Media ignored Bush's pledge to retain Rumsfeld while continuing to play up Kerry story
SUMMARY: Despite the significance of
President Bush's November 1 pronouncement that Donald Rumsfeld will
remain defense secretary until the end of his presidency, multiple media
outlets have devoted much greater attention to the controversy over Sen. John
Kerry's "botched joke."
During a discussion with wire service reporters on November 1, President Bush stated his intent to keep Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary until the end of his presidency, despite widespread, bipartisan criticism of Rumsfeld's management of the Iraq war. That evening, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann asked MSNBC correspondent David Shuster whether Bush's pledge to retain Rumsfeld or the ongoing uproar over Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) "botched joke" will have "the greatest net effect on these really tight" congressional races around the country. Shuster replied, "[T]he Rumsfeld news is going to strike a lot harder than the news about John Kerry." But a Media Matters for America survey of political reporting on the evening of November 1 and morning of November 2 found that many news outlets briefly mentioned -- and, in some cases, altogether ignored -- Bush's statement regarding Rumsfeld, while devoting significant coverage to the Kerry flap.
Also, amid the uproar over Kerry's remarks, the media have ignored a separate statement by Bush about Al Qaeda. During an October 30 interview, Fox News host Sean Hannity asked Bush, "How important is getting Osama bin Laden in the war on terror?" Bush replied that the search continues for bin Laden but went on to emphasize that it is important to capture other Al Qaeda leaders, such as "the number-three guy, whoever he is."
Following are news outlets that continued to highlight the controversy surrounding Kerry's October 30 remarks while overlooking the significance of Bush's pledge to keep Rumsfeld at the helm of the Pentagon:
- CBS Evening News with Katie Couric: CBS led the November 1 edition of the Evening News with a report from chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod on Kerry's apology and Republicans' ongoing criticism of the senator. Host Katie Couric then briefly discussed the issue with chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer. Absent from the program was any mention of Bush's statement regarding Rumsfeld.
- USA Today: The November 2 print edition of USA Today featured an article on Page 5 devoted to Kerry's apology and the ongoing controversy. But the newspaper did not mention Bush's pledge to keep Rumsfeld on until 2009.
- The Washington Post: In a November 1 post on the website Slate, Post national political editor John Harris "proudly pointed out" that his newspaper had buried the Kerry story in that day's edition of the paper. "[P]lease note," Harris wrote, "that this ... story ran inside the Post today, not on the front page." But on November 2, an article on Kerry's apology by Post staff writers Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei ran on the newspaper's front page. While Baker and VandeHei noted in passing Bush's comments on Rumsfeld, the Post did not devote a separate article to the story.
- NBC News: On the November 1 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams, chief White House correspondent David Gregory noted Bush's declaration of support for Rumsfeld at the end of the report on the Kerry flap. Anchor Brian Williams subsequently discussed both issues with Washington managing editor Tim Russert. And later that evening on MSNBC's Countdown, Shuster predicted that the Rumsfeld story "is going to strike a lot harder than the news about John Kerry," as noted above. But on the November 2 edition of Today, NBC led with a report on the Kerry story from White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell, then hosted a discussion of the issue with Democratic strategist James Carville and conservative radio host Michael Smerconish. At no point during the program was Bush's pledge of support for Rumsfeld noted.
- CBS' The Early Show: In contrast with its coverage the night before, CBS did mention Bush's statement regarding Rumsfeld on the November 2 edition of The Early Show. But White House correspondent Bill Plante did so only in passing at the end of an extended report on the Kerry controversy. Later in the show, co-host Harry Smith again brought up the Kerry story, showing a photograph taken by a group of U.S. soldiers mocking the senator. The photograph had been highlighted a day earlier by House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Internet gossip Matt Drudge.
From the November 1 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: Assess it for me in the big picture. In these key races where Iraq and the question of the troops and now the question of John Kerry and now the question of the president saying, "Don Rumsfeld is staying as secretary of defense through the end of my term" -- which of those two news developments -- the Rumsfeld thing or the Kerry thing -- will have the greatest net effect on these really tight races?
SHUSTER: Rumsfeld will clearly have a huge effect. In fact, there were groans that went up today from Virginia when that news circulated in Richmond, in part because [Sen.] George Allen [R-VA] has been getting hammered by [Democratic challenger] Jim Webb over the issue of Iraq and management of the war, and this was another sign that there is no room, that the president is essentially -- there is no lifeline the president is giving to George Allen. So the Rumsfeld news is going to strike a lot harder than the news about John Kerry.
