About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Ignoring reader question about networks, Broder asserted media have been "aggressive and extensive" in covering Gonzales

May 18, 2007 6:41 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: In an online chat, David Broder responded to a question asking why "two out of three major networks have decided not to cover" James Comey's testimony about Alberto Gonzales attempting to pressure then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to reauthorize the administration's wiretapping program by claiming that "the coverage of the firing of the US attorneys has been aggressive and extensive, as it should be."

29 Comments

In a May 18 online discussion, a reader asked Washington Post columnist David Broder about President Bush's "non-answer" to a question about former deputy attorney general James B. Comey's Senate testimony concerning the effort to pressure then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to reauthorize the administration's wiretapping program -- an effort that included a 2004 showdown in Ashcroft's hospital room between then-White House counsel (and current Attorney General) Alberto R. Gonzales and then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card on one side and Comey, at the time acting attorney general due to Ashcroft's illness, on the other. The reader asked: "Will the media follow up and demand answers? How is it that two out of three major networks have decided not to cover Comey's cinematic testimony?" Broder replied: "I do not share your opinion that the press has been giving President Bush a free ride. I think the coverage of the firing of the US attorneys has been aggressive and extensive, as it should be." He added: "I think the White House will continue to be pressed for explanations of these serious issues." But Broder did not address the reader's specific inquiry about the networks' lack of coverage. In fact, news programs on two of the three major networks, ABC and CBS, still have not covered Comey's testimony. And none of the three networks reported that Bush refused to answer a question about Comey's testimony at a May 17 press conference.

ABC reported during both the May 17 edition of World News and the May 18 edition of Good Morning America that Gonzales is experiencing increased "pressure" from Democrats and Republicans to resign, but did not inform viewers why the increased "pressure" was occurring.

Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee May 15 that Gonzales and Card attempted to pressure Ashcroft to approve the re-authorization of the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless wiretapping program while Ashcroft was hospitalized and did not have the powers of the attorney general. During his May 17 news conference, NBC White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell asked Bush whether he sent his "then-chief of staff and White House counsel to the bedside of John Ashcroft while he was ill to get him to approve that program," to which Bush replied, as The New York Times reported, "There's a lot of speculation about what happened and what didn't happen. I'm not going to talk about it."

Instead, Bush discussed his belief that the NSA program was "necessary":

BUSH: I will tell you that, one, the program is necessary to protect the American people, and it's still necessary because there's still an enemy that wants to do us harm.

And therefore, I have an obligation to put in place programs that honor the civil liberties of the American people; a program that was, in this case, constantly reviewed and briefed to the United States Congress. And the program, as I say, is an essential part of protecting this country.

And so there will be all kinds of talk about it. As I say, I'm not going to move the issue forward by talking about something as highly sensitive -- highly classified subject. I will tell you, however, that the program is necessary.

O'DONNELL: Was it on your order, sir?

BUSH: As I said, this program is a necessary program that was constantly reviewed and constantly briefed to the Congress. It's an important part of protecting the United States. And it's still an important part of our protection because there's still an enemy that would like to attack us. No matter how calm it may seem here in America, an enemy lurks. And they would like to strike. They would like to do harm to the American people because they have an agenda. They want to impose an ideology; they want us to retreat from the world; they want to find safe haven. And these just aren't empty words, these are the words of al Qaeda themselves.

And so we will put in place programs to protect the American people that honor the civil liberties of our people, and programs that we constantly brief to Congress.

But in their March 17 evening news broadcasts and in their morning news programs the following day, neither NBC, ABC, nor CBS reported on Bush's refusal to answer O'Donnell's question. As Media Matters for America has noted, NBC is the only network to have reported on Comey's testimony. During the May 18 edition of Today, NBC correspondent Lester Holt reported that "Senate Democrats said they plan to seek a no-confidence vote on Gonzales in the wake of various controversies, including the firing of eight federal prosecutors," but did not report on Bush's refusal to directly answer O'Donnell's question, even though O'Donnell is an NBC reporter.

