Cables devoted big coverage to bogus NFL threat, did not mention evidence of political motivation for prior threat announcements
SUMMARY: CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC dedicated a considerable amount of airtime to a purported threat to NFL stadiums in seven cities, despite the fact that the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI both characterized the threat as not credible. Further, with one brief exception, at no point was there any reference on any of the three channels to evidence that the Bush administration has used terrorism-related announcements for political gain.
On October 18, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) notified seven U.S. cities -- out of "an abundance of caution" -- that the stadiums of their professional football teams had been named on a website as possible targets for radiological bomb attacks. Although the DHS and the FBI both characterized the threat as not credible, the three major cable-news networks -- CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC -- devoted substantial coverage to the story throughout the day, offering viewers repeated updates on the subject and conducting interviews with numerous terrorism experts. But largely absent from their coverage was any mention of evidence that the Bush administration has, in the past, used and timed terror-related announcements for political gain. The single exception came on the October 18 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, when Democratic strategist Paul Begala stated, "[I]t is interesting that these things always seem to spike right before an election," and went on to note Tom Ridge's 2005 comment that, as DHS secretary, he had regularly been pressured by administration officials to raise the terror threat level even though he did not believe that intelligence warranted it.
According to news reports, on October 16, the U.S. government was made aware of a posting on a website called "The Friend Society" that claimed seven National Football League stadiums -- in New York, Miami, Atlanta, Seattle, Houston, Oakland, and Cleveland -- would soon be attacked with radiological bombs and that Osama bin Laden would claim responsibility. National news outlets first reported on the story in the early afternoon of October 18, noting that while DHS officials had determined that the threat was not credible, the agency had nonetheless notified the NFL and the seven cities purportedly targeted.
Of the three major cable networks, CNN devoted the most airtime to the story. Indeed, The Situation Room aired seven segments on the stadium threat, including separate interviews with former inspector general for the DHS Clark Kent Ervin and Rep. Peter King (R-NY). The October 18 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now also featured a report on the story, as well as an interview with Ervin and security analyst Jim Walsh.
Fox News Channel's late afternoon and early evening programming included four reports on the story from homeland defense correspondent Catherine Herridge. Further, Fox News host Neil Cavuto interviewed retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters about the threat on the October 18 edition of Your World, and host John Gibson discussed the story with terrorism expert Daveed Gartenstein-Ross on The Big Story.
Meanwhile, MSNBC also covered the purported stadium plot. The October 18 edition of Tucker featured a report from NBC News correspondent Pete Williams on the story, and Scarborough Country included an interview with terrorism expert Evan Kohlmann and a report from Daniel Garza, a reporter with NBC affiliate KNTV in the San Francisco Bay area.
On October 19, the FBI released an official statement describing the stadium plot as a "hoax," which CNN and the other two cable networks then reported.
But a Media Matters for America survey of the October 18 coverage listed above found only one instance in which a reporter or commentator broached the topic of whether politics might have played a role in the government's disclosure of the alleged threat. On The Situation Room, Begala directly questioned the timing of this news. "We're 19 days before an election," he said, "and they ... hyped this potential threat to the NFL, even though the reporting is that it's not credible." Begala went on to state, "[I]t is interesting that these things always seem to spike right before an election." He later brought up the fact that Ridge had said in 2005 "that he thinks there have been times when the White House exerted pressure, political pressure, on terrorism politics and terrorism press matters."
The comment Begala cited was made at a May 10, 2005, forum in Washington, D.C., during which Ridge said he wanted to "debunk the myth" that he had been responsible for repeatedly raising the threat level during his tenure at the DHS. From a USA Today article posted online that day:
The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.
Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.
[...]
Ridge said he wanted to "debunk the myth" that his agency was responsible for repeatedly raising the alert under a color-coded system he unveiled in 2002.
"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it," Ridge told reporters. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?' "
The White House immediately "dismissed" Ridge's allegations, according to a May 12, 2005, article in the Chicago Tribune. But others raised the issue, and, on the October 6, 2005, edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann documented 13 "coincidences" -- instances characterized by "a political downturn for the administration, followed by a 'terror event' -- a change in alert status, an arrest, a warning." One such "coincidence" occurred on August 1, 2004, shortly after the Democratic national convention had concluded. That day, the DHS raised the alert level for financial institutions in New York and Washington, citing "unusually specific" intelligence. But less than a week later, it came to light that the information that led to the warning was actually "three or four years old," according to an August 3, 2004, New York Times article.
