About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Kurtz allowed political appointee Cullum to compare Bush U.S. attorney firings to Clinton's without challenge*

July 30, 2007 2:54 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

25 Comments

On the July 29 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, host Howard Kurtz included conservative radio talk show host and Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) member Blanquita Cullum on a panel to "talk about the Bush administration," without emphasizing that Cullum was appointed by President Bush to serve on the BBG. Except for approximately five seconds of on-screen text, Cullum was not identified as a Bush appointee, even while she defended the Bush administration's controversial firings of nine U.S. attorneys by attacking former President Bill Clinton's administration.* Further, while discussing the controversy surrounding apparent contradictions in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales' testimony relating to the ongoing U.S. attorney scandal, Kurtz allowed Cullum to make a misleading comparison in defense of the U.S. attorneys scandal -- comparing them to President Clinton's removal of 93 U.S. attorneys when he took office.

Introducing the segment, Kurtz identified Cullum as "radio talk show host and chairwoman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors Talk Radio First Amendment Committee." For approximately five seconds, Cullum was identified on-screen as having been "appointed by President Bush as governor on the Broadcasting Board of Governors." But even though he later urged Cullum to specifically "talk about the Bush administration," Kurtz did not explain that the BBG is a government agency, nor did he disclose further that Cullum was appointed to the BBG by Bush. Indeed, on October 16, 2002, Bush nominated Cullum to be a member of the BBG; the Senate confirmed her nomination on November 14, 2002.

Since her appointment to the BBG in 2002, Kurtz has hosted Cullum 10 different times on Reliable Sources to discuss media coverage of current events, including coverage of the Bush administration. On the April 18, 2004, edition of Reliable Sources, for instance, Kurtz asked Cullum of a recent Bush press conference: "Blanquita Cullum, were the White House correspondents we just saw trying to ask tough questions, or were they trying to embarrass the president?" Cullum replied that the press conferences were a good opportunity for reporters to get their "15 minutes of fame."

Media Matters for America identified only one prior case in which Kurtz has stated that Cullum is a member of the BBG and, therefore, tied to the Bush administration. On the April 18, 2004, program, he identified her as "a presidential appointee to the Broadcasting Board of Governors" and later described her as "part of the government."

Additionally, during the July 29 segment, Kurtz failed to challenge Cullum's misleading comparison of "the firing of the 93 [U.S.] attorneys" during the Clinton administration, which Cullum claimed involved "a political motivation," and the Bush administration's controversial firing of nine U.S. attorneys. In fact, as Media Matters has previously noted, both Clinton and Bush dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office following an administration of the opposite party, as is common when a new administration of the opposite political party of its predecessor takes office. As a March 13 McClatchy Newspapers article (accessed through the Nexis database) reported, "Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration." The article added that "Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees."

Rather than challenge Cullum's misleading comparison, Kurtz appeared to adopt Cullum's assertion that "the press didn't cover" the Clinton administration controversies "the same way" they had covered the controversial Bush administration firings, by later asking ABC News correspondent Sam Donaldson: "[W]hat about Blanquita's point that the Clinton administration scandals were not covered with the same intensity as the Bush administration?"

Moreover, Kurtz went on to ask Cullum: "Blanquita, I'm going to get you off the Clinton administration, because I want to talk about the Bush administration. Let me toss you this question, which I think you'll like: Is the press being hard enough on the Democrats, for showering subpoenas on the Bush administration?" Cullum proceeded to attack Democrats, likening them to a "bad waiter at a restaurant that gets nice to you right before you're going to pay the tip." During her response, the on-screen text identified Cullum as "BBG governor."* Kurtz then "shifted gears" to a different subject without allowing any other guests to address his question.

From the July 29 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:

KURTZ: So, does this Beltway drama deserve the big headlines, or is it just routine political sniping that goes on in every administration?

Joining us now here in Washington, Sam Donaldson, ABC News correspondent and anchor of Politics Now on the ABC News Digital Network. In New York, veteran journalist Jeff Jarvis, founder of buzzmachine.com, who also blogs at prezvid.com. And in San Antonio, Blanquita Cullum, radio talk show host and chairwoman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors Talk Radio First Amendment Committee.

[...]

KURTZ: Blanquita Cullum, you might say it's a media-driven story. This all began with the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys and so forth. But even Republicans like [Sen.] Arlen Specter [PA] are saying that Gonzales has lost his credibility.

