Media ignored, mischaracterized Pelosi's account of Bush query on federal response to Katrina: "What didn't go right?"
Numerous media outlets have mischaracterized or ignored entirely House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) account of how, during a conversation with her at the White House, President Bush allegedly demonstrated that he was, in Pelosi's words, "oblivious" to the federal government's failures in responding to the threat and subsequent destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina.
As outlets such as the Associated Press and Scripps Howard News Service have reported, Pelosi said at a September 7 press conference that in a meeting with Bush the previous day, she had pressed him on whether he would fire Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director Michael D. Brown because of "all that didn't go right last week [in New Orleans]." According to Pelosi, Bush replied: "What didn't go right?" Reporting the exchange, Pelosi described Bush as "oblivious, in denial, [and] dangerous."
Pelosi's full account, as aired on the September 7 edition of the CBS Evening News:
PELOSI: When I said to the president that he should fire Michael Brown, he said, "Why would I do that?" I said, "Because of all that went wrong, with all that didn't go right last week." And he said, "What didn't go right?" Oblivious, in denial, dangerous.
But other media, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), mischaracterized Pelosi by reporting her description of Bush as "oblivious" and "dangerous," but omitting her report of their exchange or any indication of what had prompted her assessment.
For example, Adam Nagourney and Carl Hulse reported in the September 8 New York Times article:
From Democratic leaders on the floor of Congress, to a speech by the Democratic National Committee chairman at a meeting of the National Baptist Convention in Miami, to four morning television interviews by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrats offered what was shaping up as the most concerted attack that they had mounted on the White House in the five years of the Bush presidency.
"Oblivious. In denial. Dangerous," Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California and the House minority leader, said of President Bush as she stood in front of a battery of uniformed police officers and firefighters in a Capitol Hill ceremony that had originally been scheduled to commemorate the fourth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Americans should now harbor no illusions about the government's ability to respond effectively to disasters," she said. "Our vulnerabilities were laid bare."
Still other media ignored the press conference entirely. For example, unlike the CBS Evening News, neither ABC's World News Tonight nor the NBC Nightly News mentioned Pelosi on their September 7 newscasts. The Los Angeles Times also failed to make any mention of Pelosi's September 7 remarks.
CNN, Fox News, and The Washington Times also reported Pelosi's comments, though they offered comments only on Pelosi's conduct and not Bush's. After airing Pelosi's retelling of her conversation with Bush on the September 7 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN congressional correspondent Ed Henry repeated for emphasis not Bush's question suggesting "oblivious[ness]" to Pelosi but, rather, Pelosi's subsequent remark: "Nancy Pelosi there, suggesting that the commander in chief is dangerous to the American people." Henry then noted Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman's "tough statement" in response, concluding that "there's real partisanship digging in here."
On the September 7 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News congressional correspondent Brian Wilson preceded a clip of Pelosi with a comment that also focused on Pelosi rather than Bush. "Nancy Pelosi is so angry, she did something quite unusual in official Washington: She recounted for reporters her private conversation with the president," Wilson said.Similarly, The Washington Times reported in a September 8 article that Pelosi "lashed out at Mr. Bush ... taking the unusual action of recounting her private conversation with the president."
According to The Washington Times report, written by Bill Sammon and Stephan Dinan, White House press secretary Scott McClellan disputed Pelosi's account of her conversation with Bush:
Asked whether Mrs. Pelosi's version of her conversation with Mr. Bush was an "accurate portrayal," Mr. McClellan replied: "No, it's not." He said, "The president was just wanting to know what she was most concerned about."
After McClellan again stated in a September 8 White House press briefing that Pelosi's account was "not an accurate characterization" of her conversation with Bush, and CNN anchor Kyra Philips relayed McClellan's version of events to Pelosi on the September 8 edition of CNN's Live From..., Pelosi reiterated her account of the meeting with Bush and said of McClellan's response: "That's absolutely not true. Mr. McClellan wasn't there, so he couldn't possibly know."
One of the few honest things I've heard come from a pols mouth in the past couple of years. Are we about to see an epidemic of honesty break out in the Democratic Party?
And before anyone chides her abt lack of appropriateness, remember Cheney pretty much put the bar as low as you can go w/ his little outburst on the Senate floor. Unless someone wants to claim they think she was being disingenuous...?
I didn't think so.
Honest and outspoken. Just what the Dems need a whole lot more of.
