Hume distorted Mitchell's Imus interview
On the November 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Hume distorted NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell's November 10 denial that she had known that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA before syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak published that fact in his July 14, 2003, column. In an apparent effort to discredit Mitchell's statement, Hume cited an October 3, 2003, interview in which Mitchell suggested that she had known about Plame's employment. What Hume did not note, however, was that in her November 10, 2005, interview -- on MSNBC's Imus in the Morning -- Mitchell specifically acknowledged that she "may have misspoken in October of '03 in that interview." In other words, Hume reported Mitchell's Imus interview as if she were now denying she had made her 2003 claim, citing only her initial assertion to Imus that she had been taken "out of context"; Hume did not report that she subsequently retracted her 2003 claim.
From the November 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
In the meantime, NBC News senior diplomatic correspondent Andrea Mitchell now says she never meant to say that it was, quote, "widely known" that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA before the fact was publicized by columnist Robert Novak. Mitchell says online bloggers took her words out of context. She told a talk show host that she merely said people knew that a secret administration envoy, which turned out to be Wilson, had been sent to Niger.
But in a 2003 interview, Mitchell was asked specifically about how many people knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and she answered, quote, "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the Foreign Service community was the envoy to Niger."
In the week leading up to Mitchell's Imus interview, conservative media figures, including Hume, had pointed to Mitchell's October 3, 2003, comments on CNBC's Capital Report as evidence that Plame's CIA employment may not have been a secret before it was allegedly leaked to Novak and other journalists.
From the October 3, 2003, edition of CNBC's Capital Report:
ALAN MURRAY (co-host): And the second question is: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?
MITCHELL: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.
On the November 10 edition of Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus said to Mitchell: "There has been some speculation that you might be called as a defense witness for Scooter Libby because, on apparently October 3, 2003, you said -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong here -- that it was widely known that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA." At first, Mitchell responded, "Well, it was out of context." On Special Report, Hume noted this response, but he did not note that Mitchell amended her response later in the interview, admitting, "I may have misspoken in October of '03 in that interview."
Nor did Hume note that Mitchell specifically denied the substance of her Capital Report claim. Referring to Plame's CIA employment, Mitchell told Imus: "The fact is that I did not know -- did not know before, did not know before the Novak column. And it was very clear, because I had interviewed Joe Wilson several times, including on Meet the Press. And in none of those interviews did any of this come up, on or off camera, I have to tell you." Later in the interview, again apparently referring to Plame's CIA employment, Mitchell stated, "I found it out from Novak."
This is not the first time that Hume has distorted Mitchell's words in a report about her Capital Report claim. On the November 8 edition of Special Report -- prior to Mitchell's retraction -- Hume cropped her 2003 quote, giving viewers the impression that Mitchell had referred to all reporters "who cover the intelligence community" and not, as Mitchell stated, "those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger."
From the November 10 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning:
IMUS: There has been some speculation that you might be called as a defense witness for Scooter Libby because, on apparently October 3, 2003, you said -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong here -- that it was widely known that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
MITCHELL: Well, it was out of context.
IMUS: Oh, it was?
MITCHELL: It was out of context.
IMUS: Isn't that always the case when you have to testify?
MITCHELL: Don't you hate it when that happens? The fact is that I did not know -- did not know before, did not know before the Novak column. And it was very clear, because I had interviewed Joe Wilson several times, including on Meet the Press. And in none of those interviews did any of this come up, on or off camera, I have to tell you.
IMUS: Hmmm.
MITCHELL: The fact -- what I was trying to express was that it was widely known that there was an envoy, that I was tasking my producers and researchers and myself to find out who was this secret envoy. I did not know. We only knew because of an article in The Washington Post by Walter Pincus and a column by [New York Times columnist] Nicholas Kristof that someone had gone. So in that period --
IMUS: So you didn't say that it was widely know that his wife worked at the CIA?
MITCHELL: I said it was widely known that an envoy had gone -- let me try to find the quote -- but the fact is what I was trying to say, in the rest of that sentence, I said we did not know who the envoy was until the Novak column.
IMUS: Did you mention Wilson or his wife or the CIA?
MITCHELL: Yes. In a long interview on CNBC.
IMUS: No. I understand that. But at any point, in any context, did you say that it was either widely known, not known, or that it was speculated that his wife worked for the CIA?
MITCHELL: I said that it was widely known that -- [inaudible] the exact quote here -- but I said that it was widely known that Wilson was an envoy and that his wife worked at the CIA, but I was talking about --
IMUS: OK, so you did say that. Why did it take me a minute to get that out of you?
MITCHELL: No, I was talking about after the Novak column.
IMUS: Oh.