CULLUM: Well, Gonzales hasn't lost his credibility. I mean, I think that Washington suffers from short-term memory syndrome.

They forget about what happened with [former Attorney General] Janet Reno. They forget about the firing of the 93 attorneys. And they also forget that when the firing of the 93 attorneys happened, it was a political motivation. If you remember what was going on with [Former Rep.] Dan Rostenkowski [D-IL], if you remember what was going on with the Congress --

KURTZ: But wait. The fact that there have been scandals in the past and under the Clinton administration doesn't mean this isn't a legitimate and important story.

CULLUM: No, but you have to have -- no. Listen -- but the problem is you have to make this point. And that is that the press didn't cover it the same way.

And you have to remember that, for example, right now when you talk about [FBI Director Robert] Mueller and you talked about Alberto Gonzales, Mueller actually said it was his understanding. He was not in the hospital room with [former Attorney General John] Ashcroft and with Gonzales.

KURTZ: All right. Let me get --

CULLUM: So, you know, you've got to make sure that you get all these things right as well.

[...]

KURTZ: But what about -- what about Blanquita's point that the Clinton administration scandals were not covered with the same intensity as the Bush administration?

DONALDSON: Oh, Howard, it goes way back. People still think that somehow we were bad on Nixon but we weren't bad on somebody else.

If you look at all of the coverage, if you put all of the video tapes together, if you put The Washington Post, New York Times and you -- and Washington Times all together -- every time something like this comes along, it gets great extensive coverage. But the people on the other side say it's unfair.

CULLUM: Well, not completely. I mean, let's look at the incredible coverage that it got back with the Clinton administration.

KURTZ: Blanquita, I'm going to get you off the Clinton administration, because I want to talk about the Bush administration. Let me toss you this question, which I think you'll like.

Is the press being hard enough on the Democrats, for showering subpoenas on the Bush administration? For example, the congressional subpoena of [White House senior adviser] Karl Rove. They know Karl Rove is not going to testify. But it produces some headlines.

CULLUM: Well, you know what I think about that really? I think right now -- have you ever had a bad waiter at a restaurant? Have you ever had a bad waiter at a restaurant that gets nice to you right before you're going to pay the tip? This is what's happening right now with the Congress before the vote.

They're coming around and they're trying to make a lot of waves so that people will actually think that they've done something. And I'm not, like, really impressed.

I think that you are right. They're going after Rove. It's not going to happen. But they're like the waiter that wants the tip at the end of the meal.

KURTZ: All right.

Let me shift gears here and talk about CNN's YouTube debate this week. This has drawn both praise and criticism. But there's no doubt that many of the questions were different from what journalists would ask, or even think of asking.

From the February 12, 2006, edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:

KURTZ: Joining us now to talk about coverage of the King funeral, Eugene Robinson, associate editor and columnist for The Washington Post, and radio talk show host Blanquita Cullum.

[...]

KURTZ: But do you think that many journalists either ignored or downplayed these remarks initially because they agree with the criticism of Bush? So it didn't strike them as being anything particularly inflammatory?

CULLUM: Well, I also think that maybe some of them didn't write about it because they really didn't want that to be the focus of the eulogies that happened for this great woman. They were exercising --

KURTZ: So they made an editorial or a political judgment?

CULLUM: Yes, I think they were making more of an editorial than political because, frankly, it was all about -- it was supposed to be about her.

And you're right, Gene [Robinson]. The president is a big boy. I mean, he sat there and he kind of took it. But I mean, a lot of people just felt uncomfortable about it because even if they didn't like the president, they didn't think that was the venue.

If there was a venue, certainly they could have created a town hall. Or if Jimmy Carter wanted to go over there and meet at the White House or stand in front of the White House and criticize the president, or go to some other location, but this became his Janet Jackson moment. This became Jimmy Carter's Janet Jackson moment that everybody says he exposed a part of him that should not have been exposed, and we remember that more than we remember --

KURTZ: That is an analogy that never would have occurred to me.

From the April 18, 2004, edition of Reliable Sources:

KURTZ: Joining us now to grade the press' performance in New York, Janeane Garofalo, the actress and comedienne who now hosts a talk show on Air America network. And here in Washington, Blanquita Cullum, talk show host for Radio America, and she's also president of the National Association of Radio Talk Show Hosts. And commentator Arianna Huffington, author of the just-released book Fanatics and Fools: The Game Plan for Winning Back America.

