Fox's Cameron, Hume criticized Reid for same word choice on Dubai Ports World issue as Hume previously used
SUMMARY: Fox News' Brit Hume and Carl Cameron both took issue with Sen. Harry Reid's statement that in allowing state-owned Dubai Ports World (DPW) to manage terminal operations at six major U.S. ports, the Bush administration gave "another country control of our ports." Cameron retorted that DPW "is not taking control of any U.S. ports" and Hume later claimed that Reid's assertion was "factually challenged." However, numerous Fox News reporters and anchors -- including Hume himself -- have described DPW as "assuming control" of the ports.
On the February 27 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, both chief White House correspondent Carl Cameron and host Brit Hume took issue with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) statement that in allowing Dubai Ports World (DPW) -- a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- to manage terminal operations at six major U.S. ports, the Bush administration gave "another country control of our ports." Cameron retorted that DPW "is not taking control of any U.S. ports," and Hume later claimed that Reid's assertion was "factually challenged." But if Reid is "factually challenged" in his use of the word "control," then so is Fox News. Since the ports controversy erupted, numerous Fox News reporters and anchors -- including Hume himself -- have described DPW as assuming "control" of the ports.
DPW recently purchased the British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation (P&O) in a $6.8 billion deal, thereby acquiring the leases to terminals at six major U.S. ports. Lawmakers from both parties have objected to the Bush administration's approval of the deal, many claiming that the administration flouted the law by failing to conduct a full review of its national security implications. In response to these concerns, DPW offered on February 26 to submit itself to the full review and has suspended the part of the transaction relating to U.S. ports pending further approval.
If members of Congress and the Bush administration ultimately agree to allow the transfer of these leases, DPW would assume control of the terminal operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans. Whether this can accurately be described as "controlling" the ports is a matter of dispute. Supporters of the deal have noted that ownership of the terminals would remain in the hands of the public, and that both the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency and the U.S. Coast Guard will still perform the work of checking cargo and overseeing security. Critics have countered that, regardless of the oversight provided by these agencies, meeting federal security standards "is the job of the port operators."
On this edition of Special Report, Cameron was the first to object to Reid's characterization of DPW as "taking control" of U.S. ports:
CAMERON: The deal will be reinvestigated for 45 days by the same administration panel that already approved the transaction, the interagency Committee on Foreign Investment [sic] in the U.S., or CFIUS.
Unsatisfied, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid accused the Bush administration of, quote, "dangerous incompetence that has left America less secure."
REID: How in the world was the decision made to give another country control of our ports? It's not another company taking control of our ports. It's another country.
CAMERON: But the UAE-owned firm is not taking control of any U.S. ports. It will simply operate terminals loading and off-loading cargo. Security and port ownership remain entirely in U.S. hands.
Later in the show, Hume replayed the clip of Reid and similarly asserted that "they [DPW] are not getting control of the ports." He later claimed that Reid's statement had been "factually challenged":
REID: How in the world was the decision made to give another country control of our ports? It's not another company taking control of our ports. It's another country. This is a state-owned company.
HUME: In fact, Senator Reid is right. Dubai Ports World is owned by the United Arab Emirates. However, they are not getting control of the ports. They are getting management of some parts of some ports. But never mind.
[...]
HUME: Now, Nina [Easton, Boston Globe deputy Washington bureau chief], let's assume, for example, we have -- everybody has kind of said what they were going to say, and they said it again today, and made a bit more news with it today. Harry Reid made some news, even though some of what he said was factually challenged.
But Cameron's unqualified objections to Reid's statement and Hume's assertion that Reid was "factually challenged" not only ignore the issues in dispute, they implicate Fox News' own reporting. Indeed, in the past week on Special Report, Hume and Fox News correspondent Major Garrett have repeatedly described DPW as assuming "control" of U.S. ports. For example, on the February 20 edition of the show, Garrett used such language to describe the deal:
GARRETT: Dubai Ports World may also gain control of two other U.S. ports in Beaumont and Corpus Christi, Texas, both now managed by Peninsula and Oriental.
On the February 21 edition, both Garrett and Hume employed the term "control" in reporting on the story:
GARRETT: President Bush today defended his administration's approval of a deal giving the company owned by the United Arab Emirates control of cargo operations at six major U.S. ports.
[...]
HUME: Arab Americans are blaming the uproar over that Arab company assuming control over some U.S. ports not on security concerns but on bigotry.
Hume characterized the controversy as over "who should control some of the nation's ports" on the February 22 edition of Special Report:
HUME: The Bush administration was trying today to dig itself out of a political hole on the question of who should control some of the nation's ports.
Numerous other Fox News anchors and reporters have used similar language in recent days, including hosts John Gibson, Sean Hannity, Bill Hemmer, and Eric Burns, and anchors Uma Pemmaraju and Page Hopkins.
From the February 20 edition of Fox News Live:
PEMMARAJU: Well as we've been reporting, a firestorm of criticism rising over plans to give control of some major U.S. ports to a company from the United Arab Emirates. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle want to block the deal.
