About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

CNN's Ed Henry selectively edited video to misleadingly suggest Lieberman supported provision he opposed regarding FEMA director

September 15, 2005 6:18 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

11 Comments

In a segment on the September 14 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, correspondent Ed Henry misled viewers about Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's (D-CT) role in former Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director Michael D. Brown's ascension to that job, selectively editing Lieberman's videotaped comments in order to create the false impression that Lieberman supported Brown's ascension.

Henry's piece included video clips of Lieberman -- who chaired the Senate's Governmental Affairs Committee (now known as Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs) when Brown was confirmed as deputy director of FEMA in June 2002 -- responding to questions during a September 13 press conference. But Henry specifically edited out Lieberman's statement that Lieberman opposed a provision in the legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that resulted in Brown's elevation from deputy director to director without a second confirmation hearing. Worse, Henry not only omitted Lieberman's statement that he opposed the provision, but he also implied that Lieberman had actually supported it.

Henry asserted that "Senate Democrats also allowed the president to elevate Brown to director of FEMA without a second confirmation hearing when the agency was folded into the Department of Homeland Security."

But Henry had video of Lieberman specifically denying this point. The full video of Lieberman's comments from the press conference shows that he stated that he opposed the provision in the DHS legislation that ultimately allowed Brown to be promoted without a second hearing:

LIEBERMAN: This is one of those classic cases, deputy to an organization, where you say the president has earned the right to make the choice of who he wants to serve him. Congress has to decide not whether I would have chosen the person, but whether the person is acceptable for the job. And at that point, he sure looked like it. In the aftermath of what's come out in the last week, I'd say information -- that it seems that either consciously or unconsciously, there was an element of his resume that was wrongly stated, that suggested he had more background in emergency management than he did. I want to say just one thing: He became director of FEMA without a hearing, and that was wrong. That was as a result of a section of the law creating the Department of Homeland Security that I opposed but that the administration fought to keep in, where they could take somebody who had experience that was germane to the position for which they were being nominated in the new department and put them in without a hearing. I thought that was wrong. Needless to say, the replacement for Michael Brown will receive quite a hearing.

Henry carefully edited Lieberman's comments to exclude the statement about Brown's ascension and the DHS provision. How carefully? Henry aired both the sentence immediately before Lieberman's comments about Brown's ascension and the sentence immediately after it. He edited out Lieberman's comments about opposing the provision -- then told viewers that Democrats "allowed" it.

From the September 14 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:

HENRY: Democrats have acted surprised and outraged that the president's FEMA director had next to no experience.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA, House Democratic leader): He appointed a person to head FEMA who had absolutely no credentials.

HENRY: But Democrats were running the Senate when Brown was easily confirmed as FEMA's deputy director in June 2002. The Democrat in charge of the confirmation hearing, Joe Lieberman, declared he would support Brown because of his, quote, "extensive management experience." Only four of 17 senators on the committee showed up for that hearing, which lasted only 42 minutes with no tough questions about Brown's nine years running an Arabian horse association. When pressed by CNN about whether he did a tough enough job scrutinizing Brown, Lieberman put the onus on the president.

LIEBERMAN: The president has earned the right to make the choice of who he wants to serve him. Congress has to decide not whether I would have chosen the person, but whether the person is acceptable for the job. And at that point, he sure looked like it.

HENRY: Lieberman noted Brown's resume suggested back in the late '70s he was in charge of emergency services in a small Oklahoma town, a claim now in question.

LIEBERMAN: In the aftermath of what's come out in the last week, I'd say information -- that it seems that either consciously or unconsciously, there was an element of his resume that was wrongly stated, that suggested he had more background in emergency management.

HENRY: Some senators acknowledged Democrats could have been tougher.

SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D-NJ): The majority did a bad job. That's what I think.

HENRY: Other Democrats defended their level of oversight. But in retrospect, 42 minutes is an easy amount of scrutiny.

SEN. DANIEL AKAKA (D-HI): That's for one person, that's an appropriate time.

HENRY: Senate Democrats also allowed the president to elevate Brown to director of FEMA without a second confirmation hearing when the agency was folded into the Department of Homeland Security. Lieberman is now vowing to be much tougher.

LIEBERMAN: Needless to say, the replacement for Michael Brown will receive quite a hearing.

HENRY: But about an hour before Lieberman made that very promise, his Homeland Security Committee was considering four other nominees, including one who will be crafting labor policy for the Homeland Security Department. Most lawmakers only had staff at the hearing. Many senators themselves, including Lieberman, were absent.

