Cafferty: Hume interviewing Cheney "like Bonnie interviewing Clyde"
During the February 15 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN anchor Jack Cafferty told Situation Room host Wolf Blitzer that Vice President Dick Cheney's interview with Fox News host Brit Hume on the "F-word network" (Fox News Channel) to discuss his February 11 accidental shooting of a hunting party companion "didn't exactly represent a profile in courage." Although Cafferty acknowledged that he had not seen the interview, which had yet to be released in full, he nonetheless asserted that the fact that Cheney interviewed exclusively with Hume was "a little like Bonnie interviewing Clyde." When Blitzer asked if Cafferty thought Cheney "still needs to do a full-scale news conference," Cafferty replied: "That's never going to happen." He insisted, however, that "running over there to the Fox network" was "seeking a safe haven" because Cheney will not "get any high, hard ones from anybody at the F-word network."
From the February 15 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: First of all, Jack, what did you make of Dick Cheney's interview today?
CAFFERTY: Well, I obviously didn't see it 'cause it hasn't been released in its entirety yet, but I -- I would guess it didn't exactly represent a profile in courage for the vice president to wander over there to the F-word network for a sit down with Brit Hume. I mean, that's a little like Bonnie interviewing Clyde, ain't it? I mean, where was the news conference? Where was the -- where was the access to all of the members of the media? I don't know. You know? Whatever.
BLITZER: You still think he needs to do a full-scale news conference in front of all of the cameras, all of the reporters, and ask whatever they want?
CAFFERTY: That's never going to happen. But, I mean, running over there to the Fox network to -- I mean that's -- talk about seeking a safe haven. He's not going to get any high, hard ones from anybody at the F-word network. I think we know that.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
I thought it was rather refreshing to see Cafferty actually question the interview quality of the VP and that someone should or would expect hard hitting questions from Fox News. It was rather telling that Fox New Like Blitzer would ask if a full scale new conference in front of camera's was still needed - almost as if the VP has finally come clean and the matter can now be dropped! CNN will undoubtably take Cafferty to "the wood shed" for actually publically questioning this administration and jepordizing their plan to model themselves after FOX.
Yeah Trick Cheney's a real hero. The F Word Network, I like that hahaha
Cafferty seems like a pretty strait shooter who is a genuine political independent. I can never tell were he's going to come down on an issue; so I disagree with him as much as I agree with him on some issues. I do admire the fact that he seems to have a real distaste for BS, but I'm sure there are those on the right with that 'you're either with us or you're against us' mentality who will now group him with the "LEFT".
Lynn, perfect description of Cafferty.
HE was the reason I used to watch the CNN Morning Show...after he left, so did I. He's on the gruff side, BUT he is a straight shooter and will take swipes at BOTH the Left&Right if he thinks they deserve it. The guy operates from a *Common Sense* point of few rather than that of a partisan.
He nailed THIS one correctly. Cheney running to Fox to be interviewed was a given I suppose...But kudos to Cafferty for telling it like it is.
oops!! I meant *VIEW* not few --can't type/spell :-/
I've been back and forth with Cafferty for longer than I care to admit. He was a local anchor in NY for many years before CNN. Sometimes I just want to reach through the tube and strangle him, but then there are times like this when he actually makes sense. He tries to come across as the everyman type, but sometimes he can pull it off. Not like O'Reilly, who fails miserably at the phoney working class, everyman bit. I love watching Wolf Blitzer's face sometimes when Cafferty lets loose with his take on things.
I don't know much about Cafferty but this F-word network thing makes him look like a jerk and not real impartial in anyway. And by the way if you read anything about Cheney this is classic Cheney. He doesn't particularly like the press. Doubt he liked talking to Fox - he got talked into that. How often has he had news conferences about anything? This is not a cover-up - this is Cheney being Cheney.
That's the problem, Cheney thinks his still the CEO of a big conglomerate and he doesn't have to answer to us. He never understood that he is an elected official and therefore accountable to the American public. His secret energy meeting was instrumental in setting energy policy on our behalf yet he feels this isn’t any of our business. .It’s not just this latest incident it’s everything they do there. The press is the only tool that we have to use to elicit information from our public officials. It isn't like we can saunter over to their offices and have a private meeting.
