Gregory, Stephanopoulos ignored, downplayed NBC report that U.S. officials rushed UK to make terror arrests
SUMMARY: On NBC's Meet the Press, David Gregory failed to question Michael Chertoff about an August 12 report by Gregory's own network that, while British officials had intended to continue surveillance on the suspects of the foiled British terror plot, U.S. authorities had pressured them to arrest the suspected plotters sooner. ABC News' George Stephanopoulos noted this report, but left the false impression that the allegations were the product of the "blogosphere."
On the August 13 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, guest host and NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory interviewed Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff about the recently foiled British terror plot, but Gregory failed to question Chertoff about an August 12 report by his own network that, while British officials had intended to continue surveillance on the suspected plotters, U.S. authorities had pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. Meanwhile, on the August 13 edition of ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos noted this report, but left the false impression that the allegations were the product of the "blogosphere," rather than of a major news outlet.
In an August 12 article on the NBC News website, the network's investigative unit, including reporters Aram Roston and Lisa Myers, reported that U.S. authorities had objected to a plan by the British police to "continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence" on the terror suspects. They attributed the story to a senior British official:
NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.
A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.
In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.
[...]
At the White House, a top aide to President Bush denied the account.
"There was unprecedented cooperation and coordination between the U.S., the U.K. and Pakistani officials throughout the case," said Frances Townsend, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, "and we worked together to protect our citizens from harm while ensuring that we gathered as much info as possible to bring the plotters to justice. There was no disagreement between U.S. and U.K. officials."
Another U.S. official, however, acknowledges there was disagreement over timing. Analysts say that in recent years, American security officials have become edgier than the British in such cases because of missed opportunities leading up to 9/11.
In his 12-minute interview with Chertoff, Gregory brought up the issue of "our coordination with British authorities," asking, "What worked here?" But Gregory failed to question Chertoff regarding the reported disagreement, despite the fact that his own network had broken the story a day earlier. From the August 13 interview:
GREGORY: Let me ask you about our coordination with British authorities. What worked here?
CHERTOFF: Well, what worked is deep relationships; trust -- the fact that we did not have leaks prior to the takedown. You know, that's one of the critical lessons out of this whole thing. The British trusted us with very sensitive information, and they were able to do it because they were confident we weren't going to leak. That's why leaks are so pernicious. Not only do they actually reveal secrets, but they undercut the basis of trust, which is the foundation of our whole international effort.
On the August 13 edition of ABC's This Week, Stephanopoulos noted the allegations that the United States had rushed the United Kingdom to make the arrests while "the Brits wanted to wait," but he left the impression that the story had been reported by bloggers. Stephanopoulos brought up the report after syndicated columnist George Will said, "I'm sure somewhere out in that fog of paranoia we call the blogosphere, there are all kinds of people writing that the British police ... and the Bush administration timed this all to counter" the political fallout from Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's loss in the August 8 Connecticut Democratic primary to anti-Iraq war candidate Ned Lamont. Stephanopoulos responded, "[T]here certainly is," and noted, "There was one report that said the United States ... rushed this -- the Brits wanted to wait." But Stephanopoulos failed to mention that this report had come from NBC News, not the blogosphere.
From the August 13 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
WILL: I'm sure somewhere out in that fog of paranoia we call the blogosphere, there are all kinds of people writing that the British police and the Pakistani police and the Bush administration timed all this to counter the Lamont --
STEPHANOPOULOS: I was reading -- I was reading on the internet last night -- there certainly is.
MARTHA RADDATZ (ABC News chief White House correspondent): Funny about that conspiracy, huh?
STEPHANAPOULOS: There was one report that said the United States rushed -- rushed this -- the Brits wanted to wait. I'm not verifying this. I'm just reporting it.
they don't really do News analysis. If you have a report from a reliable source (their own network!!) you should bring it up during the interview. This is what any real journalists would do.
But since these people are in the Entertainment Business (even though they may view themselves as Journalists) you make sure you don't make your guest mad or they won't come on again and you won't get your ratings.
What makes me the most angry is that these people are engaging in self-delusion because they really think they are doing news when in fact they are just doing Entertainment. (Kind of like someone pretending they are a Doctor by chanting and invoking the Spirits to heal their patient.)
...somewhere below the gossip overheard at the laundromat, and maybe above the testimonies of convicted perjurors.
It's an insult to real Journalists, to call these televised "media" hacks "journalists".
Journalists study Journalism at college, and generally receieve degrees in that art, from those institutions; they study writing, specifically writing that is factual and objective (as opposed to the writing of poets for example); they study the ethics of Journalism too (don't laugh), such as the ethical questions surrounding the use of unnamed sources, which the NBC report referenced to in this item made use of, "the unnamed source"...
And another thing about real Journalists: They consider the highest ideal of their profession to be Truth.
