About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media overlook unanswered questions and inconsistencies in Cheney shooting disclosure

February 14, 2006 5:55 pm ET

SUMMARY: Media reporting on the delay between when Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot one of his hunting partners and the public disclosure of that information have overlooked unanswered questions and inconsistent accounts of how the incident was revealed to the press.

36 Comments

In recent days, media reporting on the delay between when Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot one of his hunting partners and the public disclosure of that information have overlooked unanswered questions and inconsistent accounts of how the incident was revealed to the press. Many media outlets have uncritically repeated the White House claim that the Vice President's Office was solely responsible for the delayed announcement of the accident, without noting that White House senior adviser Karl Rove discussed the accident with his longtime friend Katharine Armstrong, the host of the hunting expedition, the night before she disclosed it to a Corpus Christi, Texas, newspaper. Other media reported that Armstrong said she conferred with Cheney before disclosing the story but failed to note that this account conflicts with initial reports that Armstrong said Cheney was not aware that she was going to contact the local media.

  • Media overlooked Armstrong's conflicting accounts of whether she coordinated with Cheney

Many news outlets uncritically reported Armstrong's claim that she obtained Cheney's approval before revealing the story to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times on February 12, without mentioning that this version of events conflicts with initial reports that Armstrong said Cheney had been unaware that she was going to contact the local media about the accident. For example, a February 14 New York Times article reported that Armstrong "said Mr. Cheney participated in discussions on Sunday morning about disclosing the incident, agreeing that it should be made public but deferring to the Armstrong family on how to do so." A February 14 Washington Post article similarly reported:

In a telephone interview, Armstrong said that she, her mother and her sister, Sara Storey Armstrong Hixon, decided on Sunday morning after breakfast to report the shooting accident to the media. "It was my family's own volition, and the vice president agreed. We felt -- my family felt and we conferred as a family -- that the information needed to go public. It was our idea," Armstrong said.

As Media Matters for America has documented, CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux reported on February 13 that Armstrong "told CNN that she did not believe the Vice President's Office was aware that she was going to go to the local press." Malveaux challenged White House press secretary Scott McClellan to why Armstrong's account differed from that of the White House, which claimed that Armstrong had coordinated with Cheney before contacting the press. By contrast, National Review White House correspondent Byron York wrote that day that Armstrong told National Review Online that "she did not coordinate with the vice president's office before calling the Corpus Christi paper," but later simply printed an "author's note" relaying the administration's account without indicating any attempt to resolve the apparent discrepancy. Media Matters also documented that CNN White House correspondent Dana Bash -- while reporting the White House claim that Armstrong went to the press only after conferring with Cheney -- failed to note the apparent contradiction her colleague Malveaux had identified.

  • Media ignored Rove's involvement while reporting that Vice President's Office was solely responsible for delayed disclosure

Several outlets reported that White House officials acknowledged that Rove, widely seen as the Bush administration's public relations and political guru, discussed Cheney's hunting accident with Armstrong the night before Armstrong told the Corpus Christi Caller-Times about it. For example, The New York Times reported on February 14 that Rove "called Ms. Armstrong to ask about the incident," while The Washington Post reported the same day that Rove was "told of the shooting Saturday night but deferred to Cheney on providing information to the public, White House aides said."

Another report, citing unnamed Republican officials, suggested that Rove was indeed involved in discussing how information about the accident would be released but ultimately deferred to Cheney. In a February 13 Web exclusive report for Time magazine, White House correspondent Mike Allen cited unnamed "Republican sources" to report that Cheney "overruled the advice of several members of the White House staff" -- including Rove -- by "insist[ing] on sticking to a plan for releasing information about his hunting accident that resulted in a 20-hour, overnight delay in public confirmation of the startling incident."