This is not the first time Henry has misrepresented videotaped comments. During a July 15 report about the investigation of the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame, husband of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, Henry told viewers that "Joe Wilson himself has suggested that she was not undercover at the time" her employment at the CIA was revealed. Henry was apparently basing this on Wilson's statement the day before on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports that "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that [syndicated columnist and then-CNN commentator] Bob Novak blew her identity." Wilson's statement clearly meant that she was no longer undercover once she had been outed -- not that she was not undercover to begin with. Media Matters for America pointed this out when the Associated Press made the same error; the AP quickly corrected its mistake. Two months later, Ed Henry still has not.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by mdprime (September 15, 2005 6:29 pm ET)
         

      ...and as a pathetic defense, one might suggest that we have such short clips of America's representatives (about 1.5 seconds of Lautenberg, 4.5 for Akaka) in order to keep in line with the short attention span so many people have acquired over the years.

      I find it interesting how so much can happen within CNN. There was the article on the court battle just yesterday, and now this...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by ellington (September 15, 2005 7:27 pm ET)
         

      This is, without question, one of the most shameful bits of journalistic malfeasance I have ever seen. Ed Henry, Lou Dobbs, and CNN should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

      In many ways, this eclipses the sort of claptrap we see from those who opine from the right: Rush, Hannity, etc. At least we know where they stand politically, and we know that they will cherry pick quotes to make a case.

      This report is allegedly objective - it shouldn't be advancing a political agenda. And yet, there it is.

      If ever a correction was called for, this is the time. David Brock, now is the time for one of your famous letters.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (September 15, 2005 7:47 pm ET)
         

      Yeah, must be victims of the clock. Last night Hannity gave Newt Gingrich almost a minute ( at least gave him time to finish the thought ) after ( Hannity ) announced he only had a few seconds left. One must be enamored with the 24/7 format. Not too long ago Keith Olberman took the time and played the now famous Robertson tape in the more complete format without the " truncation trick " and what difference in meaning it became.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by sluggo (September 15, 2005 11:53 pm ET)
         

      What a completely unethical act by Henry.

      It would be funny to record and then edit some of Ed Henry's video apparences so that he (apparently) makes statements Supporting terrorism. I am sure it can be easily done and might teach him a lesson.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by kwinters79 (September 15, 2005 11:56 pm ET)
         

      Henry should be Ashamed of such blatant distortion. But it's not suprizing. I realized over a year ago that CNN was only a little less extreme and a little more subtle in their conservative bias than Fox. "Liberal Media"? Hogwash.

      Check out "THE PROPAGANDA MODEL OF NEWS" documentary video here: [link to mysite.verizon.net]

      It really puts things in perspective regarding the conservative media bias.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by west1 (September 16, 2005 1:14 am ET)
         

      Technically, MM is correct. I don't disagree that CNN omitted Lieberman's disavowance of responsibility for allowing Brown to get the the Director level; however, I believe Lieberman is grasping at straws when he states that he opposed a section of the bill establishing the Department of Homeland Security.

      First of all, when Lieberman was in charge of the Deputy Director confirmation hearing, as CNN reports, the committee hardly scratched the surface in questioning Brown. Why bother with the hearing? Lieberman even soft-pedaled the issue as to whether Brown lied on his resume.

      Next, how hard did Lieberman fight the provision of the law that he now says he opposed? Did Lieberman make vocal his opposition when Brown was promoted? Lieberman was a major proponent for the creation of the mammoth Department of Homeland Security and the majority of the Democrats, including Lieberman, voted for it. Now for Lieberman to come back and say that he opposed a tiny provision of a massive piece of legislation he overwhelmingly supported is lame.

      CNN appropriately point out that at about the time that Lieberman was providing an excuse, other nominees for Homeland Security positions were being ignored. Perhaps, Lieberman should admit that the hearings pretty much rubberstamp the President's nominations.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by leftisright (September 16, 2005 5:32 am ET)
           

        Excuses and justifications for misleading and false reporting are not tenable. Lou Dobbs has been doing this alot with hateful anti-immigrant rhetoric that is just short of racist and xenophobic. He needs to be called on this as well as his shameful immigration reporting. I am no fan of Lieberman (the pesudo-Republican), but to try to make Dems look bad to deflect blame from Bush Admin. is just disingenous and misleading.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by frenchfries (September 16, 2005 9:12 am ET)
         

      I also think that this Lieberman's "explanation" was a rather lame excuse. However, Henry should have presented his remarks, maybe even characterizing it for what they were ("Lieberman's excuse: ...") - and let the viewers decide.

      But this is shameful and it practically puts the blame for "Brownie" to the Democrats. Blame shifting is on, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Mr. Rove is quite happy about the progress...!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Sagra (September 16, 2005 10:05 am ET)
         

      Ed Henry's going for "Employee of the Month" at MiniTru.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by phreak (September 16, 2005 12:00 pm ET)
         

      It is just amazing how the right will talk out of both sides to protect Bush. When Bush nominates someone they complain to high heaven that the Dems are being obstructionists and that Bush should be able to to chose the person he wants. When that person turns out to be totally incompetent, then it is the Senate's fault because they didn't ask him enough questions...the questions that they thought were obstructionism.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Romario (September 16, 2005 4:21 pm ET)
         

      Ed Henry needs to get a job at Fox News

      Report Abuse