Those televised "media" hacks place the ideal of Truth low on their list of things that define what they do; well below a sterling appearence, and a golden voice; and let's not forget the phony self-serious and knowing look they all seem to master (it's a ridiculous look; it's satired and ridiculed brilliantly by the bunch on the Daily Show, when they portray a variety of funnily named correspondents, like maybe "Senior Beverage Correspondent" for a story like the one cited here).
Those televised "media" hacks are about as interested in Truth, as are the general lot of cheerleaders and beauty contest runners-up and toothepaste commercial models from which, as a talent pool, they are chosen...
Like katie couric, or any of the others that are so popular with the networks presently, for the "on-air talent"; especially the beauty contest runner-up with the teeth that are a thousan-watt bright white.
There are presently so many of them like that right now, it's hard to tell them all apart; but we can get this much straight: They are not Journalists.
and it's not even like they try to pretend very hard.
Look at the "two sides" of the above discussion.Stephanopolous, with his "not verifying, just reporting", which implies some skepticism. Nothing wrong with that, healthy skepticism is something our media should get to know a lot better.
Then the "other side", Raddatz;"Funny about that conspiracy, huh?"
The fair and balanced opposing views on this issue, that our Gov't may have manipulated or rushed the actions, are as follows;
Stephanopolous- here's a rumor, I won't give it any credibility.
Raddatz- That's a crazy rumor.
It's hard to comment on, or even know what to think of, the NBC report that the bush administration may have influenced the timing of the arrests in Britain.
These people have so little credibility (virtually none), and the use of the "unnamed source" makes it even worse; but such a quick slandering of the Internet Wire, where that report appeared and where it's being discussed, has me more likely to believe the truth of the report, than not.
WILL: "...that fog of paranoia we call the blogosphere, there are all kinds of people writing that the British police and the Pakistani police and the Bush administration timed all this to counter the Lamont--"
STEPHANOPOULOS: "...I was reading on the internet last night -- there certainly is."
RADDATZ: "Funny about that conspiracy, huh?"
STEPHANAPOULOS: "There was one report ...I'm not verifying this. I'm just reporting it."
Each and every day the Internet Wire's reach expands, is a day which finds this hack "media's" power shrinking; soon, as a result of the drastically falling ratings (they are, they're plummeting), the TV "news" hacks are going to have to either take on extra job duties (such as mowing murdoch's lawn), or take salary cuts (G. Will will have his salary reduced from seven figures to six; he'd be overpaid at minimum wage).
LORD, the destruction of this hack "media" that so threatens our Democratic process can't come quick enough for me.
Praise the Internet Wire, as the new (and only) source of information (lightning quick and with a twenty-four hour worldwide reach, and in no way controlled or even influenced, by the privately-owned hack "media").
I must correct you. The internet is a Series of Tubes, not Wires. I got that from Ted Stevens, (R) Alaska.
By the way, how about that old "Liberal Media"?
I can't believe this is the type of 'journalism' being aried on national tv... 'fog of paranoia we call the blogosphere...' Note to self...people communicating to each other and comparing and contrasting ideas= UNTRUSTWORTHY AND HYSTERICAL!!! 'there was one report....' uummmm...YES! From ANOTHER national news medium, NOT from the 'blogosphere'...
To combat a "fog of paranoia", all one needs do is just swallow whatever the White House tells you as the gospel truth. Then, you won't be fitted with a "tin foil hat" and mocked as a "conspiracy nut" for considering reports which contradict the White House's line.
Remember, it's the "fog of paranoia" which had us believing the Downing Street Memos, which told us that Libby and Rove IN FACT were central in exposing Valarie Plame, and which finally revealed to us that Iraq had no WMDs.
Believing anything OTHER than the White House spin will lead one to being paranoid.
Good old-fashioned high-school PEER PRESSURE informs us that it is better to be STUPID and flat WRONG than risk the sneering derision of the "in crowd" -- in this case Will and the Rightwing "intelligencia".
as part of the "fog of paranoia"?
A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.
Another U.S. official, however, acknowledges there was disagreement over timing.
Two anonymous sources. Well my God--> Stop the Presses!
Gee whiz do you think maybe Gregory and Stephanopoulos downplayed the story because they didn't want to promote unverified information? Could be they're just a little reluctant to put much credence into a story without the alleged sources names to back up the accusations.
You know I heard that the Democrats were behind the 9-11 attacks. Seems Al Gore still pissed off about losing the 2000 elections wanted to screw up Bush's presidency. So using a remote control he was able to maneuver those planes, into the twin towers, pentagon, and the ground. Furthermore the DNC financed this latest terror plot hoping it would be carried out before the fall elections so they could say that Bush and the Republicans had failed at keeping Americans safe.
My source? Well anonymous of course.
So it must be true.
Both sides use that old tried & true moniker of, "on condition of anonymity."