MITCHELL: And that's what was not clear. I may have misspoken in October of '03 in that interview.
IMUS: When was the Novak column?
MITCHELL: The Novak column was on the 14th of July, I believe. July 12 or 14.
IMUS: Of what year?
MITCHELL: Of '03.
IMUS: Oh, so this is well after that.
MITCHELL: This is well after that. That's why the confusion.
IMUS: Oh.
MITCHELL: I was trying to express what I knew before the Novak column, and I think there was some confusion in that one interview.
IMUS: Well, who did you find it out from, [NBC News senior vice president, Washington bureau chief, and Meet the Press host Tim] Russert?
MITCHELL: I found it out from Novak.
IMUS: Maybe Russert's lying.
MITCHELL: You know Tim Russert better than that.
IMUS: Which would break little [Don's son] Wyatt Imus's heart, by the way.
MITCHELL: Well, it would just not happen.
IMUS: OK.
MITCHELL: But this is one of those cases -- I mean we've got, you know, we've got a whole new world of journalism out there where there are people writing blogs who grab one thing and not everything else that I've written and said about this and go to town with it. And if it, you know, supports their political point of view, then --
IMUS: Bingo.
MITCHELL: Bingo, exactly.














Somebody needs to hose Brit down. Oh, I'm sorry for responding in such a degrading manner.
Actually MMFA expends too much effort addressing every one of O'Reilley's outrageous statements. As one of Fox's "hard news guys" Hume deserve a lot more attention.
MM,
Thanx for tracking down the original Mitchell quote and her latest on Imus.
Steve J.
Thanks for clearing this up.
Maybe MM could have settled this sooner if they had asked Mitchell about it directly.
From the November 10 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning:
IMUS: There has been some speculation that you might be called as a defense witness for Scooter Libby because, on apparently October 3, 2003, you said -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong here -- that it was widely known that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
MITCHELL: Well, it was out of context.
IMUS: Oh, it was?
MITCHELL: It was out of context.
IMUS: Isn't that always the case when you have to testify?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So where is the video from back in 2003?
All she does is tell Imus that it was out of context and he says ... OK.
Just because Hume didn't say she said it was out of context doesn't mean anything. The story is still true .. right.
That's what Dan Rather.
navyseals,
I think you're missing the point.
From the story above: MITCHELL: I said that it was widely known that -- [inaudible] the exact quote here -- but I said that it was widely known that Wilson was an envoy and that his wife worked at the CIA, but I was talking about --
IMUS: OK, so you did say that. Why did it take me a minute to get that out of you?
MITCHELL: No, I was talking about after the Novak column.
IMUS: Oh.
MITCHELL: And that's what was not clear. I may have misspoken in October of '03 in that interview.
-----------------
Mitchell DID say in 10/03 that it was "widely known" that Plame was a CIA agent, and Hume cannot be faulted for repeating that. Nor can he be accused of taking Mitchell's statement out of context.
But Mitchell is now retracting the '03 comment by telling Imus she misspoke. So Mitchell should no longer be cited as someone who believed that Plame's job at the CIA was well known.
End of issue.
It seems like there's a good bit of give-and-take on this forum over statements that people make somewhat under pressure on live TV, statements that are understandably misinterpreted because they weren't that clear (or were misleading) in the first place.
I think that if someone had pointed out the implication of her '03 comment immediately, that Mitchell probably would have corrected herself at the time.
I think Mitchell's original comment is a perfect example of socalled mainstream pundits parroting and aping what they hear coming out of the right-wing propaganistic echo chamber. She simply wants to be with the in crowd like some kind of highschool cheerleader.
I think Mitchell's original comment is a perfect example of socalled mainstream pundits parroting and aping what they hear coming out of the right-wing propaganistic echo chamber. She simply wants to be with the in crowd like some kind of highschool cheerleader.*****
And if you're on the right...you believe her original comment that Plames' identity was well-known was correct and now she is parroting and aping what the democratic propaganistic echo chamber is putting out...so she "mispoke" back then.
corrections: Plame's & "misspoke"
but plame's identity was not well known. all of the reporters who testified said they got her identity from libby or rove. her neighbors didn't know.
From the October 3, 2003, edition of CNBC's Capital Report:
MURRAY: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?
MITCHELL: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly, I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.**********
So it was widely known amongst investigative reporters who cover the intelligence community, but other reporters go to libby and rove to get the information and that's the only way they got it. I don't get it.
what you don't get is that mitchell retracted those remarks and said whe didn't know till novak's column. and none of those other reporters went to rove or libby. libby and rove told them when they were talking to them. where are the other reporters who mitchell claimed knew?