Similarly, ABC reported on Senate Democrats' plan to hold a "no-confidence" vote on Gonzales on both the May 17 World News and May 18 Good Morning America, but neither report noted what prompted this event to occur. For instance, on World News, anchor Charles Gibson reported only that "there is more pressure on the embattled attorney general of the United States, Alberto Gonzales, to resign," citing Senate Democrats' promise to hold a "no-confidence vote." On Good Morning America, co-anchor Chris Cuomo reported "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is facing mounting pressure to step down now. Senate Democrats are calling for a no-confidence vote, and a fifth Republican senator is calling for him to resign as well." As Media Matters has noted (here and here), ABC has not reported on Comey's May 15 testimony on any of its news programs. At least one Republican senator, Chuck Hagel (NE), cited Comey's testimony as being "another part of a pattern of flawed decision making by" Gonzales and as a reason Gonzales should resign. In announcing their intent to bring forth "legislation expressing that view that the Senate has lost confidence in Alberto Gonzales' performance as attorney general," Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also pointed to Comey's testimony as part of the reasons they decided to do so.

CBS has not reported on its news programs about Comey's testimony, the increased calls for Gonzales' resignation, or Feinstein and Schumer's plan to hold a "no-confidence" vote on Gonzales.

From the May 18 "Broder on Politics" online chat at washingtonpost.com:

Boston: With his non-answer yesterday, the President fairly admitted he had sent Card and Gonzales into the ICU. Will the media follow up and demand answers? How is it that two out three major networks have decided not to cover Comey's cinematic testimony? The American people look at the Bush years and see a trail of destruction. The media finally woke up this year, but still seems much less concerned. How will anyone take the news media seriously in two years when a Democratic president will be hounded for weeks on end for any misstep ranging from a gaffe to a minor misdemeanor?

David S. Broder: IGood [sic] day to all who are joining this chat. To my friend in Boston, I do not share your opinion that the press has been giving President Bush a free ride. I think the coverage of the firing of the US attorneys has been aggressive and extensive, as it should be, and I think the White House will continue to be pressed for explanations of these serious issues.

From the May 17 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:

GIBSON: Meanwhile, there is more pressure on the embattled attorney general of the United States, Alberto Gonzales, to resign. Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota became the fifth Republican senator to call for Gonzales' resignation since he was politically weakened by the controversial firing of U.S. attorneys. And Democrats announced they will call for a no-confidence vote on Gonzales in the Senate.

From the May 18 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:

CUOMO: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is facing mounting pressure to step down now. Senate Democrats are calling for a no-confidence vote, and a fifth Republican senator is calling for him to resign as well. Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman says the Justice Department is suffering under Gonazles' leadership.

From the May 18 edition of NBC News' Today:

HOLT: Pressure is building this morning for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign, with Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman the latest Republican calling for him to step down. On Thursday, Denate Democrats said they plan to seek a no-confidence vote on Gonzales in the wake of various controversies, including the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by eweston8542983 (May 18, 2007 7:03 pm ET)
         

      He must have seen this while he was looking for Democratic ideas on Iraq, any luck there? On finding any of those ideas, I mean.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by sasami (May 19, 2007 5:49 am ET)
           

        Yeah, it's called GET THE HELL OUT.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (May 19, 2007 4:36 pm ET)
             

          Incorrect, but a good sentiment.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (May 21, 2007 2:36 pm ET)
               

            What exactly does that have to do with this thread?  Troll much?

            Report Abuse
      • Author by Dr Rick (May 19, 2007 4:52 pm ET)
           

        Has anyone found a Republican idea for Iraq that doesn't depend upon luck there? Ideas based on reality and not neocon fantasies or falsehoods about Saddam and 9-11, I mean.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Harlequin (May 18, 2007 7:33 pm ET)
         

      Gonzales and Bush are talking like parrots. If you ask them about the firings they will bring up terrorism. If you ask them about illegal wiretappings they will bring up terrrorism. If you ask them hows the lettuce crop doing in America they will bring up terrorism. If you asked them what does lettuce crops have to do with terrorism they will question your partriotism and once again bring up terrorism.

      Rove is behind their parroting. The question is how does one get Bush and Gonzales out of the infinite loop?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by factsrstubborn (May 19, 2007 1:12 am ET)
           

        The question is, how does one get Bush and Gonzales into the penal system?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (May 18, 2007 8:23 pm ET)
         

      Journalism, or better someone who really knows how to be a journalist. Too many correspondence dinners allows so called journalist to meet, greet and drink with the very same white house and congress that they are suppose to objectively report on. I guess after enough cocktails even Rove looks good at 2:00am.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Timmee (May 18, 2007 11:29 pm ET)
           

        If a Coup d''etat happens in a forest and the msm doesn't cover it, did it really happen?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Kaleun (May 19, 2007 12:02 pm ET)
             

          Oh, man, that was priceless. What shall we call it? Shroedingers Media? Shroedingers Prez?

