," "was elected to a second term in January 2000 against token opposition with 92.5 percent of the vote under conditions that were neither free nor fair," and his "[g]overnment's human rights record remained very poor." Indeed, according to the report, Uzbekistan's "security forces committed a number of killings of prisoners in custody" and "routinely tortured, beat, and otherwise mistreated detainees to obtain confessions."
Fox front man Bill O'Reilly was beside himself over the handshake, indignantly claiming that former President Richard Nixon never met with Chinese leader Mao Zedong. Perhaps O'Reilly would benefit from a refresher in Political History 101, because it's a well-established fact that Nixon met with Mao in 1972, a point Keith Olbermann drove home in naming O'Reilly "Worst Person" on Thursday for his historically challenged comment.
Pay no attention to the Pulitzer behind the curtain
A year ago this week, The New York Times published an explosive story by investigative reporter David Barstow detailing the hidden ties between numerous media military analysts, the Pentagon, and defense contractors. Media Matters subsequently released an exhaustive report that found that between January 1, 2002, and May 13, 2008, the analysts named in the Times report appeared or were quoted more than 4,500 times by news outlets, including more than 600 appearances by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey alone on NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC.
In a follow-up article published last November, Barstow focused on McCaffrey's ties to contractors and appearances on the various NBC channels. NBC News president Steve Capus -- the same Steve Capus who extolled the virtues of "responsibility," "trust," and "doing what's right" in the wake of the Imus scandal -- responded by contending McCaffrey need not follow NBC's conflict-of-interest rules because he's a "consultant."
So, when news broke this week that The New York Times had won five Pulitzers, one going to Barstow for the military media analysts story, which award do you think NBC and MSNBC went out of its way to avoid noting in reports on the Times' success? Bingo ... Barstow's honor.
On the April 20 edition of NBC's Nightly News, reporting on the awarding of the Pulitzers earlier that day, anchor Brian Williams stated that "The New York Times led the way with five, including awards for breaking news and international reporting." But Williams did not note that Barstow was awarded a Pulitzer or the story for which he was awarded the honor.
MSNBC didn't fare much better, airing numerous reports on the Times' honors -- in some cases describing what the individual Pulitzers were awarded for -- but repeatedly failing to single out Barstow's success.
Media Matters has repeatedly documented the unwillingness of the major broadcast networks, including NBC, to report on Barstow's April 20, 2008, Times article. Moreover, NBC joined ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC in reportedly declining to participate in a segment based on Barstow's article that aired on the April 24, 2008, edition of PBS' NewsHour.
Blame Obama for bears, credit tea parties for bulls
For weeks, it's been the same story over at Fox News: When the stock market declines, regardless of what the cause or causes may be, blame Obama. So, with the market rebounding over the past six weeks and the Dow up 24 percent, you'd think that Obama would get the credit. After all, if his actions day-to-day can cause a decline, the converse must also be true, that his actions day-to-day can make the market rebound. Well, we all know what happens when we make assumptions, especially about Fox News.
Last weekend on Fox News' Bulls & Bears, host Brenda Buttner led a discussion on the market's rise with an on-screen caption describing the segment's topic as "Stocks rally as 'tea parties' catch fire; coincidence?" In a post to his Twitter profile, Fox News' Eric Bolling described criticism from Media Matters over the segment as "Liberal blogs got their panties in a wad over our Bulls and Bears show." Way to stay classy, Bolling.
Be sure to visit FinancialMediaMatters.org for the latest on those who report on the financial industry as well as those who report on labor, business, economic, and other fiscal matters.
This Week's Media Columns
This week, Media Matters Senior Fellow Jamison Foser takes a look at gaps in the Right's "banana republic" rhetoric.
Do you Facebook or Twitter?
If you use the social networking site Facebook, be sure to join the official Media Matters page and those of our Senior Fellows Eric Boehlert, Jamison Foser, and Karl Frisch as well. You can also follow Media Matters, Boehlert, and Frisch on Twitter!
Week in Review Video
This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Karl Frisch, a Senior Fellow at Media Matters. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook or sign up to receive his regular weekly columns by email.
So are "stress positions," "cramped confinement," "sleep deprivation," and "the waterboard" harsh interrogation techniques as MM says in their intro, or is it toture? And why is the let so afarid to even have the conversation?
