Spinonymous sources: Time, Newsweek granted anonymity to White House sources defending Bush's handling of the port deal
SUMMARY: The March 20 issues of Time and Newsweek magazines both granted anonymity to sources making statements in defense of President Bush.
The March 20 issues of Time and Newsweek magazines both granted anonymity to sources making statements in defense of President Bush. Specifically, the two weekly news magazines quoted White House officials claiming that Bush was well aware of the conflagration in Congress over the deal that would allow Dubai Ports World to assume control of operations at six major U.S. ports.
Mike Allen wrote in Time: "White House officials contend that Bush quickly realized the ports affair was a fiasco. 'I know a prairie fire when I see one,' the Texas rancher told an aide."
The article in Newsweek by senior White House correspondent Richard Wolffe and White House correspondent Holly Bailey was explicit in noting that White House officials were repeating the "prairie fire" quote to refute suggestions that Bush was unaware of the likely demise of the deal:
Two days later, the deal was dead and the last trace of trust had vanished between the GOP-led Congress and the president on the ports deal. George W. Bush's allies marvel that the White House could have misread them for so long. And they still disagree about the basic facts, including what happened last week when GOP leaders trooped into the White House to tell Bush they couldn't (or wouldn't) stop their own members from blocking the takeover. "It's not going to work," House Speaker Dennis Hastert [R-IL] told Bush, according to one GOP aide. That's not the way the White House saw the meeting. "News flash: it wasn't like that at all," scoffed one senior Bush adviser (who, like the GOP aide, declined to be named while talking about a private session). "The president knows a prairie fire when he sees one."
As Media Matters for America previously noted when an article in the December 19, 2005, edition of Newsweek by Wolffe and Newsweek assistant managing editor Evan Thomas featured various anonymous quotes and statements from White House aides praising and defending the president, Newsweek's guidelines for anonymous sourcing stipulate that "the burden of proof should lie with the reporters and their editors to show why a promise of anonymity serves the reader," and that Newsweek must "help the reader understand the nature of a confidential source's access to information and his or her reasons for demanding anonymity." Wolffe and Bailey merely repeated the Bush aide's reason for demanding anonymity. They failed to explain why the aide, in defending Bush, deserved anonymity or how that anonymity served the reader.
Time's Allen did not even give a reason for granting his source anonymity. His use of the words "Texas rancher" to describe Bush is presumably a reference to Bush's property in Crawford, Texas, where he vacations. The property was once a working cattle ranch, but there is debate over whether the property can now actually be called a "ranch." As the Los Angeles Times reported on August 29, 2005, "The Secret Service agents now outnumber the cows." The Times went on to note: "Bush prefers bicycles to horses and never claimed to be a cattleman. He has described himself as a 'windshield rancher' who likes to escort such visitors as Russian President Vladimir Putin around his property in a pickup."















Large blocks of property in Texas are classified as ranches or farms.
If it's not a farm, it's a ranch.
It's one or the other. And since Bush's property is not a farm, it's a ranch. The land need not be used for livestock in order to qualify as a ranch. If there's truly debate about whether or not Bush's land should be called a ranch, it does not come from people knowledgeable about the words that are used to describe Texas property.
Well, there is another category. If the property is used solely as a place to hunt animals, it's called a "lease", as in "deer lease". But leases happen on ranch land.
This is just a small quibble with a good story, SSM.
Well, from original reports, president Bush was not aware of the port deal until public polling indicated he better be.
At least he knows something.
[link to www.hoax-buster.org]
by NewsWeek and all the rest of the media except the internet. Remember when "the information super highway" was a campaign issue? The Republicans lost that one. It's a shame they couldn't stop it and the above site is a sparkling example of why they would like to censor it now.
It's worse than porn. It has proof the Bible is a hoax.
...so they can get White House sources to give quotes for their stories...
...so they can claim they use "inside information"...
...which is really Bush spin...
...but helps give the reporters "connected" status....
...which makes them valuable tools for disseminating Bush propoganda...
...because White House "aides" can give them quotes...
...while Allen And Wolffe grant the aides anonymity...
See how it works?
portray bush as savvy and on top of the situation. you can take that to the bank.
Dubai Ports World is owned by Istithmar, a privately incorporated (in June 2003) investment holding company based in Dubai.
Months ago Istithmar signed an agreement with UBS Limited to create a derivative instrument, Istithmar Media Investments, that would give Istithmar exposure to Time Warner shares.
Istithmar has hired Time Warner shareholder Carl Icahn as an advisor, and Carl Icahn is presently calling the shots at Time Warner.
Istithmar's subsidiary, Istithmar Media Investments, owns 2.39 percent of Time Warner.
Time Warner of course owns Time Magazine, in addition to CNN, who last week broadcast Wolf Blitzer's Dubai Ports World's salespitch live from Dubai.
Here's a link to confirm the above:
[link to www.boston.com]
That's The Boston Globe, but it's a Reuters story. And that 2.39 percent share of Time Warner equates to 109 million shares; and the story's dated just a month ago. I don't know if that indicates how recently Istithmar Media Investments (again, along with Dubai Ports World, both co-owned by Istithmar) had purchased that stake in Time Warner (and purchased Carl Icahn too), but the purchase may have been specifically in anticipation of the need to spin this 'deal'.
The Bill in the House which is the supplemental that contains the DPW ban is H.R.4939; and if you think that all of that 'deal is dead' noise of last week doused the People's concern on this matter awfully quick, I'm in agreement with you.
A corporate media devoid of ethics, an Administration contemptuous of the People and the Law, and the National Security of our Nation's Ports:
The only thing thing worth a damn here, is that ban attached to that supplemental, H.R.4939.