That's what it's all about. Not loyalty to our military, but loyalty to the man mostly responsible for what passed for our war plan. It has not gone well. At every step, there has been criticism from within the ranks of our military leaders directed towards the Secretary of Defense. Bush has backed him at every turn. now we hear that he will be in office as long as Bush is in office.
The media should be flogging this story for all it's worth. So called supporters of the military should insist that this news be featured more prominently then Senator Kerry's attempt at humor. A botched joke could possibly hurt feelings, but Rumsfeld's policies have cost lives.
"Media ignored Bush's pledge to retain Rumsfeld................"
*********************
A more accurate headline would have been "Media did not cover Bush's pledge to retain Rumsfeld like WE wanted them to.........
I saw coverage on Bush's retaining of Rumsfelf on CNN, Fox, the local news and all over the web. To say the media "ignored" it is ridiculous.
"devoted much greater attention " MMFA may be guilty of sensationalizing the title for effect. But, they offer a more tempered summary below the title.
Why the sensastionalized headline? The accuracy of the story is not enough? Very poor excuse for a sloppy and misleading headline. One wonders why the truth-lapse in the headline here?
Please MMFA, change the freaking headline so Tommy can get back to micromanaging his own life.
Facts and accuracy is such a nuisance when it sours one's koolaid, dammit - "Waitress, can I get a refill here please, this crap tastes like the truth, yeech!!!"
Keep excusing sloppiness..............did you get your fresh glass? Good, now gulp!
I'm not liberal, I'm nonconservative.
It's funny to see you pontificate about the truth, that yes MMFA misleadingly used the word ignored in its headline. Go nuts.
Oops, I think you already did that.
Be fair.
I've seen threads here blow up BECAUSE of Liberal posters engaging in mind numbing minutia in an attempt to win an argument with a Conservative.
MMFA should have written *SOME* media....
ONE word can change the MEANING of a sentence. Ask John Kerry.
An accurate headline is all Tommy or I [and others] are asking for. Sorry that bothers you. I have a feeling IF the tables were turned you or one of your fellow Liberals would be sure to POINT it out.
and it was my first thought as well because I did see it on the news last night. As far as arguing minutae on other threads, I think that's what annoys me about another who I'll not mention because I'm trying real hard to get over it. You'll notice that I have never argued with you before...maybe it's your logic that makes it more palateable.
Sorry if my post sounded a tad snippy. Sometimes the "debates" here disintegrate into a what the meaning of "is" is kind of mentality ;-) so I did feel inclined to join in and to point out that MMFA's headline was misleading. I appreciate your honesty in admitting that as well.
MMFA doesn't do that very often, BUT when they do I don't think it's petty to POINT it out.
Just curious, did you used to post here as WDM? I remember mentioning to THAT poster that I'd almost written their moniker as WMD, and they wrote they were considering changing it [I thought] to Wes.
IF that's you, you're right we've always had very civil exchanges & I hope that continues.
Even If you're not the poster formally known as WDM, I still look forward to future discussions with you Wes.
I also respect your opinion and the civil tone of your posts...even the snippy ones have an undercurrent of politeness. Most of us would do well to emulate your style...keep up the good work.
sensationalize = To cast and present in a manner intended to arouse strong interest, especially through inclusion of exaggerated or lurid details
LOLOLOLOLOLOL...... So why s it you all hate Savage again?
We LOVE Dr. Wiener around here.
He is an insane hatemonger?
This was hardly a buried story.
Almost buried. I've heard the Bush pledge story, but I listen to and read a lot of different outlets. I would say, that the media is running with the Kerry joke story and is walking slowly with the more important story which is Rumsfeld's retention while Iraq goes all to hell. There is much more attention being given to Kerry's words, which effect, no one really, and the fact that as bad as things get, we'll still have Rumsfeld calling the shots.
No one is dying because of what Kerry said, but people are dying every day because of the way this war has been run from day 1.
I know he's your Senator, Jeter, and you're not crazy about him, I respect that.
I agree with what you saying, but this goes to the accuracy of the headline, which is intentionally deceiving the reader into thinking the "media" ignored this story, which is flat out wrong. Some outlets did, granted, and that should have been included in the headline.