Cheney thinks he still is the CEO
"this is Cheney being Cheney." * - angel875446237
So true. The only thing he seems to like getting into the press is the identity of our covert CIA agents.
That's just me being me.
Sounds good doesn't it.
Cafferty makes no claims of being impartial, his role is giving his opinion. He is not a news reader, he is a commentator. In using the the term "F word network" he is very clearly stating his opinion that Fox news is a pathetic joke.
As opposed to the hard hitting interviews Larry King conducts on Cafferty's network........now there's a forum every politician fears.
I don't hink there is anybody in their right mind who considers Larry King a journalist. His shows are bizarre. For God sake, last week the man interviewed the cast of "Growing Pains". Cafferty's characterization of the Hume interview is accurate since Hume works for a political advocay network. There are plenty of independent, neutral journalist who Cheney could have interviewed with - Gwen Ifill, Bob Shiffert, Tim Russet, ...............
Find me a politician in 2006, from the right or the left, that doesn't navigate to friendly, softball questioners, easy-going non-adversarial journalists or reporters or commentators.
Dick Cheney may be one on the right, but when was the last time Hillary Clinton did an interview with anyone that may ask her a tough question?
Sadly, very few of them do it.
We should demand that our politicians on BOTH SIDES sit down in hard-hitting interviews. This shouldn't be and in my mind, isn't a partisan issue at all.
It is the natural tendency for politicians to be cowards when it comes to interviews. Say what you will about Janet Reno, but she is the last person I can remember doing something like this when she went on The O'Reilly Factor. Bill is probably the most unfair interviewer I have ever seen, but she handled it well. She wasn't a politician, but she was an official that was previously viciously politically attacked by O'Reilly every chance he got.
Just another reason to distrust politicians nowadays..........they are so insolated by their handlers and staff from appearing in any forum that may cause them to actually have to defend one of their votes or a position they advocate, it is revolting.
Their convictions sway with the winds of the day, and they smile and act cute on their favorite talk shows - when they can either slam their opposition or talk about family values, their love of education and health care and moving this country forward.........It is all so ridiculous and we allow them the latitude.
We get what we deserve.
No, that’s not true . Hiliary Clinton and other politicians from the left and right (especially from the right as illustrated in the newly published Media Matters Study) go on Tim Russet and the Sunday shows all the time. The hosts of the Sunday shows as well as Gwen Ifill would ask tough but fair questions. Going on Fox just makes Cheney who affects a tough guy image come off looking like a real wimp. Mr.. I advocate torture is afraid of being questioned by Tim Russet?
So tell Hillary to go on Fox News then - they are the highest rated cable news outlet and you never see her there........she may not get the questions she wants, but I would respect her alot more if she stood by her convictions and batted it around with their right wing hosts.
Be serious. Fox news isn't a news network its a 24/7 Republican propaganda machine. You can't possibly compare The Sunday shows to anything that Fox does over there. I said that Cheney should have selected a journalist with reputation for being fair and neutral. I didn't say he should submit to an interview with Rhandi Rhodes or Mike Malone; be fair now I know you can.
Great post, Tommy.
I respect anyone who goes in the lion's den.
There is a huge untapped political benefit to doing so. It gains almost instant respect for the person who does it. It allows a politician to explain their views to people with diminished expectations, who have only heard caricatures of their positions previously. The ratings are always boosted, which means exposure to a larger audience.
The downside is that there is a big risk and politicians avoid risk like the plague.
We need some politicians who are like Fresno State in college football. Any place, any interviewer, any time.
C'mon now- that's as friendly an enviornment that The Dick could've found.
Whose ratings are STILL DWARFED by NBC which last I looked is where Russert worked.
I see her on the local news quite often taking questions from both friends and foes. She is very open compared to Cheyney/Bush. And I've never heard Larry King called a journalist. He's a talk show host. Very few of them could be considered journalists, maybe Charlie Rose. Larry has been trying to pretend that he's a film critic now. I see a lot of TV previews of movies that he recommends. All of the movies he recommends have one thing in common, they look like they should be competing in The Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show.