The left isnt afraid. Some stress positions and cramped confinement would be torture the terms themselves are too vague to give a definitive answer. There is no QUESTION waterboarding is torture. It was used in the Spanish inquisitions and when WE sentenced Japanese to prison terms for waterboarding we called it torture. We sentenced an American sherrif to ten years in prison for doing it to a prisoner. Why are you such a jerk? Why do you have to add derisive questions to your posts. Why not have a conversation without being a jerk?
Because it seems many on the left are afraid to have the conversation. You cant even ask if some of those techniques are in fact not torture with out being called a Nazi. Now it appears that Pelosi knew about this as early as 2002. Thos entire conversation has turned into an attempt to go after bush admin officials, and not about the protection of Americans. This will never result in trials because to many on both sides of the political isle have to much to lose.
Baloney. The left is not afraid to have the conversation we are just amazed at the lack of decency in the rights arguments. We SHOULD go after the Bush officials actions are supposed to have consequences and they have ADMITTED to warcrimes. Your prognostications havent been worth beans in the past so you waste your time making more of them. What Pelosi KNEW, that was CLASSIFIED, thus illegal to disclose is irrelevant. This is a talking point that the screechmonkeys are putting out there hard but its flat out dumb. Just because you are in Congress doesnt mean you can disclose classified material without it being illegal.
So you are ready to admit that she lied when she said she did not know?? It would also be against the law to know that a crime was being committed and do nothing about it. If in fact there was a crim committed, Pelosi shares the blame.
I am admitting nothing. I dont know if she knew but if she did it was classified information and NO it is NOT a crime to NOT disclose classified information. It would be a crime TO disclose classified information. She MAY have told people high enough to have the proper clearance. YOU dont know and neither do I. I dont really care. If she DID know and it WASNT classified then prosecute her. I am not partisan on this issue. If we send Dems to jail fine. I want justice to be done PERIOD. I am not a Democrat. Ferret out EVERY bit of information about torture. Anyone who facilitated it, or was involved in ordering it needs to suffer the consequences.
POinty's a hoot. Comes on accusing "The Left" of being scared to have a conversation. As soon as you bust him down past his talking points, and get to the point of forcing him to have a conversation, he scurries away.
BTW, good to see you back, Solon. I've been on & off here at odd times, and have been reading your posts.In your abscence, I used a line of yours several times, what was probably an off-the-cuff remark to you, but I liked it because it put the entire right wing program into a very concise and accurate box.
The line was "The Straw man is sacred". Not useful or handy, not a last resort, but the entire essence of wingnut "thinking". Just perfect.
Thank you I missed you guys. Feel free to crib me anytime I certainly crib you without concience. I was kind of proud of that one too.
Absolutely. If she did commit a crime relating to the torture than prosecute her too. Unlike the right, the left is NOT afraid. We are only afraid of this being covered up. As long as the truth comes out and the right people are prosecuted than we can turn the page on this horrific footnote to American history.
Is POV ready to admit that waterboarding is still the same crime it has always been? And should be prosecuted as such?
OK, let's start the investigation and if she gets caught up in the alleged criminal activity, let her face the music along with everyone else involved.
I'm sure that any investigation is going to find more criminal behavior in those in the majority and in control of the White House than in the minority leader in congress.
Did Pelosi authorize torture? If she ignored or covered up for the Republicans misconduct she deserves all she gets.
How desperate and pathetic for you to try to throw Pelosi into the torture mess.
Nothing you or any of the other disgraceful Americans who excuse torture do or say will surprise me again.
Every generation of Americans, from Washington's to ours has rejected torture for any reason. Anyone who excuses it is no better than any of our worst enemies. You are destroying the idea of the Untied States of America.
"You cant even ask if some of those techniques are in fact not torture with out being called a Nazi."
You can cross waterboarding off the list. It was already delcared to be torture by the US courts that sentenced Japanese soldiers to death for engaging in it.
"Thos entire conversation has turned into an attempt to go after bush admin officials, and not about the protection of Americans"
You know for a fact that we were torturing people in order to make them say exactly what we needed to hear concerning Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
On a personal level, (because politics are deeply personal) no matter how far fetched and vague, you're usually sharp and accurate with your delivery, but you've obviously been blunting your senses over the inhumanity and illegality of the right wing position on torture. To compensate for your moral failure in identifying torture as torture you proscribe this sad chapter of American history as a political witch hunt. So consumed with the politicization of accountability you can only see right and wrong through the lens of a political point system. You make me ashamed to share this great land with you.
So give it up. Your defense is pathetic and weak. Torture is wrong. To rationalize torture only makes us weaker in the eyes of the world as a beacon of moral authority on human rights.