That's the gripe, not the comparison between the two.
Why don't you do something about it - like boycotting this site. That'll show 'em.
You're not asking me to leave because an opposing opinion threatens yours? It can't be.
If my beliefs were so malleable to be threated by you posting here, I'd be like those nuts who want to ban Harry Potter books. You are just annoying, and I'm sure not many people appreciate me taking up space to heckle you so I will try to cut down.
I am not sure if you take up space anywhere else, but not here. Your heckling is entertainment.
I'll go along with "almost buried" or "some ignored". Good compromise :-)
Yes Kerry is my state senator, and personally I'd rather have Bozo the Clown representing Massachusetts. Even my wife, a Democrat, held her nose in 2004 when she voted for him. I of course wish now that I had abstained from the entire process...
Certainly we've seen this before, legitimately more important stories pushed aside for the MORE sensationalized ones.
And even IF I don't always agree on what MMFA finds important, I for one APPRECIATE their efforts to at least bring to our attention to the Conservative MIS-information that's out there. I wish there was a website that served as a watchdog for ALL mis-information.
>>"I saw coverage on Bush's retaining of Rumsfelf on CNN, Fox, the local news and all over the web. To say the media "ignored" it is ridiculous."<<
Good for you! But those who watched CBS Evening News, USA Today, NBC Nightly News or the Washington Post---all major media outlets---heard and saw NOTHING. ALL of them IGNORED the story. To say they didn't ignore the story is ridiculous.
If you are happy with the blanket false statement about the "media", then fine. Your excusing this sloppiness and misrepresentation is not unexpected. You seem to read and believe what you want to anyway. The rest of us find accuracy and truth important.
You're pretending and make-believing that CBS, NBC, USA Today, and the Wash. Post didn't ignore the story. The rest of us see right through you.
Fact is, unless you want to believe these major outlets didn't know about the Rumsfeld story (which strains even a right-winger's tendency to denial), they made a conscious decision to IGNORE it (but decided to NOT ignore the Kerry story).
You can throw all your "sillys" and "sloppys" at the truth, but your insults don't stick.
What you are pretending is that other major media outlets like CNN, Fox, ABC, NY Times, LA Times, local newscasts and the internet also ignored the story..........which they did not.
But then facts like that rarely stick to you, do they? You insulate yourself from any truth you don't like......and that's no insult, just a informed opinion.
>>>"you are pretending is that other major media outlets like CNN, Fox, ABC, NY Times, LA Times, local newscasts and the internet also ignored the story..........which they did not."<<<
They did not ignore the story. I never said they did, Tommy. Putting words in my mouth again? Can't argue facts so you make stuff up.
I specifically, deliberately singled out four major media outlets. I did NOT say those other outlets ignored the story. Again, the straw man argument with you.
It is clearly obvious it is YOU that is insulating yourself from the truth and projecting that fault on to others.
The truth is that four major media outlets --contrary to your claim-- ignored the Rumsfeld story.
MMFA should have written their Headline this way:
*SOME* Media ignored Bush's pledge to retain Rumsfeld while continuing to play up Kerry story
ONE word can often change the meaning of a sentence.
You know like Kerry said that ONE word *US* being omitted changed the meaning of his "botched joke".
Sorry Dave BUT the headline here is MISLEADING.
BTW I pick up the USA Today every morning on my way to work. Perhaps they have several editions because they are often a day late on certain stories that were news the day before.
There would be no issue if the headline had been written the way you stated.
But it appears it is much more important to push the conservative-driven, in the pocket for Bush, right bias media - than it is to be accurate.
No wonder many on the left here constantly whine about every other thing in the world being the reason for their struggles, except looking at their own policies and chosen leaders for the real reasons. It's always easier to blame someone else than take responsibility. It's echoed on nearly every thread here lately - from Air America conspiracies, to the media..........never ends.
All I'd like to see is some responsibility. No, not from us whiners, banging away at our keyboards. But from an administration that started a war, failed in the prosecution of the war, failed in the occupation, and failed in admitting they they alone are responsible for the outcome so far.
I too, share your wish. A little buttkicking in this upcoming election may shake that out of them. Accountability for this war is the most shameful thing about this administration. Damn time they start doing it.
It didnt say ALL the media ignored the story.
