NY Times, LA Times ignored questions regarding Cheney accident witness Armstrong
SUMMARY: In February 17 articles about the incident last week in which Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot a hunting companion, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times uncritically reported that the local sheriff department stated that the account of events offered by Katharine Armstrong, owner of the ranch where the incident happened, agrees with Cheney's version of events. Neither newspaper noted that some of Armstrong's statements regarding the presence of alcohol and Whittington's ability to speak after the incident have been contradicted by Cheney.
In February 17 articles about the incident last week in which Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot a hunting companion, 78-year-old Texas attorney Harry Whittington, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times uncritically reported that the local sheriff department stated that the account of events offered by Katharine Armstrong, owner of the ranch where the incident happened, agrees with Cheney's version of events. Neither newspaper noted that some of Armstrong's statements regarding the consumption of alcohol and Whittington's ability to speak after the February 11 incident have been contradicted by Cheney. The papers also failed to note that Armstrong's own statements raise questions about whether she saw the actual shooting, as she claims.
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. Cheney said 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."
However, as Media Matters for America noted, the weblog ThinkProgress documented in a February 15 entry that Armstrong's media accounts of the incident have 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). Also, Armstrong's earliest claim -- that no alcohol was present -- contradicts Cheney's admission during his Fox News interview that that he drank "a beer at lunch," the day of the accident. In fact, The New York Times reported this contradiction in a February 16 article.
Additionally, Armstrong told the Houston Chronicle that after the accident, Whittington "was immediately talking and that was the great thing." Cheney appeared to contradict that statement during the Fox News interview. When Hume asked if Whittington had said anything to Cheney immediately after being shot, Cheney replied: "He didn't respond. He was -- he was breathing, conscious at that point, but he didn't -- he was, I'm sure, stunned, obviously, still trying to figure out what had happened to him."
Nevertheless, The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller and Ralph Blumenthal reported on February 17:
In his account, the chief deputy, Gilberto San Miguel Jr., said he arrived at the ranch shortly after 8 a.m. Sunday and interviewed Mr. Cheney, who described accidentally shooting Mr. Whittington from about 30 yards away. The deputy then interviewed Katharine Armstrong, one of the ranch's owners, "who told me pretty much the same story."
Los Angeles Times reporter James Gersterzang noted the discrepancy between Cheney's claim that he drank prior to the accident and Whittington's claim that there was no alcohol present, but reported that Cheney, the local sheriff, and Armstrong "agree on what happened." From Gersterzang's February 17 article:
Cheney's television interview, the sheriff's report and the information Armstrong gave to the local newspaper agree on what happened Saturday: At about 5:30 p.m., the vice president turned to fire his 28-gauge shotgun, a Perazzi Brescia, at a bird flushed out of the brush, but he shot hunting partner, Harry M. Whittington. The 78-year-old lawyer was struck in the face and torso from about 30 yards.
The sheriff's report includes the first account from Whittington, which was taken at the hospital. During the interview, Whittington emphasized that "there was no alcohol during the hunt" and that everyone was dressed in hunter orange. (Cheney said in his interview with Hume that he had a beer at lunch hours earlier.)
Bumiller and Gersterzang also failed to note that Armstrong's own statements cast doubt as to whether she actually witnessed the shooting. Armstrong described the shooting to the Associated Press, which reported on February 12 that Armstrong said Whittington "came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself." But, as writer R.J. Eskow noted in a February 15 entry on the Huffington Post weblog, Armstrong also told the Associated Press on February 14 that when she saw Cheney's security detail running toward the scene: "The first thing that crossed my mind was he [Cheney] had a heart problem." Why would Armstrong guess that Cheney had had a heart problem when she had allegedly seen the shooting? AP reporter Nedra Pickler failed to note the discrepancy between Armstrong's statement and her alleged eyewitness account.
With all the inaccuracies in this whole drama, it's amazing no media reporters can piece together an entire story documenting all the discrepencies therein. This is fast becoming a merry-go-round, with so much spin and, geez, all Cheney has to do is keep it up for two and a half more years.
... of an orchestrated cover-up, but there's nobody to press charges, no competent (unintimidated) local police, and no way to obtain timely evidence, so this story will finally come to a close.
Except three glaring and uncontrovertable facts:
1. Cheney has contempt for law enforcement, and, indeed, the LAW.
2. Cheney has contempt for the people's right to know, and his obligation as a public servant.
3. Cheney has neither honor nor courage.
Hey, the rightwingers spent the eight years of Clinton insisting that "CHARACTER" was an issue. If so, then Cheney's character came into sharp focus with this incident. Sorry, it's not good news for the GOP. But, the sycophantic authoritarian cultists of the right are breathing a sigh of relief. They dodged a bullet, even if Whittington did not.
From Othello:
"...You shall mark Many a duteous and knee-crooking knave, That, doting on his own obsequious bondage, Wears out his time, much like his master's ass..."
This is our Washington press corps.