I don't know where the other reporters are. I can't imagine what would keep them from coming out and saying what they knew.
As far as what Mitchell has said...she's the inconsistent one.
Here she says it was widely know that there was an envoy.
MITCHELL: The fact -- what I was trying to express was that it was widely known that there was an envoy, that I was tasking my producers and researchers and myself to find out who was this secret envoy. I did not know. We only knew because of an article in The Washington Post by Walter Pincus and a column by [New York Times columnist] Nicholas Kristof that someone had gone. So in that period --
IMUS: So you didn't say that it was widely know that his wife worked at the CIA?
MITCHELL: I said it was widely known that an envoy had gone -- let me try to find the quote -- but the fact is what I was trying to say, in the rest of that sentence, I said we did not know who the envoy was until the Novak column.
No she didn't say that...she said it was widely known that Plame worked at the CIA
MITCHELL: I said that it was widely known that -- [inaudible] the exact quote here -- but I said that it was widely known that Wilson was an envoy and that his wife worked at the CIA, but I was talking about --
MITCHELL: No, I was talking about after the Novak column.
MITCHELL: I was trying to express what I knew before the Novak column, and I think there was some confusion in that one interview.
So she's talking about after the Novak column and before the Novak column, but look at the initial question from October of '03. Would the interviewer be asking How well it was known in Washington that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA AFTER Novak's column when EVERYONE in Washington and the world knew?
MITCHELL: I found it out from Novak.
IMUS: Bingo.
MITCHELL: Bingo, exactly.
Her statements don't add up.
i'm aware her statements don't add up. isn't that obvious when you retract a statement? isn't that the point of the article? as i said if it was as widely known as she claimed about plame's identity pre-novak, where are those reporters? the fact that there are none says she wasn't being truthful the first time. if you can't explain that then you have no argument.
where are those reporters? the fact that there are none says she wasn't being truthful the first time. if you can't explain that then you have no argument.*****
Not true. She admitted originally she knew Plame worked for the CIA, now she's saying she didn't know it. And she's saying it with great difficulty. She probably has the same motivation the other journalists have. How about not wanting to be subpoenaed (you know libby was indicted for testimony he gave during the investigation). If her statements on Imus are any indication on how she would testify in front of the Grand Jury she could be sharing a cell with libby (not literally).
tbrett then you're proving my point. she said initially that she knew plame pre-novak. now she says she didn't. nothing like the threat of perjury to refresh the memory. and if there were as many other reporters as she claimed, that would have become known. you got nothing.
tbrett then you're proving my point. she said initially that she knew plame pre-novak. now she says she didn't. nothing like the threat of perjury to refresh the memory. and if there were as many other reporters as she claimed, that would have become known. you got nothing.****
No, I'm not proving your point. There can be no threat of perjury if you are not called to testify. The only way you can be called to testify is if you know or knew something. So if she says now that she never knew, she isn't called; nothing like the fact that you can't get your story straight...so you say you misspoke..and you never knew...so no perjury.
I don't think it's that hard to understand.
but the surest way to get called to testify is to have one of those reporters among whom mitchell said it was "widely known" come to light. if it was so widely known then the talk would not have stopped among that group. there's no one who has come forward and said they knew. [please don't give me fox] there is not a single thing you can point that says plame's identity was widely known. hence mitchell's first statement was incorrect. mitchell is biased, anyway. she blasted kerry on nbc after one of the debates for his criticism of alan greenspan. she forgot to mention she's mrs. greenspan. come up with something that proves plame's status was known pre-novak if you want to keep going with this.
but the surest way to get called to testify is to have one of those reporters among whom mitchell said it was "widely known" come to light.*****
the surest way to get called to testify for ms. mitchell is to say that it is widely known and keep that story. someone else coming forward and saying it has nothing to do with ms. mitchell. as long as ms. mitchell keeps up the story that she "misspoke" and that it wasn't widely known. like she is presently doing.
Have you been reading my posts? I can only speculate because no one has come forward, but maybe they aren't coming forward because they don't want to have to testify about the fact being "widely known." which was your original question.
This whole Wilson issue is really interesting in the context of how the Mainstream Media and the "pundits" operate. Mitchell basically lied in her earlier interview in order to further the Administration's talking points. However, as she herself points out, journalism has changed. You now have bloggers and the Internet where everything publically said is saved by someone. If you end up "mis-speaking" someone will nail you on it.
This is why the current Administration is having to pretend that parts of reality don't exist. Even when a news clip has someone saying one thing, they are forced to deny the reality of the news clip.
This should make the job of journalists very easy. All they have to do, prior to an interview, is review what the person has previously said and then ask questions.
My only question is why Journalists are not using the "new media" tools to better to their job.