Are you implying that it's okay that Cheney didn't suck it up and go out in front of the entire press? You would be just as okay with Hillary - to use your hypothetical - going on...say Air America Radio if she were in the same situation? You wouldn't put up a stink about her going to the obvious softball-lobber? I know you're the devil's-advocate guy with nothing better to do here on the MMFA blog...but sometimes if you've got to stretch this far to apologize for your heroes, you might want to just leave well enough alone before I humiliate you again.
An just which of the major news outlets are "always" taking it easy on Hillary (or Bill for that matter)? I certainly don't remember anyone, taking it easy on Bill Clinton when he was president. What a short memory some people have.
How about Amy Goodman one of the very few people you can call a journalist?
Example Amy and Bill Clinton [link to www.democracynow.org]
. . . unlike Cheney. {Sorry, couldn't resist.}
Ha ha!
Dick Cheney holds, press conference Helen Thomas, front row, centre
Opening part of the interview...
Brit: First off Mr. Vice President I just wana say how happy Iam to have you in office, and you have done such a great job.
VP: Ohh you are quite welcome...
So one argument used in this whole unimportant mess was that the news shouldn't have been broken to a small-town newspaper.
Yet, if that's the argument, isn't it logical that perhaps when Cheney desides to give an interview, he should choose the BIGGEST news network? Lets take a look at some numbers... Last Wednesday here were the days total ratings: FNC: 948,000 / CNN: 440,000 / MSNBC: 228,000*
Wow! CNN with ratings half as big as FNC, and MSNBC's is over 4 times lower!
Maybe FNC leans right... maybe they fall of the cliff right... but at the end of the day, the bottom line is... FOX NEWS HAS MORE VIEWERS THAN ANYONE ELSE! And maybe, just maybe, for the sake of informing the most amount of people, Cheney talked to FOX.
*http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/default.asp
From the same website, the ratings for the NETWORK evening news shows for the week of Jan. 30: Total viewers: NBC: 9,643,000 / ABC: 9,341,000 / CBS: 7,552,000
So by your own argument, Deadeye Dick should have sat down with Brian Williams.
"Maybe FNC leans right" LMAO
That's the understatement of the year. Viewership, in this case, is irrelevant. The reason The Dick went on FAUX is because they are the GOP Propoganda Network, it had NOTHING whatsoever to do with "informing the people."
Don't be dense.
All Shot Gun Dick would of had to do is spend 20 minutes at a White House Press Conference amswering questions. Instead, he hides behind the Fair & Balanced BS of FOX News. He chose the venue, got his soft ball questions, and now the Right Wing nuts want it all to go away. Fat Chance!
(Paraphrasing here) I know our viewers will be interested in my interview with the Vice President. I was TRANSFIXED listening to the unfolding of events.
Is Hume kidding? TRANSFIXED?
Plenty of republican politicians, not to mention 4-5 former White House Press Secretaries, have been very critical of the way Cheney handled this whole affair. And according to NBC's David Gregory, the White House is none too happy, either. I don't care, and am not surprised, that Cheney gave the interview to FNC. The more important story is how this affair is illustrative of Cheney's behavior as VP - callous disregard for the press, less than forthright with the public and, it would seem, a disregard for the political ramifications of his actions on the President.
Plato
Plato
The "F"-word Network -- I like it.
1. The sheriff arrived Saturday evening to interview you. Did you order him sent away? Were you aware he was sent away? Why was he sent away? If he was mistakenly sent away, did you call back and invite the interview?
2. Your host Armstrong said there were no dogs on your outing. You say there WERE. If there were dogs, why was your friend chasing his own shoots? If there were NOT dogs, why did you say there WERE?
3. Your host Armstrong says the sequence of events is that you got out of the car and then shot. You claim your 'entourage' of cars was FOLLOWING you. Were you IN a vehicle prior to the shooting, or not?
4. Experts say that birdshot will not penetrate clothing at 30 yards (90 feet), yet your friend was hit hard enough to lodge a pellet near his heart. You say he was wearing not only a shirt, but a vest. Would you care to respeculate on how close your friend was when you shot him?
5. You say your friend was not only at ground level, but standing "in a gully". Is it normal to be shooting at birds which are ground level or below?
6. You say you had "a beer" at "lunch". What time was lunch, and when did you actually take the shot? Is beer all you drink? What brand was available, and was it in a can, or draft? Are you certain it was only one you drank? Was there any other type of alcohol on the premises, in a flask, or perhaps a bottle?