Bumiller's "White House Letters" in the Times are nothing more than propaganda: stupid ditties about Bush's Ipod or his reading habits that are spoon fed to her by the White House spin machine.
Pickler has been just as much of a joke for a good while: her perfecting of the "campaign profile" during 2004 is the epitome of style over substance. Her bias against Kerry played right into the Bush campaign's hands.
You can't possibly expect people like these to give fair, accurate reports about a story like this. Even before the shooting, they were already a part of the ongoing cover-up of the corruption and incompetence of this White House.
How long will it be before the local sheriff's office suddenly receives a huge allocation of funds from homeland security in order to buy some snazzy new Suburbans and kevlar vests.
if armstrong thought cheney's security detail was running because he had a "heart problem", she wasn't there. will we ever get the truth here? probably not. are these people lying their behinds off? absolutely. and they claim that the reason that they let armstrong go to a local paper with this, is because she's an expert hunter and she witnessed it. but it's hard to believe this much damage could be inflicted from 30 yards away. and the media? once again they circle the wagons for the bush administration.
How many of you have attended a court session where eye witnesses to a potential crime scene contradict each other? If the statements in this case agreed word for word, fact for fact, the media would be all over the "scripting." Unless the "victim" files a suit against Cheney in the next three years, the case is closed, no matter the spin some of you are trying to put to it.
be specific. and "eyewitness" armstrong saying she thought cheney's security detail was running because he had a heart problem indicates to me she didn't see it. your explanation for that?
Sure, put the onus on the victim—one more time. T’was merely a subterfuge you dally with, whilst you or others dawdle from the veritable course your ilk has plowed. To further obfuscate that which you all dread & fear—most silently, you muddle sir and trifle about with the very lives of this country.
In you & yours’ hypocrisy, you cannot look towards your own for some truthful explanations. They seek merely to assuage their ineptitudes & trepidations with some balm of narcotic verbiage, deemed soothing by their masses, obviously you as well, and thus thwart honest discourse. And they cheat history…only for the present, just as you do…more so to your self. Others can adjudicate the truth you personally avoid.
As I've written before: "Thinking back to the folks I've represented or filed civil actions against, those who had only had "a beer," and left the scene or declined a b/a test ... yes, the judges and juries were most sympathetic with those non vice-presidential types, every time." Yes, my tongue was wearing out my cheek.
There is a difference, Mr. Oscar, in an eye witness missing details in a description in comparison to details given by another, but as opposed to one witness stating inconsistently that there was no alcohol, then that there was some but not much...the difference is actually infinite.
I still want to know, since Clinton's agents had to testify about his antics inside the oval office, why the Sheriff hasn't interviewed Cheney's Secret Service guys. Perhaps because there is no Republican Congressionally demanded investigation, resulting in approval by a Republican appointed judge of a warrant demanded by the notoriously conflicted Ken Starr, to look into this kind of shooting ...
On the one hand it is hard to complain about this ... Ted did, after all, get off with no more than a major public embarrassment, as did O.J., as will Cheney. On the other hand, it is hard to complain enough. As Dylan (no, not Dylan Thomas ... whoever he was.... the man ain't got no culture!) ...asked about another abuse of power: "When will it ever end?"
If an ordinary citizen were to shoot someone while hunting, and a pellet lodged in the victim's heart, would you expect the sheriff to interview the shooter and all eyewitnesses immediately? Would it make any difference if the shooter admitted to drinking alcohol at lunch earlier that afternoon? What if the owner of ranch on which they were hunting told the sheriff that no one had drunk any alcohol but the shooter admitted that he consumed some? What if all of the eyewitnesses had a monetary stake in making it appear as if the shooter did nothing wrong? What if their stake was so large that they said that it was the victim's fault that he got shot? What if it was so large that the victim himself apologized for "the trouble he caused" when he got out of the hospital?
How many sheriff's in the nation would have acted like this one did?
I presume Oscar put quotation marks around the word "victim" because he thinks it is an inappropriate term. That follows the early strategy of blaming Wittington for getting shot. Unfortunately, the victim himself has bought into this topsy-turvy view of reality. It was sad to watch him say he was sorry for causing Cheney and his family so much pain. Has Cheney even used the "s" word? Oh, I know he has claimed responsibility and said it was the worst day of his life, but has he actually said, "I'm sorry."?
This whole affair stinks to high heaven, from the conflicting accounts, to the "investigation" by the local authorities, to the stonewalling of the media.
It's an absolutely perfect metaphor for this administration, its supporters, and the times we live in.
Unanswered questions I have, and I give my wife credit for this one: What's Dick doing spending the weekend with a woman who is not his wife? And how does that play into the whole thing? What's Lynne thinking about all this?
the media is broken. That doesnt auger well for an open and thriving democracy, does it? I grow more pessimistic by the day. Pali-g has it nailed. Now the wireless spying disaqster appears UNLIKELY to be investigated by the congress, thanks to the cowardly Sen. Pat Roberts. EVERYTHING gets covered up.