Welcome.

Blanquita Cullum, were the White House correspondents we just saw trying to ask tough questions or were they trying to embarrass the president?

CULLUM: Well, I think right now it's become the kind of thing where you have the journalists out there trying to ask the tough question. It's almost getting your own little 15 minutes of fame.

KURTZ: Or 15 seconds.

CULLUM: Or 15 seconds of fame, actually. And it was a tough venue, I think, for the president. He did have a lot of courage going out there. He knew he was going to get those tough questions.

There was no surprise for him that he was going to get him. But I think the journalists did want to aim for the hard questions. They wanted to be recognized as the one that asked the toughest question.

[...]

KURTZ: Blanquita Cullum, you are also a presidential appointee to the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which take as stand on First Amendment issues.

CULLUM: That's correct. Right.

KURTZ: Is Howard Stern worthy of First Amendment defense.

CULLUM: Well, the Broadcasting Board of Governors doesn't take a stand on First Amendment issues. We oversee all the international broadcast.

The National Association of Radio Talk Show Hosts takes a position on First Amendment issues. In fact, we give an award called the Freedom of Speech Award. And one thing I think it's important to know, it wasn't a Bush administration issue that brought this forward. It was a guy in Florida that filed a lawsuit and has been following Stern for 10 years.

We as an association --

KURTZ: But you're part of the government.

CULLUM: No, no. I'm --

KURTZ: You are part of the government that is leading this crackdown.

CULLUM: No, that's not right. I am a part of the government that oversees international broadcasting, but I'm also the president of an association that stands for the First Amendment.

* CORRECTION: This item, which originally ran with the headline "Kurtz hosted Cullum to 'talk about the Bush administration' without disclosing that she is a Bush appointee," incorrectly stated that CNN Reliable Sources host Howard Kurtz did not note that guest Blanquita Cullum was a Bush appointee to the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). In fact, while Kurtz did not address the issue himself during Cullum's appearance, the on-screen text accompanying Kurtz's introduction of Cullum read that Cullum "was appointed by President Bush as governor on the Broadcasting Board of Governors." The text appeared on-screen for approximately five seconds. Throughout the segment, the on-screen text alternated between describing Cullum as a "BBG governor" and as a representative of "podjockey.com." While Cullum was responding to Kurtz's request to "talk about the Bush administration," she was identified as "BBG governor." Media Matters for America regrets the error.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by jeter2 (July 30, 2007 3:43 pm ET)
         

      Joining us now here in Washington, Sam Donaldson, ABC News correspondent and anchor of Politics Now on the ABC News Digital Network. In New York, veteran journalist Jeff Jarvis, founder of buzzmachine.com, who also blogs at prezvid.com.

      Kurtz also forgot to include that Javis is a self-avowed Democrat/Liberal.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by clams casino (July 30, 2007 3:54 pm ET)
           

        The obvious distinction between the two is that Cullum is a Bush appointee.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jeter2 (July 30, 2007 4:06 pm ET)
             

          Disclosure is disclosure.

          If a journalist had appeared and was an avowed Republican/Conservative & Kurtz didn't disclose that fact, MMFA would be all over that.

          And so would posters here.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by skeptical (July 30, 2007 4:38 pm ET)
               

            Jeter,

            Instead of living in the hypothetical world, find a real world example and present it, otherwise you have no argument.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by clams casino (July 30, 2007 4:39 pm ET)
               

            I don't know about that. Have you ever seen MMFA write an article about a guest's political leanings not being disclosed? It seems to me that these articles are always pointing out specific affilations and connections that have gone undisclosed.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by jeter2 (July 30, 2007 5:50 pm ET)
                 

              Clams,

              I don't have time to go through the archives [I'm at work] so maybe I'm wrong here about MMFA's past policy on this.

              But my point was: if two guests are appearing & Kurtz, or anyone for that matter, doesn't disclose the affiliation or ideology of either person then why does MMFA expect that just one of the guests should be singled out?

              Her background [as a Bush appointee] should have been stated, but the audience should also be made aware that the journalist is a partisan.

              To me that's fair.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Harlequin (July 30, 2007 7:34 pm ET)
                   

                but the audience should also be made aware that the journalist is a partisan.

                To me that's fair.