Whether to further their aims or perhaps just to spread the truth without damaging another's professional reputation or career...however covert it might be. It's in the contents that one finds value, while considering the source and its bearing on the matter.
The facts being that the U.S. government is heading in the direction of ritual beheadings for leakers and the U.K. has the altogether loathesome "Official Secrets Act" which give Parliament legal authority to jail leakers it's no wonder that government officials who disclose damaging information to the media might want some cover (i.e. anonymity). In light of this "secrecy at all costs" mindset how can anyone blame an official source for requesting anonymity?
What the right-wingers who spout this load of crap really want is an identity so that they can slime them personally (Richard Clarke, anyone?).
It's prefectly alright to go to press with two corroborating sources, even if they're both anonymous. So long as the information can be verified and the source is credible the story is valid.
Gee whiz do you think maybe Gregory and Stephanopoulos downplayed the story because they didn't want to promote unverified information? Could be they're just a little reluctant to put much credence into a story without the alleged sources names to back up the accusations.
-taz
------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavens to Betsy no. Gregory and Stephanopoulos implied that the story originated in the 'fog of the blogosphere' simply to discredit it not just to 'downplay' it.
Journalists often reveal information without revealing sources. The source name does not have to be supplied in order for the information to reliable.
This is standard practice in investigative journalism of which everyone should be aware, that is, anyone who has read a newspaper in the last 50 years.
I made a reference above, to the fact that real Journalists have certain ethical questions to consider, and that the use of the "unnamed source" raised such a question.
And the dialogue here is exactly the kind of thing that resolves those questions into answers, or at least the best answers we can come up with.
It's a necessary thing to do, to dialogue publicly, on the ethics of Journalism.
On the matter of the "unnamed source", the best that I can come up with is, yes, there are plenty of good reasons for which the source of any information would insist on not being publicly identified; and those reasons belonging to the source, become the same reasons of the Journalist, in not revealing the source's name (not in the report, and not even at the direction of a Judge, while under Oath in a hearing or other Court proceeding).
But those will always be the perpetual difficulties facing those Journalists and their sources, whose identities they refuse to reveal (such as the example of the FBI agent who told the Washington Post Journalists what the Nixon White House was doing, illegaly, in response to the watergate investigation.)
Those are their problems; what about us?
What are we to think of reports that rely so heavily on the "unnamed source"?
The best I can come up with is, that the credibilty of those reports, containing information from "unnamed sources", then rests with the credibilty of the Journalists making those reports, and sheilding those sources from public disclosure (which in the example I cited, would be the credibility of Mr. Woodward and Mr. Bernstein, at the time of the watergate investigation).
"The credibilty of Journalists": It shouldn't be a thing that makes of us laugh, that phrase shouldn't; but it does, when we misapply the term "journalist" to persons who are nothing but paid "media" hacks and spokespersons for their employer (Was jeff gannon that guy's real name, or was it his alias? Was he a "journalist"? I'm under the impression he was a member of the White House Press Corps; just like this martha raddatz is. Perhaps they sat together at the daily briefings, exchanging information gathered from "unnamed sources", martha and jeff did.)
It seems to come down to that: Who it is we call real Journalists; what credibility do we give them; and what ethics they may have, regarding their "unnamed sources" (or even their real names, in the case of jeff gannon; martha raddatz must be her real name, who would make up such a thing).
Regards the matter of who we call Journalists, and what credibilty we give them:
Would we believe hannity, if he quoted an "unnamed source"? Is he a Journalist?
The same is asked of o'reilly: A credible Journalist? A Journalist at all?
Gimme a break! Please!
These guys are no more "journalists", than jeff gannon was.
The only difference between these guys hannity and o'reilly, and jeff gannon is, that maybe hannity and o'reilly are using their real names.
Maybe.
For sometime now, many MM respondent-posters have been deluded as to the thrust, focus, gist, crux, slant, stance, meaning, purpose &/or eventually—raison d’etre—as in…Absolutely-Bilious-Crapo’s sole existence hinges upon: The Dollar…as in “Profit” or putting it mildly…The Bottom Line. Now one might assume “earnings before interest & taxes” or please excuse the Hollywood and therefore TV expression of “before expenses” oy.
If widdle Georgie “wewe-weally” cared about America, he would have spoken up…asking the question…and thus redeem himself while sounding the call to awaken the slumbering righteousness of what America once was—and trounce the vainglorious imposters, falsely elected to office who have disgraced our country for their selfishly & wanton pleasures. America can only live within truth & honesty…that is the American way.