Other evidence suggests that Rove had an established personal relationship with the Armstrong family before his call to Katharine Armstrong over the hunting flap. According to an article in the May 12, 2003, edition of The New Yorker, Armstrong's father, Tobin Armstrong, was "an early financier" of Rove's first business venture:

Rove had the imprimatur of Texas's Republican aristocracy from the beginning, through his connection to the Bush family and to [Governor Bill] Clements. An early financier of Karl Rove + Company was Tobin Armstrong, the owner of a Texas ranch (it was on land leased from Armstrong Rove and Bill Frist were planning to go hunting) and the husband of Anne Armstrong, a former Republican Cabinet officer.

Despite the fact that Rove -- who serves as President Bush's primary political adviser -- spoke with Armstrong before she notified the media of the shooting, many in the media have simply accepted the White House's claim that Cheney's office was completely responsible for determining when and how the press would be notified. For example, on the February 13 broadcast of CBS Evening News, White House correspondent Jim Axelrod neglected to mention Rove's involvement in the story while reporting that "the decisions affecting who knew what when" were "being made on the ground in Texas by the vice president," and that "the decision to have the ranch owner [Armstrong] call her local paper to let the general public know of the shooting, that was Mr. Cheney's choice as well."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by tommy (February 14, 2006 6:15 pm ET)
         

      This whole Cheney incident is why most people are so turned off by right vs left partisanship and spin in this unsavory climate of "gotcha" politics being played today by both sides - here's a good example of how issues like this are just used to stick it to the other side and flip flopped at their expense;

      1) Republican hypocricy - when it was Clinton and Lewinsky the Republican's said "It's not about sex, it's about lying and full disclosure". Now this shooting have some of them saying " This is a private matter with no relativity to Cheney's job as VP".

      2) Democrat hypocrisy - as for Clinton they said "This is his private life, totally not job related and way overblown". The Cheney incident has many here saying "This is about disclosure and hiding of the truth, absolutely relevant".

      Can't anyone at least be consistent?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by thedevilsadvocate (February 14, 2006 6:29 pm ET)
           

        While I appreciate you pointing out the hypocrisy:

        Do you not agree that the minor "scandal" involving this is that they fumbled with the press release, and then tried to cover their tracks after the fact saying that it was their decision to allow the ranch owner to release the information?

        By lying about it, they've only made it worse.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by ladyh42 (February 14, 2006 6:47 pm ET)
           

        I'd say there's a big difference between having sex and shooting someone.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by rrlane (February 14, 2006 8:32 pm ET)
           

        If you wish to make a comparison to anything on the Democratic side, make it to Kennedy and Chappaquiddick and I'll agree there is some parallels to be drawn, as I would hope, would most Dems. But comparing it to Clinton? pfft. That was a ridiculous waste of taxpayers time and money.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by skiploader1111 (February 15, 2006 6:06 am ET)
           

        Clinton hurt people's feelings with his crime.

        Cheney negligently nearly killed somebody with his crime.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mary59 (February 14, 2006 6:47 pm ET)
         

      At least be close. Here's a difference: Cheney shot a man. the man is in intensive care in the hospital. The shooting was not consensual.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (February 14, 2006 6:52 pm ET)
           

        I knew it wouldn't take long for the partisan's to try and differentiate between the two - only illustrates my point even further.

        You intentionally missed the whole point of the analogy, it has nothing to do with the act itself or whether it was consensual or not, that's ridiculous. The point is a public official's private life, what their responsibility is when it comes to disclosure to the press and when, accusations of a cover up or hiding certain information because it may or may not make that person look bad.......there are plenty of similarities.

        Lose the blinding partisanship spectacles and you can see more clearly.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by ladyh42 (February 14, 2006 6:56 pm ET)
             

          Does this mean that if I have consensual sex with someone I have to report that to the state?

          Report Abuse
        • Author by balieff (February 14, 2006 7:09 pm ET)
             

          The real question here is not whether or not it is Cheney's private life, but whether Cheney was accorded special treatment that other citizens would not. Any person involved in an accidental shooting would have an immediate interview with peace officer or game warden and the circumstances of the accident would be determined- and, as a matter of course, if the parties involved were intoxicated. If Cheney did not have to submit to this procedure, why not? Is he now above the law in his personal life as well?

          Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (February 14, 2006 7:35 pm ET)
             

          The problem is that you're conflating "private" with "job-related". Neither matter is job-related but shooting someone in the face is not a "private matter". So the hypocrisy doesn't necessarily go both ways there. You can say that people should stay out of the President's sex life and say that if the VP shoots someone in the face it should be public knowledge at the same time.

          It's like the Chappaquiddick comparison. I'd hardly call that incident a "private matter", would you? That doesn't mean you have to hold it over their heads for eternity, but I think we can safely say it's in the public's interest to know about that sort of thing.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by Snaggletooth the Crone (February 15, 2006 4:26 pm ET)
             

          And no where in the law-abiding world is assault with a deadly weapon considered a PRIVATE matter, even when it occurs on a private estate amoung "friends." Speaking as a Texan, I can tell you that the shooter and all witnesses are required, BY LAW, to notify the authorities immediately...as it is considered to be a public matter. However, the authorities are not required, BY LAW, to be summoned in the event of sexual congress between two consenting adults..as that is considered a private matter.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by Lynn (February 14, 2006 7:02 pm ET)
         

      All I know is all this mixture of huntin, lobbyin, and politikin is kind of surreal

      [link to www.msnbc.msn.com]

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jscott (February 14, 2006 7:39 pm ET)
         

      lecturing on right vs. left partisanship is kind of like Dick (Elmer Fudd) Cheney teaching a class on hunting safety.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (February 14, 2006 7:56 pm ET)
         

      I assume Mr Withington is not a very tall man which would indicate Mr Cheney shot a horizontal shot, a big no-no when shooting in a hunting party scenario.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (February 14, 2006 8:08 pm ET)
         

      But this is not politics. Someone was shot. He wasn't peppered with pellets as had been originally reported. He was shot with a shotgun. They tried to spin it by saying that it was the victims fault. According to the NRA it's always the fault of the shooter. Either the NRA is correct on this or are they wrong too?

      They've been joking about it also. But then again our so called president even joked about his not being able to find WMDs in Iraq after Americans had paid with their lives to find the WMDs that this president and vice-president insisted were there. Spare me all of the macho crap. These Chickenhawks give new meaning to the word cowardice. He did it, he didn't report it, some close to the administration even tried to blame the victim and Cheney didn't speak up and take responsibility. George & Dick can shoot all of the little birdies they can find, but everyday the two men at the top of this administration show us that they are not men at all, but just sniveling little weasels.

      They did not report this to the press. It was reported to the press 12 and one half hours after the shooting took place by the owner of the property. No one is on the same page in the administration, but then again we found out not long ago that they didn't come clean about Hurricane Katrina either. At every turn they've tried to hide thing from the citizens, and so far, we've allowed them to get away with it. It's time that we make these cowards take responsibility for all of the trouble they've caused.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (February 14, 2006 8:39 pm ET)
         

      The most sensible reason for someone to be so mysterious and evasive about the details of an accidental shooting is because there may be criminal liability.

      These people didn't notify law enforcement authorities of the shooting, and are claiming that they weren't required to.

      But if they had notified a law enforcement officer, a report would have to be made, and questions asked; and among the questions an officer would ask the shooter, in order to determine if there were criminal negligence:

      "Were you drinking at the time? Did you have anything at all to drink today; and if so, how much?"

      All in order to determine whether the shooter was intoxicated at the time of the accident; and one of the reasons someone might not right away report an accidental shooting to the police, is so the officer can't otherwise tell if they've been drinking.

