Broadcast media largely ignored speech by ex-Powell chief of staff blasting Cheney, Rumsfeld
Former senior Bush State Department official Lawrence Wilkerson's speech blasting "the national security decision-making process" -- and describing a "cabal between" Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld -- has received scant attention in the broadcast media. Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel, was chief of staff under former Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005. Wilkerson's October 19 speech, given at the New America Foundation, described a process in which Cheney and Rumsfeld "made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made" on critical issues.
Wilkerson served in various capacities under Powell for 16 years, beginning in 1989 at the Army's Forces Command. Immediately before becoming Powell's chief of staff at the State Department, Wilkerson was the associate director for policy planning. During his tenure at State, Wilkerson was involved in policy planning and for legislative and political-military affairs, according to his State Department bio.
But a Media Matters for America review* of broadcast and cable transcripts since October 19 shows only six mentions of the speech on television news -- once each on two segments from Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume ("Fox News All-Stars" and "Political Grapevine"), three instances on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, on October 20, 24, and 25, and once on NBC's Meet the Press. Aside from Meet the Press, no network news program has covered it. CNN, as well as the three broadcast networks' nightly newscasts, have failed to cover the speech altogether.
In contrast, Wilkerson's speech received several mentions in major newspapers and wires, including The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Newsday, and The Denver Post, among others.
Newsday Washington bureau chief Timothy M. Phelps wrote the first lengthy news story among major newspapers, reporting that Wilkinson warned of further ineptitude on the part of the federal government in the event of another domestic terrorist attack.
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank published a commentary the day after the speech, noting that Wilkerson said of undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs Karen Hughes's tour of the Middle East to promote U.S. foreign policy, "It's hard to sell [manure]," quoting a friend.
Milbank's reporting formed the basis for the two most prominent mentions of Wilkerson's speech in the few examples of television coverage. On the October 20 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews interviewed Milbank about the speech and the CIA leak investigation. And on the October 23 Meet the Press, host Tim Russert read from the Milbank's account of the speech during a roundtable interview with New York Times columnist Frank Rich, Weekly Standard staff writer Stephen F. Hayes, and author George Packer.
In all, Media Matters found** 31 news stories and editorials in the major newspapers and wires that mentioned Wilkerson's remarks.
From Wilkerson's October 19 speech:
I don't know what the case is today; I wish I did. But the case that I saw for four-plus years was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberrations, bastardizations, perturbations, changes to the national security decision-making process. What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made. And then, when the bureaucracy was presented with the decision to carry them out, it was presented in a such a disjointed, incredible way that the bureaucracy often didn't know what it was doing as it moved to carry them out.
* Search of Nexis transcripts library for "Wilkerson," October 19-26.
If only the hurricanes would stop, maybe they could get on to reporting the next missing blonde cheerleader. When it comes to an honest reporting of news that reflects negatively on the Bush administration, the corporate media is as useful as a glass hammer.
I would agree with nerzog that what is left of the Bush regime base has a comprehension problem and this speech would go over their heads. It is a shame Wilkerson didn't give this same speech some time ago but better late than never. Steve Clemons has really done good work regarding this story and with the high profile nature of this story it is a shame the weak coverage it is getting. Wilkerson did have a great article in the LA Times yesterday that explains the cabal in detail and expands upon what he said in this speech. The selective coverup of important stories continues unabated, the coconspirators otherwise know as the broadcast media are in full fledged protection mode for duhbya and co..
It never fails to amaze me that when comments made by former Bush officials are made that the MSM tends to totally ignore them.
I can only wonder why the MSM has so easily sold it's soul.
This story and others like it are the reason the US media has become our own version of Pravda. They are in the business of deciding what is news for the average american viewer. It's sad , pathetic a story like this is ignored but things like the runaway bride are breaking story items.
Media Matters made an important point here. The question I have is: what can we, John and Joann Q. Citizen do to get MSM to pay more attention to important stories like this? Why DIDN'T the broadcast media pick up on what Lawrence Wilkerson said? How can we hold MSM's feet to the fire?
The MSM doesn't care about politics, it cares about money. While I think that nerzog's charecterization of the Bush base as homophobic anti-aboriton bible thumpers is probably a bit hyperbolic--I think he more or less accurately sums up the American people's reaction to an ex-state official coming out against the war two years later.."who cares." "Who cares," doesnt' garner ratings and now that news is a competitive buisness no one wants to cover something that peole don't care about. Hurricane's are high drama--dead bodies floating, riots, canabalism--the media loves to report anything that sounds like the end of the world because people like it when the news looks as much like a Jerry Bruckheimer movie as possible. I'm pretty sure that's why conservatives get more play in the MSM--most of what they say is incorrect and/or insane but it makes good news--where as Democrats who attempt to be nuanced and factual just sound boring and dont' get play. So I think if we want to see this swtich we are going to have to find a way to make the real news more profitable than the extreme news because most news outlets are controlled by giant mega corperattions who at the end of the day dont' care about advocating any point of view accept that one that generates teh most money.
ileangood,
I basically agree with your assessment of what drives the media......the bottom line is their bottom line. Money, ratings and advertiser's dollars trump any ideology or bias they are out to promote. Altough some outlets do lean a certain way, left or right, and report in a very subtle way - their allegiance is too their stockholders and their wallets over anything else, when push comes to shove.
- their allegiance is too their stockholders and their wallets over anything else, when push comes to shove.
by tommy
I can't argue with this statement, unfortunately the story doesn't end there. MSM is beholden to it's largest (in terms of revenue) advertisers. So by default, by and large it leans to the right. This is natural and will never change.
Capitalism does NOT equal Democracy.
--The only place I saw this was (naturaly) The Daily Show...guess its true what they say, Stewart is the only real journalist on TV.