Media failed to report contradiction in Cheney's and Armstrong's alcohol claims
SUMMARY: Reporting on Vice President Dick Cheney's admission that he had consumed "a beer at lunch" prior to accidentally shooting a hunting companion, numerous media outlets failed to report that Cheney's admission contradicted earlier statements by Katharine and Anne Armstrong, co-owners of the ranch where the accident occurred, who had said that Dr. Pepper was served with lunch and "heavily implied," according to The New York Times, that "no alcohol was served at all."
In reporting on Vice President Dick Cheney's February 15 admission that he had consumed "a beer at lunch" prior to accidentally shooting Texas lawyer Harry Whittington during a February 11 hunting trip, numerous media outlets failed to report that Cheney's admission contradicted earlier statements by Katharine and Anne Armstrong, co-owners of the ranch where the accident occurred, who had said that Dr. Pepper was served with lunch and "heavily implied," according to The New York Times, that "no alcohol was served at all." The Washington Post went so far as to report that Cheney's account "largely squared" with Katharine Armstrong's.
Katharine Armstrong was the first person to alert the press that the incident had occurred and, according to a February 13 article in The Washington Post, Cheney's office directed reporters to Armstrong for an eyewitness account of the incident. Moreover, Cheney acknowledged in his February 15 interview with Fox News host Brit Hume that he agreed with Armstrong that she should be the one to inform the press because "the accuracy was enormously important."
Cheney, during his interview with Hume, claimed that he drank "a beer at lunch," hours before the accident happened. But, as The New York Times reported on February 16, Cheney's admission was inconsistent with earlier statements made by other members of the hunting party who denied that alcohol was involved at all. From the February 16 New York Times:
Until Mr. Cheney acknowledged having had a beer at lunch, members of the hunting party had been adamant that no alcohol was involved. Katharine Armstrong, whose family owns the ranch, had said in interviews that Dr Pepper was served at lunch and that no one was drinking. In interviews with The Times and other papers, Ms. Armstrong heavily implied that no alcohol was served at all.
"No, zero, zippo, and I don't drink at all," she said in an interview published on Monday in The Corpus Christi Caller-Times, the paper she initially called. "No one was drinking."
Anne Armstrong was quoted in the February 14 Los Angeles Times saying that the hunting party "broke for a lunch of antelope, jicama salad and camp bread, washed down with Dr. Pepper." Also, as the ThinkProgress weblog noted in a February 15 entry, the Armstrongs' media accounts of the incident changed on a daily basis -- from claiming that nobody was drinking (February 13), to acknowledging that beer was available (February 14), to telling CNN that Cheney had a cocktail after the accident (February 15).
Nevertheless, The Washington Post reported on February 16 that Cheney's account of the incident "largely squared" with Armstrong's:
The 27-minute interview, in Cheney's ceremonial office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, was a remarkable moment in modern politics as a vice president described shooting another person. Cheney's account largely squared with that of Katharine Armstrong, one of the owners of the huge Armstrong Ranch in southern Texas where the vice president was hunting Saturday. But, in his own reserved way, Cheney sounded emotional about what happened.
Other news outlets, such as the Associated Press, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the CBS Evening News, and NBC's Nightly News reported that Cheney admitted to drinking a beer but failed to note the contradiction with Armstrong's statements.
10 threads on this ONE subject...isn't THIS overkill?
There MUST be other more IMPORTANT topics out there...
Yes of course we should get to the bottom of this...But this is getting just a bit redundant.
Ok...just my opinion...carry on.
I need a drink ;-)
I'm new here, but I've been checking out this site for a few weeks now. I was directed to this site by my nephew who was doing a paper on American media.
I figured I,d stick my toe into your water and see if it gets bitten off.
I mostly agree with Tex (I'm not sure about the "authorities were prevented from investigating" part), and I can assure you that I'm not a partisan Democrat. I'm a Canadian who voted Conservative last election (although our conservatives are not like your conservatives).
If I had to wager on whether or not your veep had a few ales that fateful day, I'd bet that he did (with an over - under of 3). Not out of hatred, but just from what I've heard of the incident up until now. Who hasn't used that "one beer" line before?
It seems to me that those who don't suspect that alcohol was involved, just really don't want to. But that's understandable. Nobody wants to think that their leaders are as fallible as the ordinary joe.
How important this is, I don't know. But you guys have a (recent) history of blowing things like these out of proportion, imho.
Your contributions are much appreciated. Welcome!
We do blow things out of proportion. On the left and on the right. But I don't think any of us think our leaders are infallible. We have had our share of losers in the White house, but every once in awhile we come up with a Lincoln.
I get it. Ha ha. Welcome here too.
You nailed that one, WDM. I don't know how much alcohol was consumed by whom that day, but I do find it extremely strange that Ms. Armstrong was somehow conferred the power of "the best witness." According to KO on Countdown tonight, she was in a vehicle 100 yards away when the shooting happened. Who else did the authorities interview besides Cheney and Armstrong?
I've driven through that part of Texas before, and it is a desolate place. I wouldn't expect much from the local law enforcement around there, especially if Cheney or Bush was involved. From what I've read and heard about their "investigation," they violated just about every best practice.
The first thing a good investigator does is interview as many witnesses as possible as quickly as possible. That way, even if there is nothing to hide, witnesses don't start changing each other's perceptions of what happened.
Reading this confirmed my suspicion about the quality of the "investigation."
[link to www.mysanantonio.com]
I saw the Joe show on MSNBC, and on it was Congressman King, who said two interesting things.
First, he offered as PROOF that Cheney had no intention of cooking up any stories, because why else would he appoint this woman to be the spokesperson for the incident?
SECOND, he countered another guest, who pointed out that on at least FOUR points, the Armstrong woman got the story exactly WRONG, or at least directly contradicted Cheney's version. What did KING say? What do you expect, he said, she's not a professional. Of course she just made a mistake!
Well, DUH. What better spokesperson, if you intend to weave a convoluted and unbelievable story web of excuses, than one who you can EXCUSE for getting everything WRONG?? I mean, if it was an OFFICIAL spokesperson, then you could hold them responsible for giving false information, right?
Hmmm. McClellan. I guess not. Republican professionals and amateurs alike get it exactly wrong, regularly. Never mind.
The VP (may have been or) was drunk and shot someone and then waited almost a full day to tell anyone (maybe because he needed to sober up????).
No big deal, Nothing to see hear people, move on, MOVE ON FOR GOD SAKE! MOVE ON!
HUH??????
"Accountability in government", sound like a good campaign slogan Dems? Come on now, get with it.