Another glaring example came while the convention was still under way. An article in the July 19, 2004, issue of The New Republic -- posted July 8 on the magazine's website -- quoted two sources from Pakistan's intelligence service and another from its Interior Ministry saying that the Bush administration was pressuring Pakistani officials to make arrests of so-called "high-value targets" during the Democratic convention. Then on July 29, 2004, mere hours before Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) accepted the Democratic presidential nomination, Pakistani officials announced that they had captured Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, an Al Qaeda suspect in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Soon after, it came to light that the Pakistani government had actually arrested Ghailani four days earlier -- before the convention began -- but had delayed announcing the news until July 29. As Media Matters noted at the time, the media simply did not mention The New Republic's July 19 disclosure in reporting on the arrest and were largely silent on the reported delay of the announcement. CNN's silence was most egregious, given that the cable network had hosted New Republic editor Peter Beinart earlier in the month to discuss the article.
From the October 18 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BEGALA: Democrats lost more than 50 seats in the House in 1994, and I think nine seats in the Senate. It was the worst year for my party in a generation. This is shaping up to be the worst year for the Republicans in a generation. And they're going to do everything that they can. There's a whole lot of people today, they're going to watch the first 15 minutes of our broadcast today, and say, "Isn't that interesting? We're 19 days before an election, and they raise the threat level" -- they didn't actually raise the threat level; that's not true. But they hyped this potential threat to the NFL, even though the reporting is that it's not credible.
BLITZER: Well, let me just -- let me just press you on this, because I know that there are people out there who are going to think that the Department of Homeland Security, which is part of the Bush administration, is --
BEGALA: Yes. Which is run by a guy who was a political hatchet man for [former Sen.] Al D'Amato [R-NY], the Republican senator who ran all that Whitewater stuff, Michael Chertoff.
BLITZER: But if a website, in fact, made this specific threat, wouldn't they be derelict in their duty if they didn't alert the NFL and the American public to that kind of a threat?
BEGALA: That's the problem. It -- the -- clearly, the president was derelict when he ignored the warnings before 9-11, and so, they are in a box, and I feel for them in that respect. And I always try to give them the benefit of the doubt. But it is interesting that these things always seem to spike right before an election.
BLITZER: You know, and he makes a point that a lot of our viewers are going to think that this administration, the Republicans, desperate to try to get themselves re-elected, they're going to make Americans fearful of another terrorist attack, and they might vote for Republicans.
BAY BUCHANAN (CNN political analyst): You know, I just want to get it straight here. I'm just wondering, are we suggesting here, Paul, that Republicans have somehow created this -- this scare, this frightening possibility that's been proposed with these National Football League stadiums? Is this something you're saying that we have just --
BEGALA: No.
BUCHANAN: -- put out there because it is a couple days --
BEGALA: No, but --
BUCHANAN: -- a couple weeks before an election?
BEGALA: No, no. What I'm saying is that the -- Jeanne Meserve's own reporting was that this is not a credible threat.
BUCHANAN: It is -- and that's -- well, who said that? Homeland Security said that.
BEGALA: Right.
BUCHANAN: But who's making national attention? CNN and others are telling the people in the country because they feel they have an obligation to let them know.
BEGALA: It is a tough call.
BUCHANAN: This administration is doing their job --
BEGALA: As I said, my heart goes out to them.
BUCHANAN: Yes, but you're criticizing them, suggesting this is some ploy. That's outrageous. And I believe --
BEGALA: It has been used in the past.
BUCHANAN: -- it's this kind of attitude that is going to --
BEGALA: Tom Ridge -- Tom Ridge, the former director of Homeland Security, has said -- I'm paraphrasing, but he has said that he thinks there have been times when the White House exerted pressure, political pressure, on terrorism politics and terrorism press matters. I don't know if this is one of those occasions. But let's go back and see what Secretary Ridge said. And I just think a lot of voters are going to be deeply skeptical.
John Stewart was right about Begala and Carlso. How sad CNN allows this type of partisan hate on its airwaves.
As for the NFL Threat, if they didnt report it and a dirty bomb went off MMFA would attack by saying the media was protecting Bush.
Hypocrites.
Paul Begala is a partisan , thats why he is paid to be on TV with Bay Buchanan who is also a Partisan. You are reaching again as usual.
Paul Begala may bepartisan, but there was nothing close to hatred of any kind. He was speculating and assuming the worst based on observation of the history of this kind of thing being done by Republicans. Further more he was making an assessment. Not even necassarily stating it as his opinion. He was speculating about how people might percieve this latest event. People have become cynical of this administration. People who gave him the benefit of the doubt feel duped. I don't think Rove can spin his way out of the cynical nature of a "fool me once.." electorate.
just as certain authors have released "flattering" books just prior to elections. On this case (the bomb hoax) and others (RE: the airplane crash recently in Manhattan, "shots fired at the Capitol (some time back), etc.) 24 hour news channels (and certain talk radio personalities) jump on the story early and usually erroneously to hold their audiences. Where are the days when a "rumor" was researched at least superficially before a story broke?
I saw the Scareborough piece. The visuals were aerial shots of football stadiums. The message was "what if?"