7. You say your friend was "conscious" when you approached him after shooting him, but that he didn't respond to questions. What is your definition of "conscious"? You have said altenrately that he had "his eyes open", and then that he has "one eye open". Which is true?
8. Did your medical team perform a transfusion for blood loss on the premises? If so, why did you later characterize ... and authorize Armstrong to characterize ... the injury as merely being "peppered"?
9. You claim Armstrong as "the best to tell the story" because she was a WITNESS. Yet, she claims to have not seen the actual shooting. How can someone who didn't see the incident be a "witness"?
10. The Armstrong ranch features "packaged" hunts, where the birds are raised and released specifically to be shot. Yet, you say you participated in a "hunt" where advance people were "flushing out coveys" of quail. Were the birds you were shooting wild birds, or not? Were they actually hunted, or simply released?
11. Why didn't you immediately call the president to tell him what had happened?
12. You claim YOUR ambulance was used to transport your friend to the hospital, yet Armstrong says an ambulance was called in. Which is true?
13. It took an hour for the ambulance to reach the hospital. How much time elapsed between the shooting and when the ambulance left, and if it was over an hour (allowing the ambulance to come FROM the hospital), WHY the delay? And if YOUR ambulance was used, why even an hour, why not sooner?
14. Did you discuss the events and particulars of the shooting with the other participants and witnesses BEFORE the police conducted interviews? Was this an attempt to do what you now claim, to "get the story straight"?
15. Your secret service detail is supposed to protect you from unexpected or improper approaches to your person. Why were they unaware of a man with a gun coming up out of a gully towards you?
16. You say your friend went to find a bird he shot, and the rest of your party moved on to the next location. Why didn't you wait for him, or help him find his bird, to keep the party together? Isn't allowing a hunting party to get scattered in the brush a dangerous practice?
17. When someone you care about is sent to the Emergency Room, people close to that person or involved in his or her injury will ordinarily accompany that person to the hospital, and wait for updates. For what reason did you not go along to the hospital? If you feared a "media circus", remember, you made sure nobody KNEW about the accident at the time he was transported.
18. From the time of the shooting, who was in charge? Who was able to order events, and make ultimate decisions, like calling for emergency help, or which method of transport to use, or where people should go and when?
Well done, Tex. You've got a touch of the Edward R. Murrow in you.
I didn't see the Hume interview. Did he ask any of these questions?
[link to www.msnbc.msn.com]
1. Seeing as this was simply a hunting accident, I saw no need to bring him back in the middle of the night. I knew I could contact him the next day if needed. 2. There were dogs acting as spotters simply to flush the birds they were not trained retrievers. 3. I was in a vehicle and dismounted, others arrived behind me. 4. I am not a trained forensic analyst or surveyor. My guess was 30 yards but I may have been incorrect. Not sure as to the relevance. 5. Quail, doves and partridges fly in erratic patterns very low to the ground due to their limited range. This was not a duck hunt. 6. Lunch was around noon. I had one. I do not do the shopping so I have no idea what else would be on the premises. 7. He was awake that is what I meant by conscious. He had both one eye and then both eyes open. Something such as cordite must have drifted into his eye. 8. The injury was peppered because that is what one calls being struck by several pellets unintentionally. 9. She owed the property. She fed us lunch. She was there taking care of him after the accident. Most of the questions have to do with what I did before and after the shooting and she witnessed all of that. 10. They were wild. 11. He has a country to run and is not normally notified about hunting accidents. 12. We would have to see the logs. 13. We would have to see the logs. 14. We were all obviously upset and wanted to ensure we had all relevant facts for any investigation. 15. They knew he was part of the hunting party. As they were not hunting and instead looking for individuals, they saw him approach before I did. 16. It was late and we wished to have one more covey before we left. Looking back there was an error in judgment, I take full responsibility. 17. But they would have known if Secret Service agents had to clear the hospital, secure an entry route and monitor all activity. My concern was him receiving the medical aid needed. The disruption would have been detrimental. 18. The owner of the property.