From the February 21 edition of Fox News Live:
HEMMER: In a moment, from Washington, now, the head of the Senate, Bill Frist [R-TN], is saying that the White House should review this case about this company out of United Arab Emirates to control U.S. ports -- half a dozen major ports. And if the White House doesn't do it, he says he's gonna fight for legislation to stop it.
[...]
HOPKINS: Fear that terrorists could sneak weapons of mass destruction through American ports igniting a firestorm of criticism against a deal to give an Arab firm control of six U.S ports.
From the February 21 edition of Fox News' Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: President Bush vows to veto any effort to stop Dubai Ports World from taking control of six major seaports.
From the February 23 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: As we continue on Hannity & Colmes, President Bush today assured Americans that the plan to allow a United Arab Emirates-owned company to control six U.S. ports would not compromise national security.
From the February 25 edition of Fox News Watch:
BURNS: The president wants a government-owned company from the United Arab Emirates to take over control of six major American ports.
Just waiting for the word parsers to tell us how different "taking control" and "assuming control" really is.
This is one of the best examples MMFA has had of how FOX News chooses to do things.
There is no possible defense for this. I don't think the "you're taking it out of context" card will pass for this one.
Whether or not all, or some ports are entirely or partially owned isn't what's relevant.
What Reid said was a "gist" statement -- much like the anchors' and reporters' leads: should we give control of our ports to another country.
So when Fox talents sum up an issue in one sentence, it goes unnoticed. But when Harry Reid does the same thing, it gets hypocritically disected by the same people.
Just waiting for a possible defense for this one. "Sloppy producing" is the best I can think of.
It's obvious that programming suggestions from the RNC has greatly influenced Fox reports. I can easily see where they were urged to stop using the word "control". Those guys who have radio shows are all doing the same show on this topic.
...liberals do watch Fox News.
Control of FOX NEW (. . .Fox News-- what a laugh) is in the hands of Bush. Soon Bush will tell us, "I looked into their eyes, and I saw their heart." - - - He's never been wrong yet, why stop trusting him now?
it would be go for a laugh, if their selling out was not such a danger to the country. And unlike NeoCons generally we are informed, not just indoctrinated.
Keep your friends close...
If Cameron and Hume, through their agressive investigative reporting, discovered that DPW would not "control" any US ports, why didn't they issue an on-air correction to their previous use of the term? That's what real journalists would do. Heck, I've even seen KO do it on Countdown. Speaking of KO, he just named Hume tonight's "Wordt Person in the World."
That's "Worst," not "Wordt."
The issue that the Bushies galvanize around is that the UAE is a staunch ally on the war on terror. Their implication is that the UAE can be trusted and that they should be rewarded. However, the people from that company that will be over here working at the ports and having access to the ports will not be the Sheiks and the Sultans who control the country and suppress the islamists. Its gonna be some underpaid, overworked Islamist Shlub who hates his job and hates America. The info these lowly workers over here will have can't be bought for the right price?
Last I checked, 15 of the 19 9/11 hi-jackers were Saudi and they were our staunchest ally in the middle east among Arab countries. Hence, just because the country of UAE and the Sultans and Sheiks over there are our allies does not mean that the guys they send over here to work will be.
Do you finally get it now?
Language is EVERYTHING. Propogandists use it to cast anything and everything in whatever light they want.
How shameless will these people be? It's obvious they care nothing for consistency, let alone integrity.
For Hume to smugly dismiss Reid after he himself used these same words is just simply amazing.
Do you see how they work? Do you understand that nothing - NOTHING - will stop them as they spread their smears, their lies, their invective:
Harry Reid is wrong to call it "controlling ports," even when we said it was "controlling ports."
Hillary Clinton is wrong to talk about a "plantation," even when we used the word "plantation."
Kerry is weak on defense, even as he carries shrapnel in his leg along with 3 Purple Hearts.
John Murtha hates America, even as he was a Marinbe for 35 years.
Do you finally, finally, get it?
No?
Sucker...
good find mmfa
When a witness tells a lie on the stand, the opposing lawyer often quotes the previous statement made under oath (often from a deposition), and then asks, "So, are you lying NOW, or were you lying THEN?"
The witness is thus IMPEACHED, and cannot be believed in ANYTHING he or she says.
By NOW challenging people who use the exact terminology FOX was using prior to their "conversion" to the White House view, we have the hilarious spectacle of FOX calling ITSELF "factually challenged" in the information it gives out to the public.
So, FOX ... were you lying THEN, or are your lying NOW?
[HINT: Their intitial outrage was the truth. Their converted stance is the result of pressure from the White House and ownership and sponsors who believe Bush must be supported in all things. FOX is lying NOW.
Because this whole Dubai deal was supposed to slip through without any media attention AT ALL, their talking points had not been prepared, and so they operated for a BRIEF time on their natural skepticism at time of war against foreign ownership of our infrastructure. Once the talking points were shipped express from the White House to do damage control, FOX has FLIP-FLOPPED and are able to resume bashing Democrats.]
stooges that we are coming up to the intermission of Short Attention Span theatre.
The here-and-now is such a wonderful time, no?