          Report Abuse
        • Author by anyfreedomleft (May 21, 2007 3:07 pm ET)
             

          I thought that happened in South America a few years back ...

          Report Abuse
    • Author by Dr Rick (May 19, 2007 12:32 am ET)
         

      There was this exchange later in the chat:

      "Minneapolis: Which do you think is the most troubling aspect of the story Comey told -- that Card and Gonzales evidently sought to take advantage of a very sick John Ashcroft; that they apparently were sent by the president; that the president authorized the continuation of the program without the certification of its legality by the Office of Legal Counsel and the Department of Justice; or that the administration pursued for two-and-a-half years a policy that, once it was reviewed by serious people like Jack Goldsmith and Comey, was deemed illegal and so troubling that they, Ashcroft and the Director of the FBI all were willing to resign rather than condone its continuation?

      David S. Broder: You have summarized in one powerful paragraph all the things that make this sorry story so disturbing. The president clearly thought and acted as if he were above the law, or could bend it completely to his will. What happened was sickening, appalling on all the levels you describe"

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by UnEasyOne (May 19, 2007 8:16 am ET)
           

        Bet it gave him a stomachache to say that.

        Seriously - what the hell else could he say?

        This is the kind of emotional issue that often becomes more important than the underlying problem (illegally spying on everybody) in the media because it's something everybody can understand and relate to. That is exactly why ABC and CBS aren't covering it at all.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by alboy562410 (May 19, 2007 12:39 pm ET)
         

      Broder is absolutely the living breathing embodiment  of all that's wrong with journalism today. His one steadfast rule in covering politicians is to be fearless and relentless in criticizing political wrongdoing, so long as it is done by democrats. He's the imbecile who said of Clinton that Bill came "into this place (Washington) and trashed it and it was not his place." Or words to that effect. But he shall ever be remembered as the cvisionary pundit whiose comment  when the Bush administration took over the oval office was "The adults are back in charge." To quote the late great Doctor, "He should be put in a g_ddamn bottle and sent out with the Japanese current."

      Report Abuse
      • Author by carmelita47475199 (May 19, 2007 10:21 pm ET)
           

        Ah, the good doctor...we miss his profane & eloquent outrage. And he was prescient about the "clubby cocktail relationships" in which journalists and politicians indulge.

        Short personal anecdote: I was once editor of a community college paper. A large and evil corporation in my state paid for all the community college newspaper editors to come to town and get their first taste of schmooze & food for purposes of subverting their paper's message about a specific issue. The lesson was lost on almost no one. Some of us were sure we could always see through the PR; I think perhaps we were wrong. The PR was fairly amateur, as befits the junior status of the subvertees, and a real full court press with real decisionmakers would be exponentially more effective...it cannot be easy to resist. As the woman said: "Fight the real enemy." Start with the catspaw but it cannot end there.

        Selah.

         

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (May 20, 2007 2:28 pm ET)
             

          Here's one of my favorite quotes by the good doctor.

          "...It was pitiful...I almost felt sorry for him, until I heard someone call him 'Mr. President,' and then I felt ashamed."

          - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson -on George Bush's 2004 debate performance

          Report Abuse
    • Author by skiploader1111 (May 19, 2007 12:52 pm ET)
         

      The more incriminating the information against Bush Administration officials, the more the attempt to black out the story.  If it's not an attempted blackout by the networks, then they are at least trying to delay coverage until Republicans can safely call it old news,

      Odd behavior for the "liberal media."

      Report Abuse
    • Author by kevin1007 (May 19, 2007 2:37 pm ET)
         

      If I can't sleep tonight, I'll have to return to this item. The Gonzales story is SUCH A BORE!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Dr Rick (May 19, 2007 4:23 pm ET)
           

        Yes, tales of presidential abuses of power and lawbreaking are just so tedious and unimportant. I mean, it's not like the press is supposed to keep the public informed by reporting on government misdeeds, or that such reporting is absolutely essential to the preservation of democracy.

        The Monica Lewinski story; now that was exciting...

        Report Abuse
        • Author by kevin1007 (May 19, 2007 6:08 pm ET)
             

          Which laws have been broken? These attorneys serve at the president's pleasure. That has always been the case, even when Clinton fired all the attorneys en masse.