                 

                - jeter2 / Monday July 30, 2007 05:50:26 PM EST

                Below is taken from the about me section of Jeff Jarvis's website Buzzmachine:

                Politics: I am a liberal: a centrist leaning left. I have voted for Democrats in most elections. Nonetheless, I p*ss off Democrats for not always agreeing with them and for linking to those with whom they disagree. But that is why I like the blogosphere so much: because I end up talking with people whose opinions often don’t align with mine. I am a post-9/11 hawk, having survived the attacks on the world Trade Center. I was a supporter of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and tough on terrorism...I believe in separation of church and state but I’m not nutty about it...I am pro-choice

                That's some real partisan dude isn't it Jeter2?

                Did you notice the "I have voted for Democrats in most elections."?

                Did you notice the "I p*ss off Democrats for not always agreeing with them"?

                Did you notict the "But that is why I like the blogosphere so much: because I end up talking with people whose opinions often don’t align with mine."?

                Did you notice the "I am a post-9/11 hawk?

                Wow I'm sure Republicans, Conservatives and Bush is really going to find Jeff being a hawk really partisan.

                Report Abuse
      • Author by shotput8 (July 30, 2007 4:57 pm ET)
           

        This is probably the weakest argument in the history of the Internet.

        Allowing a Bush appointee to discuss the Bush administration without disclosure is typical of Howie Kurtz and others in the MSM.  Media critics should be above board, not feeding at the trough.  

        Report Abuse
    • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (July 30, 2007 3:47 pm ET)
         

      CULLUM: Well, Gonzales hasn't lost his credibility. I mean, I think that Washington suffers from short-term memory syndrome. They forget about what happened with [former Attorney General] Janet Reno. They forget about the firing of the 93 attorneys. And they also forget that when the firing of the 93 attorneys happened, it was a political motivation. If you remember what was going on with [Former Rep.] Dan Rostenkowski [D-IL], if you remember what was going on with the Congress --

      Notice how she defends Gonzales credibility not by stating any facts but Clinton. It amazes me how she can’t name nor address any of the scandals Republicans have committed but can round up old scandals with ease..

      CULLUM: Or 15 seconds of fame, actually. And it was a tough venue, I think, for the president. He did have a lot of courage going out there. He knew he was going to get those tough questions.

      15 minutes of fame? Please it takes courage for the President to face reports and answer questions? What kind of wuss is he?

      And Jeter, Cullum was appointed by Bush, different disclosure than self appointed Liberal.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wethepeople (July 30, 2007 4:16 pm ET)
           

        More propaganda nonsense

         

        The so called firing of 93 attorneys back in the day when Clinton was President, was him appointing new attorneys to fill those roles- yes it was political in the way that it was his right and responsibility as President of the Untied Sates just like George Sr. did before him, etc etc.

        The difference with Gonzalez is Jr. has already appointed his own Republican attorneys- yes all Republicans who have been demonstrated NOT to be fired for good cause- but just summarily dismissed in what looks like an effort to go after Democrats and elections ets etc. There is something mush more nefarious about this approach, and it's been cloaked in secrecy as usual.

        Gonzalez has given several different "versions" of why this occurred.

        It's insulting voter intelligence and undermining our democracy ... again when the Attorney General is using his appointed position not to uphold the third branch of our democracy but to do the dirty work of an administration who will stop at nothing for their own personal gain and power.

        It's pathetic that pundits and main stream media don't have the integrity to ask questions, point out the problems, or identify who they have on a panel spouting propaganda.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by crimson2 (July 30, 2007 6:22 pm ET)
             

          Dude, you don't get it. 93 attorneys is, like, 50 times more than 9. SO Clinton was clearly 50 times worse. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by voodoochild (July 30, 2007 6:59 pm ET)
               

             You are mistaken crimson about Clinton's firing. When a new President takes over the previous administration Attorneys submit their resignations. It is then the discretion of the President to either accept the resignation and replace the Attorney or keep him/her under the new administration. Before Presidnet Clinton, President George H.W. Bush did the same as did many other prior Presidents.  The difference with President George W. Bush is that he has done much later in his administration, and has fired his own appointments.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by MsOtter (July 30, 2007 9:19 pm ET)
                 

              Your substance is entirely correct, but I'm pretty sure Mr. Crimson was just joking.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (July 30, 2007 5:13 pm ET)
         

      Been over on firedoglake this morning. Data mining of the U.S. population for use in voter caging may be surfacing as an item. Except on MSM of course.