Correct! And speaking of fear - this is actually where the fear comes in. You can now see it on people like Boehner. The right is terrified that when this all comes out it will finally be clear that we were actually torturing to get justification for what we had done and what we wanted to do. Throughout history, torture has been used not to get confessions to stop a ticking bomb, but to get someone to admit falsehoods that could be used to support some bogus rhetoric in public.
some bogus rhetoric...
It was all about saving Bush's a** concerning WMD's. None were found and he was desperate - politically - to come up with any intel about any weapons.
Throughout history, torture has been used not to get confessions to stop a ticking bomb, but to get someone to admit falsehoods that could be used to support some bogus rhetoric in public.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is most certainly what the Soviets used torture for.
WTF RU TALKING ABOUT?!?! The "LEFT" is the only one pushing to HAVE the CONVERSATION, you DOLT!!!
The only ones afraid of having the conversation are the right, hence all the posts here about the right poo pooing. The left already knows the answer - we executed japanese prison guards after WW2 for waterboarding after US judges ruled waterboarding was torture. It's pretty clear it has already been defined as torture, and that a legal ruling prescribes a legal punishment (death) for those caught and found guilty of doing it. There's nothing else really to discuss, so if you don't like it, try stacking the courts again for the next fifty years and then bring some lawsuit challenge to the supreme court in an effort to get the courts to overturn a previous ruling defining waterboarding as torture.
"So are "stress positions," "cramped confinement," "sleep deprivation," and "the waterboard" harsh interrogation techniques as MM says in their intro, or is it toture? And why is the let so afarid to even have the conversation?"
This is the conversation, ya mid-day drunk. You don't drink and dial. You don't tip and text. And you, in particular, should not pound and post.
You suffer from a derganged persecution complex. We ARE having the conversation. Just because you are wrong and most people disagree with you does not mean we are not having the conversation. You are simply afraid of admitting you are wrong.
Well, rightie trolls aside, I find it fascinating that Gingrich and the GOP are now trying the new tactic of calling Obama ... ooooh, get ready for this .... like JIMMY CARTER!! AGH!!
Funny thing is that CNN recently polled Americans and found that Carter has a 64% approval rating!! Compare that to America's distaste for all things Cheney + Gingrich and I'm sure Obama will take the Carter association.
I think the conservatives simply forget Carter's attempts at middle east peace, homes for humanity and that not all Americans see him as the anti-Reagan as Gingrich does.
Well, I for one am a great follower of Jimmy Carter and quite love what he's done for the world both during and after his presidency. No, I'm hardly a conservative, rather a life-long registered Democrat...and I favor thinking of myself as a guerilla socialist.
Me? I see Jimmy Carter as the anti-Reagan. :^)
The only faults I thought President Carter suffered from, was that he wasn't really politically prepared for the tactics that Congressional Republicans (and others) used to oppose him.
There was non-stop slander and lies aimed at his administration from day one, and it seemed Mr. Carter and his people too often took the high road against that kind of thing, instead of fighting back: and that hurt them politically with the American People.
In politics and Government, People tend to measure their own perceptions as reality, and who can blame them: for the most part our perceptions are reality to us, and if we perceive lies and slanders against Mr. Carter and his administration (for example), but perceive him and them not answering back or countering or correcting those slanders effectively, then the political fallout must in part be blamed on those who didn't fight back, or didn't fight back hard enough or long enough or effectively enough... if that sounds like blaming the victim, well it's not about blame but about responsibility, and in truth it's just the way it is, and it's the way politics are played in D.C.: being an innocent (even Christian even virtuous) victim, is no virtue in politics... and not fighting back effectively, is actually a vice: because we want and expect our President to be a fighter, fighting for everyone who supports him and for himself too. Anyway, that's not meant to sound critical or even blaming of the Carter administration, it's just meant to point out that sometimes the best of all men (good men in general) are often blind to dirty tricks and slimy ways and clever schemes: and taking the high road against such things, is fine in the Home and in the Schools and especially in Church, but it's eventually a road to ruin in politics, in D.C. and most other places too I'd guess.