      And another reason is to avoid lying to the above questions, which is yet another crime.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by rusty shackleford (February 15, 2006 11:45 am ET)
           

        Good point. One often hears the speculation in certain quarters that the Chappaquiddick accident wasn't immediately reported so that Ted Kennedy would have time to sober up. I suppose 20 hours would be long enough for the alcohol to be flushed out of a drunken man in his seventies.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by shoes89 (February 14, 2006 8:54 pm ET)
         

      Matthews, CBS Early Show, NBC Nightly News, Olbermann, and countless others have been all over this story with a lot of questioning.

      IMHO, this is a stretch by MMFA. I'm not convinced.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by hogprint (February 14, 2006 9:11 pm ET)
         

      I had a very good friend that was involved in a hunting accident several years ago. I can tell you that the FIRST thing that was done was to help the person shot. Depending on how far out in Texas they were, that would possibly take some time. Once the persons medical needs have been attended to then the proper authorities will get involved. In my friends case, he was not interviewed by Wildlife officials and the Sheriff until the next day. Let's not get carried away with these left field kook theories until the facts come out.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by trutheau (February 14, 2006 11:30 pm ET)
           

        yes, of course, the first you do is get medical attention for the victim. and the next is you contact authorities, which the hospital would do anyway. no way would the police wait a day to interview the shooter. that's ridiculous.

        i don't know what country your 'very good friend' was in, but there is no part of the u.s. that i know of that authorities wouldn't immediately investigate a shooting. and obviously the first thing they would do is find and interview the shooter.

        hogprint, you are full of hogwash. i'm afraid you're the kook here.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Snaggletooth the Crone (February 15, 2006 4:48 pm ET)
           

        I appreciate your first person perspective on the issue of hunting, but, I'm betting your hunting party did not have professional medical personal available on site, thus freeing them up to alert emergency services. And I doubt that you had Secret Service personnel equipped with state of the art communications available, which for reasons that have yet to be adequately explained, they did not avail themselves of in a timely manner. Furthermore, they were on a ranch (not out in the wilds) that had accesss to old fashioned land line telephone service. We know this because that line was used, eventually, to contact the media...but not the authorities, who, just for the record, IS NOT DICK CHENEY in this instance.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by paligap (February 14, 2006 9:40 pm ET)
         

      Did they delete an earlier post, or has your alter-ego been revealed?

      Why is it that shooting someone out in the woods is treated so differently than shooting someone in a town or city? If the incident your friend was involved in had happened in another setting, do you think he would have been allowed to wait until the next day to talk to the authorities?

      I've done some hunting, but I'm starting to wonder if that's the safest thing to do. Someone could kill you, accidentally or not, and the odds are he or she would totally get away with it.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (February 15, 2006 6:57 am ET)
         

      that they took the time to work on this woman's story of what she was going to tell the local newspaper. if they had the time to do that...

      Report Abuse
      • Author by diogenes (February 15, 2006 9:47 am ET)
           

        My my my so much angst about an accident, now let's talk about a real coverup.

        While the U.S. Park Police (a unit not equipped for a proper homicide investigation) studied the body, Foster's office at the White House was being looted. Secret Service agent Henry O' Neill watched as Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret Williams, carried boxes of papers out of Vincent Foster's office before the Park Police showed up to seal it. Amazing when you consider that the official identification of Vincent Foster's body by Craig Livingstone did not take place until 10PM! The boxes of documents removed from Foster's office by Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret Williams, was taken to the private residence area of the White House! Eventually, only 54 pages emerged.

        One set of billing records, under subpoena for two years, and thought to have originated in Foster's office, turned up unexpectedly in the private quarters of the White House, with Hillary's fingerprints on them!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (February 15, 2006 9:55 am ET)
             

          Right?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by political_left-religious_right (February 15, 2006 10:25 am ET)
               

            Anyone who goes so quickly to the childish tactic of "let's deflect the whole thing by claiming that the other side did something vaguely similar" isn't going to be slowed down by the fact that his counter-example has been discredited even by people in his own party.