This is American Media 101. Report half the story... the half that makes Democrats or the press look bad. Fox news did the same thing with the NPR's Liasson "any time there's a contentious exchange in the White House press room, it makes the press look bad" story that MMFA posted where FOX didn't even post the original question from the reporter. Thank you MMFA for pointing this stuff out for those who are still waking up to the farce that is American "news".
Of course by not telling the whole story it just makes Pelosi look bad. Which is obviously the point. But when people hear what it is really about I can imagine the only ones who don't get what her comments mean are the neo-cons and their supporters.
Isn't it about time we make the distinction between journalism and reality TV? They care not about the content of her message but about the amplitude of her sound bite!
the media has always ignored bush's failures over and over. the 9-11 commission on the summer of 2001 when: "threat reports surged in june and july" page 256. "in sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. they did not have direction, and did not have a plan to institute. the borders were not hardened." "the public was not warned." page 265. no meetings, nothing, among bush and his top advisers. exactly the same as in the runup and aftermath of new orleans. clueless, leaderless, gladhanding, drift along government that substitutes rhetoric for reality.
when the democratic leader of the house calls the president "oblivious" that is major news. she is in fact questioning his ability to lead the country. the fact the media is keeping the lid on this is just further proof that this president is sheltered by a compliant media. look no further for proof that the burying of the downing street memo and all the republican election shenanigans in ohio.
I think the 'media' needs to grow a pair and report actual news...not just parrot talking points that they are fed. Talking points ain't news but they are effective when 'news' people are as lazy and compliant as the lot we're stuck with.
I think the 'media' needs to grow a pair and report actual news...not just parrot talking points that they are fed.
That suggests the corporate press is cowardly when it does the sort of thing documented in the article. In reality, this behavior isn't dictated by cowardice but by the fact that the corporate press is, by and large, on the side of Bush and the Republicans. It would be like calling a Boston Red Sox fan "cowardly" for supporting the Sox instead of supporting, for example, the Atlanta Braves. A Sox fan wants the Sox to win.
Pelosi,
Voted NO, Voted NO, Voted NO, Voted NO, Voted NO, Voted NO, Voted NO, Voted NO, Voted NO, Voted NO, Voted NO to neocon excess, told George he was oblivious, in denial, dangerous. I'm REALLY starting to like her.
Bush has failed, repeatedly, to admit to his errors both personal and professional.
This is another example.
Still going for the Red State Gut Reaction I see. She said something bad about Bush, so she said something bad about Amurika.
Pelosi's comments were shown on a local SF news program and they played the whole part as it should have been so that you understood exactly what she was talking about. Her comments make the president of our country look like what he really is, a man who was "born on third base and thought he hit a triple" as Molly Ivins likes to say, a man who has been bailed out of every mistake he has ever made in his life. Someone who has a real disconnect with the realities faced by average, everyday people in this country. He is someone who believes in "limited" government, who believes in an "ownership" society, which of course, really means you are on your own.
Couple of thoughts - kudos to Pelosi. Brown's just been relieved from Katrina duties, so that's a start.
But isn't this also eerily reminiscent of Cindy Sheehan has said about her meeting with Dubya? I don't recall her exact words - actually I just can't be bothered to look them up - but weren't oblivion and denial pretty much the gist of it...
Say what you may, but Nancy was on the button, and her speaking out has actually got an unqualified person out of a position that needs a leader, lets hope this new guy is a winner.
Way to Go Nancy, may others follow your lead.
Slightly OT, but this reminds me of the little Hurrican damage tour Cheney had, where someone called out a few choice phrases at him. While Olbermann showed it on MSNBC, CNN, playing the same clip, cut it off just before the big event and never mentioned it.
The Army Corps of Engineers had not recently fixed the levees where they burst. They were working on the Lake Ponchatrain levee areas but even that was only 80% done near the 17th St Canal levee that was breached. They were working on replacing bridges in the area with "floodproof" bridges. That had nothing to do with the earthen levee next to the bridge.
"Corps officials said the floodwaters breached at two spots: the 17th Street Canal Levee and the London Avenue Canal Levee. Connie Gillette, a Corps spokeswoman, said Saturday there never had been any plans or funds allocated to shore up those spots — another sign the government expected them to hold."
"The Lake Pontchartrain Project was a $750-million Corps operation for new levees and beefed-up pumping stations. Because of funding cuts, it was only 80% complete when the hurricane hit."