How many non-threats don't get leaked like this one did? Why did this non-threat get leaked now? Need I say duh?
Today, Scareborough started with free airings of Republican fear ads. Man. Going by this propaganda, we should be nostalgic for fear of fear itself.
Whatever happened to being reassuring in times of danger? The "Greatest Generation" had Roosevelt. Look what we got.
People always get slammed for calling 9/11 a criminal act. Instead of isolating a gang of criminals, Bush raised them to the level of the United States Armed Forces. He made nut-cases heroes in much of the Islamic world. He made Iraq a breeding ground for hatred through deceit in the name of security. Instead of pinpointing culprits, he sent our young lives into unimaginable danger to fight against a concept - terror or evil or whatever, as if you can bomb evil into submission. He ignored all opposing views. Bush created a no-win situation. Our poor soldiers are being commanded by an unrealistic man.
(Never thought I'd say this, but kudos to Cafferty. That was some good journalism tonight on CNN.)
Be afraid! Very afraid! Stay afraid! Never live in security again! Only the Republicans can save you from the monsters in the closet (that they told you were there)....
Mass paranoia as a method of controlling a population. Not the first time the US government has used this method. Remember the Cold War?
How do we know that we're not seeing here a deliberate fabrication of a "terrorist threat" by certain corrupt, weird and unwholesome elements (a/k/a "dirty tricks" squads serving corrupt political ends) "just to keep people scared," and shift blame upon others?
The folk who bring you torture chambers and death squads would certainly not be above faking terrorist threats online to keep the sheep terrified. Look at the British government, they've already been caught faking threats. Personally, I think the CIA should have been disbanded for war crimes right after Vietnam, but they're up to their old tricks again.
Why is it ok for the media to give creedence to claims that Democrats were involved in the Foley leak, but ignore the idea that Republicans could employ similar election-salient tactics? It is even more puzzling when you consider that, in the Foley scandal, the perpetrator, those who covered it up, and those who leaked the story were all Republicans, so the idea that the story had any genesis in the Democratic party is pure folly.
There is certainly no evidence yet that the Republicans are involoved in the NFL stadium hoax. So why is it ok to question the timing of the Foley story and not the timing of the stadium hoax? No one is making accusations here, as they did with Foley. People are just questioning the timing, since the Republican party has used fear to its advantage in the past. How is it that the media can bandy about claims that Democrats leaked the Foley story when that theory has been debunked? Believe me, if a Democrat raised concern that the stadium hoax was a Republican creation, there would be outrage in the media, even though, at this point, that theory is still entirely plausible.
think the Democrats and their sympathizers timed the release of the Foley IM's and emails around election time?
Here are some reasons:
The e-mails got into the hands of the George Soros-sponsored Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington July 21.
Hmmm... Which party is Soros actively supporting with his millions?
ABC News, which had received the messages in August, published them on its website Sept. 28.
Why did they wait?
The next day the network received copies of sexually explicit instant messages between Foley and a teenage boy from 2003, leading to the congressman's resignation.
Who sent ABC the the IM's? Why doesn't ABC tell us?
A radical homosexual activist, Mike Rogers, has claimed some of the credit for revealing Foley's behavior and has warned there is more to come, stating on his website earlier this year he would "out" a "gay" Republican senator during the run-up to the mid-term elections.
Rogers claimed that before the Foley story broke, he shared information about the congressman with Bill Burton, the director of communications for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Gosh! Who does Bill Burton work for?
Even if everything you say is true (and it sounds like a lot of speculation), the Republicans could have saved themselves the embarrassment of the alleged cover-up and avoided the poor timing of the scandal by taking care of the problem themselves, when they first learned about it.
Even if the Democrats knew of the Foley messages in advance of the sory breaking, why do you think its the responsibility of the Democrats to come out with it. Republicans had ample time to get this story out at a less salient time. If the Democrats knew about Foley, then you can assume the Republicans knew that they knew. If everything you say is true, then it sounds like the Republicans were guilty of not only covering the scandal up, but allowing the scandal to be exploited at the worst possible time.
Why do you cons even worry about Foley? When Bush parades out Bin Laden in a few weeks, no one will remember who Mark Foley is.
The timing of the emails to CREW is NOT evidence it was a DNC plot. Cough up some evidence someone in the DNC held them and released them, THEN you would have something so far you cant even say that whoever sent those E-mails WAS a Dem, much less it was a dem plot.
As for ABC the reason for a timelapse could obviously be explained by the time it takes to verify the information we all know what happened when CBC didnt do exactly that.
Why wont ABC divulge its source? Is that a joke? News Agencies almost never reveal sources but it is reported by the Hill website that it was a lifelong REPUBLICAN that did so
[link to www.hillnews.com]
Your inuendo and what if speculation is NOT a good enough reason to pretend this is some democratic plot, the ONLY reason to do that is a partisan ideological need to cover for your side.