>>>"Sorry Dave BUT the headline here is MISLEADING"<<<
The very next line says "multiple media outlets". Any reader who expects a headline to tell them everything they need to know has very low standards and expectations.
CBS, NBC, USA Today, and the Washington Post constitute a fairly large segment of the media. They knew about the Rumsfeld story and made a decision to ignore it, and found the Kerry story more important, which it isn't.
Your reading comprehension needs major work. Did media outlest ignore the story? Yes, therefore media WAS ignoring the story. Did MMFA say ALL media ignored the story? It might not have been perfectly accurate or maybe it could have been said better but it is NOT a false statement. Your control issues are tiresome. This is not YOUR website the headline is not false. take a pill
Bush obliged in his interview Wednesday by offering strong backing for two key defenders of the war, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He said he wanted them to remain part of his team until the end of his presidency.
"Both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them," Bush said.............usatoday.com Updated 11/2/2006 1:01 PM ET.
CNN ran a 15 minute special on bush keeping rumsfeld yesterday, i saw it while i was working out. I'm sure they reran it a # of times.
Im SORRY if cable news doesnt PLEASE you MMFA, but if you dont like how things are being done, get your OWN network and then you can do what you want.
Have a Solon Factor for all i care.
Im SORRY if cable news doesnt PLEASE you MMFA, but if you dont like how things are being done, get your OWN network and then you can do what you want.
Im SORRY if MMFA doesnt PLEASE you Art, but if you dont like how things are being done, get your OWN website and then you can do what you want.
Leave us alone. We aren't as interested in factual accuracy with no misleading headlines, but rather our own agenda, facts and opposing opinions just get in the way.
Thanks for another nonsensical post, Tommy. You are providing a lot of laughs lately!
Just finishing, err........illuminating, your previous thought.
I was just having some fun with Art (who I suspect might be my old pal Right On). I forgot how much you hate seeing other people having fun. Sorry!
I had just as much fun with mine too.......after all, you said I was generating laughter, that's a good thing.
Right On....... lololol... I may have had a alies before I learned maners! :)
The plot thickens, EL...
LOLOLOLOLOLOL............
I told ya, I hate to lie.... I would make a crappppppy politician!
Ahh...just DISTORTING your idea. We all got that
YOU need some adult education
And point out when the media falls down on the job. I dont need a fan club as much as YOU need a functioning cerebral cortex.
Then why are the big 'news' outlets concentrating on the Kerry thing? Is it because they consider their viewers too stupid to grasp the bigger picture? Do they enjoy the glitz of tabloid nonsense over real news? Do they support the horrible mess Rummy has made of Iraq and every thing he's touched? Are they in the pocket of the GOP/Bush?
Who knows?!
I was amazed at how much Blitzer and Zahn were doing CPR on the Kerry story last night even after the apology and it's acceptance by the White House.
So much for the liberal media...
I TOLD YOU SO.
Kerry's gaff was the greatest political gift to the Troglodyte Party since the Blue Dress. They're even digging up old footage of Kerry criticizing the military back in the early 70s.
I fear that the Democrats have predicted victory too soon. They got careless, and now Karl Rove is going to eat them alive.
I wouldn't go that far... but Rove is going to nibble off a few fingers. However, in tight races we're going to need every digit.
This just underscores what a blunder Kerry's remarks were. Absent the Kerry flap Bush's insane vote of confidence for Rumsfeld could have sealed the deal for Democrats. But... sh*t happens.
It's interesting to learn that the media "ignored" that, because I learned about it the moment I turned on MSNBC today, and have been hearing it periodically ever since.
Which story is getting more hand-wringing from the idiot pundits?
they paid more attention to the botched joke than the Rumsfeld endorsement. All Rumsfeld does is get troops killed. Kerry says they're stupid.
To be serious arent we all stupid for allowing the Republicans and Bush to pursue this failed policy and kill our men and women and countless Iraqis? In the end we are all stupid including the troops . The one think I am tired of is hearing that our troops can never be questioned.
Are you saying every American is stupid becuase Bush lied to us?
To be serious arent we all stupid for allowing the Republicans and Bush to pursue this failed policy and kill our men and women and countless Iraqis?
No. I did everything I could do.