And I said that President Carter and his administration, while bearing no responsibility for the political opposition they faced in D.C. from day one, must in truth be partly responsible themselves for how they dealt with (or didn't deal with) that opposition: and that's true, and a hard truth to admit I think... but add to it, that the majority of the American People who made Mr. Carter their President, could have helped him more and believed in him more than they did: because we turned to Mr. Carter as our President, following Watergate and Nixon and Ford, for the very reasons of him (Mr. Carter) being an outsider of D.C. and the politics they play there, and for being an honest and good (and truly Christian) man, and so we could have and maybe should have anticipated what he would face, in (again) a D.C. that had just been under the influence of Republican crimes (Watergate and it's cover-up) and Nixon and Ford, and the pardon Ford gave to Nixon... we should've known better, and so maybe we're a little bit responsible too, for not fighting politically for a man, who we chose for the very reason that he was not a political fighter...
And above all, of those who bear great responsiblility, even blame, for not fighting for and coming to the defense of President Carter and his administration (so opposed in D.C. as they were), were Congressional Democrats: because if anyone should know all the dirty tricks and slimy ways and Republican schemes of D.C. politics, shouldn't they, Congressional Democrats, know these things?
I fear a little bit that the same things may happen today, to the Obama administration, that happened to President Carter and his administration: that they may be hit hard and often by an unrelenting assault of Republican dirty tricks and slimy ways and schemes... and however President Obama fights back, however effectively and hard or not, I think we'll be there fighting with him and for him (or why else did we make him our President): but what I fear is that lame stupid cowardly and selfish Congressional Democrats may let us and our President down, by not only standing about lamely and ineffectively while our President battles his political opposition in D.C. (and in the process battles for us the majority of the American People who support him), but by actually participating in that opposition themselves (those idiot Democrats in Congress themselves): that's what I fear, and even see on the horizon today.
Bravo!
Also, given that a lot of the economic troubles in the late 1970's were (to some extent) inevitable, and not a direct result of any Carter-specific polices, I wonder: If Gerald Ford had won re-election in 1976, and by 1980 we had the same double-digit interest rates, unemployment and inflation that we did (and it's very likely that we would have), Would Ted Kennedy have been elected president in 1980?
Ok, POV, let's talk about iit,
We sought charges against and sentenced Japanese soldiers who waterboarded to a minimum of 15 years hard labor for waterboarding, some were hung according to politifact:
"Sen. McCain was right and the National Review Online is wrong. Politifact, the St. Petersburg Times' truth-testing project (which this week was awarded a Pulitzer Prize), scrutinized Sen. McCain's statement and found it to be true. Here's the money quote from Politifact:
The folks at Politifact interviewed R. John Pritchard, the author of The Tokyo War Crimes Trial: The Complete Transcripts of the Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. They also interviewed Yuma Totani, history professor at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, and consulted the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, which published a law review article entitled, "Drop by Drop: Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts." "
The Pentagon's top lawyer warned that the information obtained from torture would be unreliable:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403171.html
You've seen the Dennis Blair quote:
""The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20090421_release.pdf
The author of this one is a former FBI agent who questioned Abu Zubaydah:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss
From the same article:
The author is a former FBI agent who questioned Abu Zubaydah:
"It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence. "
"There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process."
"Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false."
"One of the worst consequences of the use of these harsh techniques was that it reintroduced the so-called Chinese wall between the C.I.A. and F.B.I., similar to the communications obstacles that prevented us from working together to stop the 9/11 attacks. Because the bureau would not employ these problematic techniques, our agents who knew the most about the terrorists could have no part in the investigation."
Your serve.
A great essay by Thomas Merton:
"Here is a statement of Gandhi that sums up clearly and concisely the whole doctrine of nonviolence: 'The way of peace is the way of truth.' 'Truthfulness is even more important than peacefulness. Indeed, lying is the mother of violence. A truthful man cannot long remain violent. He will perceive in the course of his research that he has no need to be violent, and he will further discover that so long as there is the slightest trace of violence in him, he will fail to find the truth he is searching.' Why can we not believe this immediately? Why do we doubt it? Why does it seem impossible? Simply because we are all, to some extent, liars.
The mother of all other lies is the lie we persist in telling ourselves about ourselves. And since we are not brazen enough liars to make ourselves believe our own lie individually, we pool all our lies together and believe them because they have become the big lie uttered by the vox populi, and this kind of lie we accept as ultimate truth. 'A truthful man cannot long remain violent.' But a violent man cannot even begin to look for the truth. To start with, he wants to rest assured that his enemy is violent, and that he himself is peaceful. For then his violence is justified. How can he face the desperate labor of coming to recognize the great evil that needs to be healed in himself? It is much easier to set things right by seeing one's own evil incarnate in a scapegoat, and to destroy both the goat and the evil together."
From Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander - Thomas Merton
WOW. That was beautiful
Wonderful. A gourmet-buffet-for-thought.