I'd rather see Jack running the country than the Republican Mafia or any Dems existing on the forefront. It is exactly their lack of responsibility on both sides that makes this mess so damn excruciating. Jack on the other hand, remarkably in this day and age, says what he means. This incredibly novel concept would do wonders for the Democratic Party in their attempts to displace "them."
Cafferty is one of the best things to happen to CNN in a long time. He calls them like he sees them whether they're aimed at Dems or Republicans. He manages to boil the spin down into plain language for everyone. His selection of e-mails to share with his audience are often self-effacing, but always trenchant, and I like his salty, unvarnished style.
After Paul Begalia(CNN) and Dana Milbank(NBC) showing up in orange vests and caps earlier this week, is it any suprise that Cheney might have gone to a serious news organization?
Did no one else notice that he was critizing something he admitted to not actually seeing?
To declare that he did not get a hard hitting interview, because he wouldn't go to a network that would give him a hard hitting interview is utterly fallacious.
I haven't seen the interview yet either, so I will not make the same mistake of giving an opinion on it.
Can we cry a little more? You may not like the context of the interview (FOX) but what is the difference when Clinton runs to CNN??
At least b/f you comment you can listen to the interview.
In general the media needs to get a grip - this is a non issue story - regardless of who was told when - it does not matter. The only ones who care are the politicians and the media.
this is a non issue story
Yes, and Watergate was just a break-in... at first. And no one was even injured, that time!
The whole problem is not the accident itself, it's the amazing web of secrecy and misinformation since the accident happened.
Or is it that Brit Hume the like the pissy cat.
Strike the word.
an aggressive personality like Cafferty to represent the side of Democrats as an anchor. Never.
They avoid ever bringing in an aggressive personality as a guest to represent Democrats.
OTOH, pracitcally everyone representing Republicans, anchors and guests, have aggressive personalities.
I am sick of hearing about FOX being the number one rated in News programming. Reality Check to you FOX Fans. This does not mean they are the best jounalists. It does not proove they are the BEST at keeping amercia informed. It simply means they are great at MARKETING thier product and that they are the most entertaining. The Truth is that the more informative a program really is the more BORING it usually is. Unlike Fox viewers I do not watch the news to be entertained I watched it to be informed and quite frankly I am sick of Fox bragging about the fact that they have ruined the profession of jounalism in the name of ratings and propaganda.
The next time you want to brag about how many people view a certain prograam as to say its a creidilbe news program becuase it has a huge audience--- remember how many poeple alo tune inot shows like surivior and Frear factor. ITs not news poeple and ratings DO NOT EQUAL CREIDBILTY --Its Marketing and entertainment.
The exclusive was given to FOX who in turn horded it over the rest only allowing the other networks limited access so they could milk thier exclusive for RATINGS The VP should have face the real press core. This was nothing more than Press Management. they agree to a soft interview and pamper him in order to get the exclusive. Meanwhile the american public still is uninformed. But Fox earned some more ratings..
Jack Cafferty was a twitching, bumbling joke before he was laughed out of New York 20 years ago. Nobody takes him seriously. It's nice to see he's reinvented himself (and assured himself a paycheck) on the premier nework that's shilling for the democrats. Between him and that mealy mouth Bill Schneider, the road to Hillary's coronation is well under way.
Good job Brit. It's just sour grapes from the "old" media.
Brit Hulme is taken as seriously as Larry King!
Arminius & Myprivate_box5682,
Better people than you have been crushed in debate in this forum. If you expect any hope to survive with your dignity intact, I recommend you read the writings of Jeter, who's easily the most reasonable, thoughtful, and respectable conservative on board.
If you come in here with superficial commentary about CNN somehow being liberal, you'll just make your own cause look more irrational and uninviting.
Next time you write, provide some substance.
Cheney is a love him or hate him kind of guy. The haters wouldn’t be satisfied with anything he did. To most Americans this “story” doesn’t mean diddly, and it’s just fodder for the haters.
So what if he went to FNC? They are as legitimate an news organization as anyone else. Ok they lean to the right - so what - almost everyone else leans to the left. Brit Hume is a well respected journalist and isn’t going to risk his creditability to make nice with Cheney anymore than Blitzer would.
Cafferty comes off as jealous, negative, whiner because FNC does much better in the ratings game. How can he possibly criticize something he admits he hasn’t seen? The news is negative enough; the last thing I want is to hear are the rants of a guy who hates just about everything on the planet.
