ABC's World News only network news broadcast to report on subpoenas for former Bush aides
Of the three network evening news broadcasts on June 13, only ABC's World News reported on the June 13 subpoenas issued by the House and Senate judiciary committees to two former aides to President Bush, former counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor, for their testimony about the firings of former federal prosecutors. During the June 13 broadcast of World News, ABC News legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg described the issuance of the subpoenas as "the most significant clash between the White House and Congress since President Bush took office."
Neither NBC's Nightly News nor the CBS Evening News covered the story, although both found time to report that NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt Jr. is switching teams and that Don Herbert, television's "Mr. Wizard," had died.
From the June 13 edition of ABC's World News:
CHARLES GIBSON (anchor): Back to the U.S., on Capitol Hill, Democrats moved closer to a constitutional showdown with the White House. The House and Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the president's former counsel, Harriet Miers, and his former political director, Sara Taylor, demanding that they testify about the firings of eight former federal prosecutors. And we're joined now by our legal correspondent, Jan Crawford Greenburg. So, Jan, how significant is this?
GREENBURG: Charlie, this is the most significant clash between the White House and Congress since President Bush took office. Congress is using force. This is not a request, it's a demand. And now the White House has to decide if it's going to go along or meet that force with force by asserting executive privilege.
GIBSON: Well, if they exert executive privilege, they then might refuse to testify. Right?
GREENBURG: That's right. And then, the ball is back in Congress' court. It can try to hold Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor in contempt of Congress. And that will trigger the entire legal battle. And if we look back historically, that's when administrations have caved. The pressure from subpoenas and contempt charges have just been too much. It's more of a political battle than a legal battle.
GIBSON: These are the first two officials to be subpoenaed. Is it possible that somebody higher up, even Karl Rove, could be subpoenaed to come up in Capitol Hill?
GREENBURG: Absolutely. And that's what the White House is so worried about. They believe that Miers and Taylor are the first and that Karl Rove will be next. And that's why they believe they may have to strongly assert executive privilege and stay firm.
GIBSON: All right. A showdown in the offing. Jan Crawford Greenburg in Washington, thanks.
I thought ABC was pro Bush? Thats what mmfa has been telling us. will olbermann name nbc and cbs worst person in the world?
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Exactly. Now hold on, just how are we supposed to continue this "corporate media in the tank for Bush thing" when these annoying little instances of unflattering Bushisms keep popping up on various mainstream media outlets on occasion, this time it's ABC.
Now just stop, it's waaaay to hard to perpetuate this myth unless there is 100% Bush love-ins consistently.
You require 100% for Corporate Media bias? I guess there never ever was a liberal media then, eh?
(please let me know if I missed the sarcasm)
I am told here constantly by vaious posters that the corporate mainstrem media is in the tank for Bush, who some say give "instructions" to these conglomerate media people on what to say, how to say it, etc. Yet I only get Fox News and rightwing radio pundits as concrete examples of that. And now when a prominent mainstreamer like ABC News reports this against Bush, it's dismissed as an anathema.
Ya can't have it both ways folks.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtml
I gave you that yesterday, along with several others.
MAINSTREAM media cueing from RNC press releases.
Your proof is about Gore and the internet? That's the proof the mainstream corporate media is a tool of the Bush admn? From this website?
Oh, well, then enough.....proof positive. ^;)^
the question is why did the other two not report it?
the other question is where is any support for tommy's original lying assertion?
I was showing the media is tools of the RNC, not tools of Bush.
The Gore internet thing is an epochal example that demonstrates the RNC's hold with crystal clarity, and which incidentally put Bush in the white house.
When I gave you many examples, you blew them off. So why should I waste my time?
As for proving that the media loves Bush, what do you think this website is here for? What do you think all those items in MMFA's archives are about? Why do you think that the empty trivialities complained about at newsbusters pale by comparison?
Tommy,
Do you think this story should have been picked up by every major news outlet?
Tommy, check out Pro wrestling sometime. The "good guys" get knocked on their butts once in a while to keep the illusion alive for the real fans.
So 90% Bush-loving proves that they don't love Bush?
You would be okay with 90% Hillary-loving?
Also, all they did was assert that a conflict exists. A Bush-lover could assert the same.
And of course you must have missed providing proof of your "90%" charge?
You didn't address his point at all.
It was too ridiculous to respond too. If you feel the need to respond, be my guest.
And if you agree with his 90% charge in favor of Bush, then I would imagine you can back it up too?
Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument. -- wikipedia
Sorry, check your wikipedia again. Logical fallacy is liberal rhetoric doublespeak trotted out here on occasion when either 1) no details or backup can be provided, or 2) there is no coherent argument.
If you and your friends, who can't refrain from using that verbage, can tell me which option is correct this time, we would save alot of time.
Oh man, that is one of your funniest posts ever. You seriously might be the most proudly ignorant person I've ever encoutered. So logical fallacies are the invention of liberals who don't have any other way to argue? That is hilarious. But it explains a lot. You actually don't believe in logic. I'm I'm amazed by your stupidity. You've taken Tommylogic to its extreme. By now, we're used to you calling those who point out lies and misinformation "dishonest" and "whiners," and we're used to you calling those who point out racism "racists," "bigots" and "race baiters," but to claim that those who point out the fallacies in your logic are actually the ones with the faulty argument is just too much, even for you.
The post wasn't for you, Tommy. It was for the benefit of other people who may read the thread. I know you don't get it.