LOOK OUT THE POLL NUMBERS ARE BACK UP FOR REPUBLICANS AND BUSH FOR SECURITY. SO LOOK FOR THE SAME MEDIA WHO DOWN PLAYED THEM WHEN THEY WERE DOWN TO PLAY IT UP AND LOOK FOR KARL ROVE TO GO ALL OUT ON THE ATTACK TO SAY DEMOCRATES ARE WEAK BECAUSE THEY WANT TO LEAVE IRAQ. I BET FOX NEWS WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THIS NBC POLL 24/7. AND MARK MY WORD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL PUT THESE FOOLS RIGHT BACK INTO OFFICE IN NOV. NOW BECAUSE THEY WILL FEAR THERE LIFE MORE THEN THEY ARE FEARING THERE POCKET, SCHOOLS, AND HEALT INSURANCE.
are afraid of the "blogosphere" because they know it's the end of their lock on the news. i agree that some comment can get ludicrous by individual posters. but that is everywhere. and it's always the left that is the target. never a mention how an often quoted site like drudge puts out false info. remember kerry's "affair"? dean and mehlman were on meet the press also. but dean first and then mehlman. do i remember hearing before that mehlman will only come on alone?
one minute they're laughing at us because we're loony tunes. the next minute they're all being "intimidated" by us.
So what else is new? The ultra-Right Plutocrats' ownership of the Congress, the White House, soon the Courts (especially the Supreme Court), and the Main Street Media, will continue its success of moving the Dupes across the Country (especially those concentrated in Dupedom South) into a frenzy of flag-waving, Bible-thumping praise of God in many precincts, cheering, and enthusiastically voting against their own social, political and economic interests as a means of gettin' rid of them librul traitors.
In order to ensure their job security and in some cases to preserve their fame, the shameless Stooges for the plutocrats will say or do anything as long as they enjoy the comforts of their existence as reliable Stooges.
If the Bush Administration (and Bush's legacy) has taught us anything, it's that they're capable of anything to win political favor, elections, and support for policies that make them and their friends money. I am by no means a conspiracy theorist. I don't believe 9/11 was staged, I don't believe Bush knew about it, I am only just becoming sort of convinced that Oswald didn't act alone in 1963. But ever since this Administration has taken office, I've been noticing a lot of coincidences. Why is it so far-fetched that the British, willing cooperators of the Bush people, would bust in and take these guys down just before the real campaign season gets underway. With this news, there's enough time for the Republicans to tout it as their victory, AND enough time for Democrats to criticize it, so the Republicans can use the Democrats' own words against them. Remember Bin Laden's video just before the Presidential Election of 04? Hannity and Chris Matthews immediately rushed to talk about how Bin Laden's statement sounded like Howard Dean, and John Kerry, and Michael Moore? This is a mastery of marketing. My only hope is that the American public doesn't get fooled by it, for the 40th or 50th time since the Right took over our government--All 3 freakin branches! But I'm not going to hold my breath.
Is from Cleveland Ohio as am I. If you guys knew him when he was back here you'd be flabbergasted. He worked strenuously for left wing and left leaning candidates and issues. So many of them do a 180 but I've never witnessed anyone sell out their credibility like this guy has. It's unbelievable I for one am shocked and completely dismayed. George if your reading this, hang your head.
The first has NO nefarious implication. Perhaps, IF the NBC article proves correct, that pressure was indeed applied by the U.S. to move sooner rather than later it was out of FEAR that to delay the arrests MIGHT allow the plot to proceed to the point of unstoppable? Or the suspects MIGHT vanish underground IF they got any inkling they were under surveillance?
The second may very well be POLITICAL. I certainly wouldn't put ANYTHING past this CURRENT administration.
That aside, I find it VERY odd indeed that Gregory did NOT at least ASK Chertoff about the assertions by the two unnamed sources. Especially since it was HIS network that is investigating the story and released an article concerning the allegations. It was the PERFECT opportunity to put Chertoff's ANSWER on record. A good journalist would have done it.
Didn't Stephanopoulos used to be a Democrat [rhetorical question]? Is he TRYING so hard to appear NEUTRAL that he's bent so far over and NOW become a [unwitting?] voice for the Right? I find it amazing he simply [seemed] to laugh it off.
While I wouldn't AUTOMATICALLY accept any of this as true, the Press/Media should ALWAYS take the opportunity when it presents itself, to ASK members of this administration or members of various government agencies QUESTIONS no matter where they ORIGINATE from. In this particular instance it WAS a NETWORK [NBC] and not the "blogosphere.".
that if on-going investigations are not handled in a timely manner, somehow they get leaked to parties who are unafraid to reveal them. I would suspect that if the allegations listed are true, this would be a legitiment reason for advancing the time table.
You've answered your own question. Anyone know where we can find one of those anymore?
David Greg didn't ask Chertoff why after 5 years no "liquid" detection either!!
He asked members on the 911 commission but didn't pound Chertoff for this kind of answer.
Yeap, no wonder the Chinese are taken back at the poll that says 50% of America stil thinks WMDs were found in Iraq, our media prolly as controlled as theres.