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Pithaughn (July 30, 2007 6:19 pm ET)
           

        I had to look up vote caging on Wiki. Looks like some repub operative  has edited the definition:

        Caging is a means of voter verification necessitated by a history of voter fraud: [A] careful review of the facts shows that in 2004, paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression efforts than their Republican counterparts. Examples include:

        • Paid Democrat operatives charged with slashing tires of 25 Republican get-out-the-vote vans in Milwaukee on the morning of Election Day.
        • Misleading telephone calls made by Democrat operatives targeting Republican voters in Ohio with the wrong date for the election and faulty polling place information.
        • Intimidating and deceiving mailings and telephone calls paid for by the DNC threatening Republican volunteers in Florida with legal action.
        • Union-coordinated intimidation and violence campaign targeting Republican campaign offices and volunteers resulting in a broken arm for a GOP volunteer in Florida.

        Vote fraud and voter registration fraud were significant problems in at least a dozen states around the county. Vote fraud is a reality in America that occurred not only in large battleground states like Wisconsin but in places like Alabama and Kentucky. The record indicates that in 2004, voter registration fraud was mainly the work of so-called “nonpartisan” groups such as Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and NAACP National Voter Fund. Examples include:

        • Joint task force in Wisconsin found “clear evidence of fraud in the Nov. 2 election in Milwaukee,” including more than 200 felon voters, more than 100 double voters and thousands more ballots cast than voters recorded as having voted in the city.
        • NAACP National Voter Fund worker in Ohio paid crack cocaine in exchange for a large number of fraudulent voter registration cards in names of Dick Tracy, Mary Poppins and other fictional characters.
        • Former ACORN worker said there was “a lot of fraud committed” by group in Florida, as ACORN workers submitted thousands of fraudulent registrations in a dozen states across the country, resulting in a statewide investigation of the group in Florida and multiple indictments and convictions of ACORN/Project Vote workers for voter registration fraud in several states.

        No regs or documentation of course.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by foghornleghorn (July 30, 2007 5:51 pm ET)
         

      I think I'm going to become a conservative radio talk show host.

      You get to go visit the Oval Office, give advice to the President, get appointed to government boards, have books ghost-written for you to rake in the $$$.  (Not to mention lots of attention by MMFA)

      No talent is needed (thank God).  All you have to do is lie, cover-up, and relentlessly defend the Great Leader.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mary59 (July 30, 2007 5:54 pm ET)
         

      I'd love to see a cable news show where real journalists are interviewed who can cover one story in real depth, simply reporting the facts. 

      Then go into a crowd of typical Americans and ask their opinion on the story and find out how aware those Americans are of the facts.  Then ask them where they heard information about the story.  Might be an interesting show.  (I'd probably be one of the few people who would find it interesting, anyway...)

      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (July 30, 2007 6:22 pm ET)
         

      FHL, live your dream. Though you might need some brain surgery to fully adapt.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by copiousdissent.blogspot.com (July 30, 2007 6:43 pm ET)
         

      Chris Matthews (Chief of Staff) - Scooter Libby (Chief of Staff)

      George Stephanopouls (Press Secretary) - Tony Snow (Press Secretary)

       

      Could you imagine the uproar if Scooter Libby had a show on ABC, or Tony Snow went back to host a show on MSNBC?

      You liberals are a one-way street; you don't even notice the liberal media when it is right in front of you. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nomobush (July 30, 2007 7:23 pm ET)
           

        First off, just because a person works for one party or the other doesn't make them a devotee of that party themselves. Chris Matthews is a good example of this.

        Secondly, George Stephanopolus proved that he could do a good job before he got a powerful position.

        Lastly, no one has ever said that there are no liberals in the media. What we've repeatedly debunked is that there is a liberal bias to the media in general.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by oscar the grouch (July 30, 2007 7:32 pm ET)
         

      Five seconds of on screen text ain't enough? That's more exposure that what the spoken announcement would have probably been.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by cArn (July 30, 2007 8:30 pm ET)
         

      Pithaughn, that edit on vote caging inspired me to register on Wiki and tag the whole thing.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by norotornomotor9010 (July 31, 2007 10:49 am ET)
         

      Remind me if you will why this story is so upsetting?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (July 31, 2007 1:19 pm ET)
         

      Because every entering president changes out the population of US federal attorneys. It is a little unusual to change out these folks 6 years into office. The firings seem to be for political reasons not because of compitencey. or unsucessful cases. To compare the firings as equal is missinformation.

      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.