Ahem. Tommy, let me be so kind as to refine the issue. Bush has been used as he is considered the codpiece of the GOP, but now that it turns out that he stuffed that piece with a sock full of sand, the GOP has to find a new dick to wear the crown. The media schills for the head dick, because dicks f@ck pussies and @ssholes.
Tommy, you pack more logical fallacies into one day than most amateur debaters commit in a year. Here's a link for you to bookmark and study: Pay particular attention to the entries concerning Straw Men Arguments, since today you've repeatedly suggested that nobody can mention the corporate media being in league with the Bush administration unless they can prove that 100% of the corporate media gets its marching orders from the White House.
[link to www.logicalfallacies.info]
Can you cough up any instance of someone saying the media is a 100% Bush lovefest or is that another in the long line of your strawman arguments? The media is not monolithic in fact most stations are not monolithic. That doesnt mean there isnt bias here and there. Nor does it mean there isnt a pattern of bias keeping Bush from a lot of deserved criticism.
Show me the MMFA links where they say "ABC is pro-Bush", which, as you insinuate, "100% of the time". No? Can't find it. Why? Because, like Bush's strategic plan for winning Iraq, it doesn't exist.
So save the straw men for the corn fields and Halloween.
Randy
Maybe they rotate responsibity for this type of story?
You are right, ABC and CBS have taken a few recent hits. For this one, I'd see its atitude repeated as often as ABC cares to to do so. And more power to them.
That's not true, and is an unfair smear from another poster too blinded by their partisanship to understand basic logic.
Just because a MSM source has failed to refrain from passing on conservative misinformation, it doesn't mean they are constantly doing that. Just because someone does something bad one time, it doesn't mean that they have no idea how to do something else right!
You've just displayed black-n-white thinking at its worst.
Olbermann hasbeen gone all week! I'm sure this was an issue he would have commented on if he were there. He has these pretty but empty headed anchorwomen sit in for him when he's away, and it's so irritating. I guess he doesn't want anyone else to steal his thunder while he's away. That being said, I'm not surprised that NBC or CBS didn't choose to broadcast that development, but I am surprised that ABC did. These networks head honchos are some of Bush's best buddies, and their sponsors are some of his biggest contributors and supporters. So few of our news broadcasters have the courage to tell us the truth, and when they do, they face the consequences. Remember Dan Rather? If that wasn't a setup I don't know what would be. I have so little respect for any of them any longer. Only Olbermann, really, and even he is hamstrung sometimes. It's really, really sad. The worst part of it is that so much of America gets their information from the Fox News network, and believes it as gospel.
Reporting the real news has nothing to do with political party affiliation. Now maniplating the news to influence a voting block is a different horse. the trick is to recognise such efforts as they happen.
Exactly. Charles Gibson, in spite of his ABC affilliation, is a respected journalist. Jake Tapper, on the other hand, is a Fox News wannabe who consistently shills for the GOP.
Gibson has gravitas. Tapper is a newbie who has to suck up the the rightie managemant at ABC and Disney if he hopes to some day pull down millions in "news reader" salary.
All this demonstrates is that ABC is the last to realize that axing the attorneys was a non-news story.
The President is the Head of the Executive Branch. The DOJ is part of the executive branch.
If Bush wanted to fire them b/c he didn't like their hair, he could do it. This has gone on way too long.
copiousdissent, would you mind changing your name to compliantconsent? There's just to much irony around here.
President Bush has the right as the chief executive to hire and fire whomever he wants in most cases.
It's a strawman argument that you use to try to distract us from the real issue. No one has ever said that Bush cannot hire and fire at will in most cases.
Neither he nor anyone in his administration can hire and fire based upon political motivations for career positions in the Justice Department.
ABC is at least the best of the worst. I gave them high mark's until the hookergate story, when Brian Ross hyped the public that he had some big name's to report the next day. The scuttlebutt was that Cheny was involved or sombody as big, well whoever it was they gave Brian Ross a call that night and presto the their were no big name's after all. Who know's maybe Brian Ross got an antrax letter in the mail. "Well" it did work on Tom Brokaw and the rest of the heshe's and shehe's, you know the one's who have no ball's , and the one's who wished they did didn't it?
Broadcast networks are in the business of entertainment, believe it or not. Their purpose is to attract the largest number of viewers possible in order to sell advertising time. Current big draws are the likes of Survivor, American Idol, The Bachelor, Trading Spouses, MTV's Real World - shallow, slow-moving personality-clash pseudo-reality soaps. The audience for these shows is the same which the networks attempt to attract to their nightly news broadcasts. Not surprisingly, there are parallels in style and content between the news stories we see and "Real World" types of shows. From their perspective, a report about subpoenas regarding a story that has been going on for a couple weeks is not very appealing to the ADHD afflicted majority of the potential audience. ABC was the only dissenter on that opinion, and I doubt they're reaping any benefits from their subpoena story.
As an aside, FoxNews took another tack, appealing to a segment of viewers who enjoy seeing their point-of-views reinforced, and justifying this direction by claiming to provide the "balance" to the mythical liberal media (those same guys who are trying to appeal to the most viewers in general). In other words, providing a haven for those who think right from the onslaught of those who don't. Fox gets its numbers not by appealing to the largest segment of the general audience, but by being structured to draw focus group viewers. They wouldn't want to offend their audience by airing such a story anyway.