           If Gonzales were a white liberal, the media wouldn't even be reporting on it.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Kaleun (May 19, 2007 6:40 pm ET)
               

            Oh, yeah, we libs are soo racist, which is why we may be electing Barrack Obama. After all, as comedian Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, Barrack is only half-black. Otherwise, libs would never tolerate him.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (May 19, 2007 9:33 pm ET)
               

            the obvious comment is that bush seems to have fired them for not doing his political bidding.  clinton, like other presidents, fired them at the beginning of his term.  stale talking point.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by carmelita47475199 (May 19, 2007 10:27 pm ET)
               

            The laws that have been broken, my sweet, are those against ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING OF AMERICAN CITIZENS.

             This has been the Saturday night Short Attention Span Theater showing of "I Pay No Attention to Anything That Threatens My Religion - er, Political Stance."

            Selah...

            Report Abuse
          • Author by captfoster2 (May 20, 2007 8:10 am ET)
               

            Kevin,

            Here we go again..... you said:

            Which laws have been broken?

            Wiretapping and the creation of files of innocent American citizens doing nothing more than voicing their opinions or for basically being.........of Arab decent.

            Going into a hospital room and discussing matters of nat'l security in an unsecure room.

            Invading a country that had ZERO to do with 9/11 for what amounts to being a new reason every six months when the last excuse doesn't work

            Not going to war in the first place with the army they should have had and not the one they wished they had!

            Circumventing the FISA Act of 1976 and changing the rules on their own before any changes were made legally by Congress

            Energy meetings in secret with the likes of Ken(ny Boy) Lay

            Constantly tying in Saddam with 9/11 every chance he speaks

            Giving an unwanted back massage to the leader of Germany, winking at the Queen of England and skewing the english language, ok maybe not illegal but.....

            Firing US attorneys for political reasons

            These attorneys serve at the president's pleasure.

            I'm no scholar but I thought that these people served at the pleasure of the US Constitution and the Rule of Law not the prez. But instead the prez puts them in their jobs because they showed they were loyal to the Constitution and the Rule of Law first and everything else second

            That has always been the case, even when Clinton fired all the attorneys en masse.

            Clinton fired them at the very begining of his first term, something almost every prez had done before him, hardly politically evil.

            Bush hired all these people and toward the end fired the ones that remained loyal to the Constitution and the Rule of Law or for basically doing their job!

            Big, huge difference between the two firings!

             If Gonzales were a white liberal, the media wouldn't even be reporting on it.

            The last thing that this new breed of conservatives want to do is bring up race, as Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 is proof enough of that

            Report Abuse
            • Author by anyfreedomleft (May 21, 2007 3:12 pm ET)
                 

              Not only did "Clinto fire them", but the Repukes in Congress (and, I believe, Bob Dole) started calling it the latest "Saturdy Night Massacre" ... and they were outraged ... Of course, Clinton's first "State of the Union" was still echoing when the right-wingers were calling for his impeachment ...

              Report Abuse
    • Author by MichiganMarkW (May 19, 2007 7:36 pm ET)
         

      >Which laws have been broken? 

      Discussing the program in an insecure area (the hospital room) shows poor judgement and is illegal.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Dr Rick (May 19, 2007 7:42 pm ET)
         

      "Which laws have been broken?"

      FISA.  From former deputy attorney general James B. Comey's Senate [link to www.washingtonpost.com] color="#0052a3">testimony, it's been revealed that Mr. Gonzalez tried to pressure a then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to reauthorize the administration's domestic spying program.

      Because of this and his deceit about the federal prosecutors' firings, Senate Democrats are calling for a no-confidence vote, and even a few Republican congressmen are calling for Gonzalez to resign.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by yahavhis6653 (May 20, 2007 7:40 pm ET)
         

      If it can be proven that both Bush and Gonzales abused power to have the two border guards imprisoned, according to the Constitution they could both be charged with Insurrection against the nation of the United States, as both of these border guards were federal employees whose duty it was to protect the nation according to federal law.

      By Constitutional law, it would be a solid case. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wolfbato (May 21, 2007 9:49 am ET)
         

      C-SPAN has also joined in suppressing the news by "not" making the hearing available for vid viewing. I wrote them and did not get a response. Go to download the transcript [from SENATE.ORG] and you will get an error message.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.