DOTTIMAE wrote, “…I am sick of Fox bragging about the fact that they have ruined the profession of journalism…” Um, I think you mean Dan Rather and the New York Times. FNC haters never actually watch the channel so rarely know what they’re talking about.
If that's your idea of "substance," Arminius, then it's no wonder Bush and Cheney fit your bill.
You claim that if Clinton had received good economic news, the media would be ignoring his scandals. Almost his whole second term was one long string of good economic news, but the media, Ken Starr, and congressional Republicans went after him relentlessly.
Then you throw out a stink bomb that Clinton "accidentally shot and killed campaign contributors in 1999."
What are you talking about?
please don't feed it.
Where do I begin? Your cryptic comment about Clinton accidentally shooting and killing campaign contributors in 1999 is actually referring to the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? Bravo! You made a (somewhat lame) metaphor.
I can accept that, as Commander-in-Chief, Clinton bears ultimate responsibility for that. Will you proclaim the same about every instance of collateral damage in Afghanistan and Iraq?
But you also make several bizarre leaps of logic. If "Clinton accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy," does that mean Bush accidentally bombed _______? (Insert any of multiple instances of bombing the wrong place.) As I've conceded, they both bear ultimate responsibility, but neither of them were in the planes that did the bombing.
You also seem to be concluding that, since some of Clinton's campaign contributors were Chinese, then those that died at the Chinese embassy were campaign contributors. Where do you get stuff like that?
You also failed to address my point about Clinton always being under attack, no matter how good the economic news was. I guess coming up with that clever metaphor took all your energy.
DOTTIMAE wrote, “…I am sick of Fox bragging about the fact that they have ruined the profession of journalism…” Um, I think you mean Dan Rather and the New York Times. FNC haters never actually watch the channel so rarely know what they’re talking about. ---SaberSeven
This is pathetic. First of all I happen to watch it ALOT. Unlike some people, I like to have an idea of all sides of the issues and (take a lesson hear) that means hearing people that you do not agree with. Unfortunately for Fox I also have enough intelligence to see through thier BS. The one thing lesson I learned growing up was that there was always Two sides to every story and that the TRUTH was usually somewhere in between so SaberSeven I get both sides BEFORE I make my Judgement Plus I was once a media Student and you would be suprized at the technical techniques that they use in order to mislead the audience and why an intelligent person stays away from them. FOX controls the environment and therefor they control the outcome. Here some tips I learned in Media class of interviewing an antagonistic subject
Best way is to pretape the interview so it can be fixed before it is aired. You make it look like that material that is being aired is unimportant. This also allows you break into the interview while airing and summit the CORRECT interpertation for the viewer.
IF the interview is live never have a single camera view during this interview. Camera shots control the interview you can simply take charge of any situation if you switch the camera back to you. It is also best if the subjects is not directly with you. It is Better to have an antagonistic subject in anothor location. That way the camera cuts are more effective. You are in fact cutting them off.
I think FOX took that same media production class I did. I think it also important to note that many poaple have reported that certain FOX poeple have cut off the mic a told them to shut up whn they were not going with the program.
The point is I watch Fox All the time because its a great demonstration of media production if nothing else. I could point out several tricks in a matter of minutes from fox that a production students learns to use in order to project a certain image. You know like in the movies. I mean after all they are owned by one of the biggest giants in the film industry.
So for your information I am not ignorant of FOX but I bet I know more about what I am talking about the say 80% of its viewers do. So Sorry if I do the unthinkable. I watch Fox and actually check out the other side of the story too.
OK, I love this guy! He is the ONLY person in the TV/MSM "telling it like it is"! He calls a spade a spade; how refreshing!
Your posts are perfect examples of the homophobic, illogical, proudly ignorant base of the Republican party.
Your explanation of your claim about Chinese campaign contributors is too laughable to even respond to.
Your refusal to respond to your rhetorical opponent's points shows you have no confidence in your own ability to convey the reasoning behind your beliefs.
It's not a "premise" that Clinton was relentlessly attacked during one of the best economic periods in our history; it's a fact.
Try to step up with something worth posting.
This is unbelievably funny!