            The real Diogenes was a Greek philosopher, and "philosophy" means lover of wisdom. He could hardly have chosen a less appropriate pseudonym.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by olivelawyers (February 15, 2006 1:20 pm ET)
                 

              Please recall that Kenneth Starr stated on the record that there was "no evidence" of any misconduct along the lines you are describing here. Tons of wild allegations surfaced, were investigated at the cost of tens of millions by a political zealot, and were dismissed by that zealot and his staff as being the unfounded hogwash they were. You will choke in the process, but you really should read The Clinton Wars.

              It would be nice of the measure of right and wrong today were not whether or not "Clinton did it too." (FISA issues as an example.) If it was wrong then, isn't it wrong now? Thought you folks hated him: why would you want to use him as your standard?

              Report Abuse
    • Author by Taurus (February 15, 2006 9:02 am ET)
         

      Looks like Clinton and Cheney both shot somebody in the face, only the weapons were different.

      Seriously, this is a public matter for many reasons. It goes to the whole MO of the administration: operating in secrecy, hiding the truth, attacking their victims. Is there anything lower than blaming Whittingon as Cheney's surrogates have done? Oh, I know: not bothering to apologize for the shooting.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tex (February 15, 2006 9:19 am ET)
         

      Something I haven't seen ANYWHERE ...

      is the question of Cheney's secret service protection.

      Now, wherever Cheney is ... in the city, in a car, in the woods ... the sole responsibility of these guys is to be specifically LOOKING for people who are approaching the VP. It's their job to know where everyone is, who is moving where in relation to the VP.

      Where is THEIR account of what happened? How can it be that they were unaware of a member of the party being where he SHOULD NOT have been, and approaching the VP? Did they MISS it? Did they SEE it, and yet alert nobody that this man was in the line of fire? Did they not feel compelled to shout, "Hold your fire!" when someone unexpectedly showed up in the "kill zone"?

      I hate to be dramatic here, but what if the approaching man was NOT Whittington, but was intead a terrorist or assassin? How "protected" is the VP, in light of the fact that this man was where he shouldn't be, but nothing was done about it by the Secret Service on site?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jhickey (February 15, 2006 9:24 am ET)
         

      According to a lawyer on K. Oberman last nite the first hospital the victim was taken to was further away and not as well equipped as the hospital he is in now.Why? Bear with me on this one of the blogs said the Sherriff send a deputy to the ranchwhen informed of the accident.Does this sound logical I'm sure they knew VP Cheney was at the ranch.What police chief or Sherrif would not want to be personal y involved in something of this magnitude

      Report Abuse
    • Author by temphandle subdivided55radiator (February 15, 2006 9:26 am ET)
         

      The real issue is why the VP did not meet with law enforcement immediately and why breathelizer testing was not done.

      Any other citizen would be subjected to that testing with minutes.

      Media has turned this story about themselves. Who cares if VP talks with them or not? He pulls them around like a puppy and they come back to him anyway.

      SH

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Intergalatic Purveyor (February 15, 2006 11:22 am ET)
         

      Remember the "culture of responsibility" that George Bush and his neo-con pals were going to bring to the White House after the previous tenant had "stained" it so badly? Can someone honestly say that this administration has ever taken responsibility for anything? It is always somebody elses fault, or there is no way we could have known that at the time, or we weren't aware of it at the time or nobody could have seen that coming ....take your pick. This isn't partisan politics this is observable behaviour that has been repeated to the point of absurdity. As for the partisan claim you hear certain people always mentioning in the comments sections of this site, I would say if this were someone I had voted for and they had behaved the way this administration has for 6 years I wouldn't be defending them I would be upset that I had ever voted for them and mad at what they had done. I wouldn't defend them no matter what.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jziggie (February 15, 2006 1:57 pm ET)
         

      Are these "clowns" trying to hide the fact that they may have been "boozed-up" while hunting? Secret Service didn't allow local authorities to interview Dick until the next day....Makes one wonder.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.