Did not give this the coverage it needed. Bush staying with this warcriminal should have been the top story. What it means is that Bush is going to "stay the course"
I wonder why there is no flap over John Boehner's remarks last night to Wolf Blitzer. In response to a question about whether Rumsfeld botched the war in Iraq, Bohner pointed out that it is the generals on the ground who are running the war, not Rumsfeld. What...? In other words is it the generals who have botched the Iraq war? Sounds to me like Boehner should be in apology territory for impugning the competence of our generals.
This morning on my ride to work I was stuck listening to an Army sergeant regurgitate the out-of-context-based talking points that you have heard from the right since Kerry's slip. NPR probably had him on to get "the real story" from one of the men in the field but anyone who knows the military knows that you have no opinion unless it is issued you in olive drab (or desert tan).
The guest was very careful to state in the beginning of the interview that anything that he said was his opinion only and he in no way represented the military as a whole. This statement was largely unnecessary given that all he did was reiterate every talking point that we have heard from the right on this non-issue. Then came the "Of course I am insulted by the statement" portion where he took personal offense to a comment clearly not aimed at him. The way he phrased his statement, it seemed that all he heard was the edited non-contextual version that the GOP has been circulating to thier minions.
A person in the military has no right to freedom of speech. In fact they are told that at inception they refuse many of their basic rights as a matter of course. The idea that NPR was going to get a real opinion from an active soldier is ridiculous. This man would not have spoken in a public forum without prior approval from his superiors. If he wasn't actually handed a script at least he was made clear on the sorts of comments he was not to make.
After 20 min or so of this party-line rehash we were treated to the half hourly NPR news update. Contained therein was a 10 second piece stating that Bush had sworn to Stay the Course with Cheney and Rummy. It is nice to hear that he is so loyal.
That the troops heard only the Republican version of this story...probably from the same fascists who keep telling them that they are there to avenge 9/11.
the troops know why they are there. Most know it is a mistake by the Bush admin. But they have a job to do. And they had better not shy away from it, or our country will fade away....
Meanwhile, House Majority Leader John Boehner says it's not Rumsfeld's fault over the Irag situation - it's the fault of the military commanders IN Iraq.
So they'll criticize Karry for screwing up a joke, but it's OK to outrite blame the military for the Bush Administration's failures. Not ONLY that, but any outrage on the Dem's part is labeled as an attempt to distract from what Karry said?????
F*@king Republican Hypocrits!
[link to www.cnn.com]
How much are we paying this guy?
DAY 4 ON KERRY!!! HOW MANY DAYS ON NEY1 FROM THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA AND MOSTY FOX NEWS!!!! THANK GOD FOR MEDIA MATTER AND KEITH ON MSNBC.
This morning, the Today Show referenced an article in the NY Times that said that Congress and the WH had overruled John Negroponte and the intelligence community in order to allow secret documents from Saddam's WMD program to be posted on the internet. Supposedly, this material contained a road map for making an atomic device. It was not clear why the WH and the leaders wanted this info published on the web. After the report, Matt said: "You've gotta wonder about the timing of the report -- right before the election." The NYT report was unquestionably true, and the website was taken down. Yet, here was Lauer trying to shift the focus from the fact that the Republicans and the WH had once again demonstrated their mind-boggling incompetence, to some secret, nefarious plot by the NYT to influence the election. I remember when Matt was a nice, honest guy working on Chennel 9, here in NY, reporting the news, not giving his unwanted opinion of it. Now, he's just another regurgitator of ridiculous talking points, turning into Bill O'Reilly right before our eyes. It's very difficult to listen to him report on anything political nowadays, especially after the ass-kissing he gave Ann Coulter. Hey Matt: Whatever they paid you for your soul, it wasn't enough!
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) admitted A fundamental premise of politics is: We can make this work if people just never figure it out.
pass this video on to everyone you know. Bush and other Republicans know damn well what they did with Kerry's speech. As Dick Armey said: "misconstrue what somebody said. You isolate a statement, you lend your interpretation to it and then feign moral outrage"
For God's sake! Will someone tell Kerry he might do those who want to see a Democratic controlled congress and senate a great service if he locked himself down until the elections are over? How many times can this man put his foot in his mouth when it matters most!!?? I keep reading how educated Kerry is. -what an intellectual he is. I voted FOR the legislation BEFORE i voted against it? -And now this!!?? Please Senator, do us a favor..take a seat and keep your mouth shut.