About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Tucker panel runs with anonymously sourced allegation of Clinton eavesdropping

October 16, 2007 10:31 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

45 Comments

On the October 16 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson and guests A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill, and Politico staff writer Josephine Hearn repeated an anonymously sourced allegation that during Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton "listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics." During the segment, Carlson and his guests did not note that the sole basis for the claim is a single unnamed source describing events that allegedly had occurred 14 years earlier. The segment also featured a series of false and baseless claims, including Carlson's attribution of the controversy to a "new book" (in fact, the book is months old) and Hearn's claim that the Clinton campaign "apparently ... never challenged anything in the book at all" (in fact, the campaign has challenged this claim and at least one other).

Minutes earlier, on the October 16 edition of Fox News' Special Report, chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reported that Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign "flatly denied" the allegation and quoted Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson saying, "This story is categorically untrue."

The claim about Hillary Clinton's purported eavesdropping is drawn from Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown & Co., June 2007), co-written by Jeff Gerth, a former New York Times investigative reporter, and Don Van Natta Jr., a current New York Times investigative reporter. Citing a single anonymous source, the book states that during the 1992 campaign, Hillary Clinton "listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack." Gerth and Van Natta add that "Bill's supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions" and further describe the tape as having been "obtained under questionable circumstances."

According to the endnotes of Her Way, Gerth and Van Natta's only source for this claim is a 2006 "[a]uthor interview with former campaign aide present at the tape playing."

From Her Way, Pages 93-94:

Hillary's defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty. She received memos about the status of various press inquiries;10 she vetted senior campaign aides;11 and she listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack. The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill. Bill's supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions.12

A lot had changed since the moment eighteen years earlier when Hillary had been aghast at the suggestion that the Clinton campaign use underhanded means to garner votes in rural Arkansas.

Yet again, Bill Clinton's chances were being jeopardized by rumors of his womanizing. And yet again, it was up to Hillary to minimize the threat -- and if that meant listening to a tape that had been obtained under questionable circumstances, then she would just deal with it.

Associated Endnotes:

10. Numerous 1992 campaign memoranda addressed to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

11. David Halberstam, War in a Time of Peace (New York: Scribner, 2001), 20.

12. Author interview with former campaign aide present at the tape playing in 2006.

From the October 16 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:

CARLSON: Hillary Clinton says she's against warrantless wiretapping, so why did she do it herself, reportedly listening in on private conversations between her political opponents? Details in a minute.

[...]

CARLSON: The conventional wisdom right now says Hillary Clinton is solidifying her front-runner status on the Democratic side, but her smooth ride to the nomination could get bumpy if rumors of scandal resurface -- and what do you know? They have. A new book out by a pair of Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporters makes a startling claim. Back in 1992, it says, Hillary Clinton allegedly eavesdropped on the phone calls of her husband's political opponents. Some Republicans say that smacks of hypocrisy especially since Senator Clinton criticizes the warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists -- trouble for Hillary Clinton?

Well, now, we welcome associate editor of The Hill, A.B. Stoddard, and the Politico's Josephine Hearn. This is an amazing story. At first, I kind of wrote this off -- it's 1992, who cares? Take look at this. This is from the book -- I'm ashamed to say I've not read, I'm gonna read -- by Don Van Natta and Jeff Gerth, both formerly of The New York Times. And it says this -- let's just put a graphic up on the screen.

This is an excerpt from the book: "[Hillary] listened to a secretly recorded audiotape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack. The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill. Bill's supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions."

That's pretty -- I mean, if that's true, that's not like tape-recording a phone call, which I think you can explain away if you're on the phone call, you know. Even if it's illegal, I think it's not an evil thing to do. But tape-recording people's cell phone calls with a police scanner?

HEARN: Right. And it looks like it is illegal and was illegal then, in '92. But on the other hand, she was just listening to a recording, right?

CARLSON: Right.

HEARN: She wasn't actually -- it was not like she was there with the equipment, you know, as the phone call was happening.

CARLSON: Right. No, that's fair.

HEARN: She just listened to a recording. So, you know, maybe -- we don't know the circumstances of it. Maybe there was -- you know, everybody was listening to it, and then, you know, would you incriminate the intern who was also sitting there listening to it at the same time.

CARLSON: Oh, I'm not suggesting that charges ought to be brought against her. I think you ought to pull -- no, I'm not. And I'm not saying "Oh, it's" -- huffing about its illegality. I'm just saying, having covered a lot of campaigns, some of them sort of intimately, I've never heard of anything like that. And I'm not just being mean to Hillary Clinton.

HEARN: Never heard of illegal activity?

CARLSON: Oh, I've heard of a lot of illegal activity.

STODDARD: Of monitoring the frequencies of cell phones?

CARLSON: I've heard of buying votes, I've heard -- and I've seen a lot of things that are sketchy, if not outright wrong. I've never heard of anybody taping phone calls on a scanner, ever, have you?

HEARN: I haven't, no.

CARLSON: Have you?

STODDARD: No. I think that it's very tech savvy, and it definitely was illegal. But I think that again, Jose is right. Are you going to blame Hillary Clinton for listening or are you going to get the guy who did the recording for the Clinton camp? I think anyone, any one of her rivals, given the opportunity in this very same situation, would listen if offered a recording like this --

CARLSON: Oh, I would listen.

STODDARD: -- to know what was coming. And any wife who has -- whose husband --

CARLSON: Yes, I think that's fair.

STODDARD: -- runs around is probably going to do the same.

CARLSON: I would listen, too. Absolutely. And I'm not faulting her for listening. I'm faulting the campaign and the Clinton operation and the culture around the Clintons for being so hardball. So -- it's the same impulse that led them to tell me personally when the Monica thing broke that Monica was like a whore and a stalker, which is what they told me. You know what I mean? It's the -- there's a meanness and a toughness that's -- it's too much.

HEARN: Why would you run a campaign --

STODDARD: You're leaving nothing to chance.

HEARN: -- where somebody would feel it was OK to do this?

CARLSON: Right.

HEARN: You know, why would there -- yeah, I think it's a big deal if somebody decides to investigate it. I mean, it's 15 years old.

CARLSON: Yeah.

HEARN: I think, lacking an investigation, I don't know, it seems pretty tenuous right now.

CARLSON: Well, the Clinton people seem to think that. They don't appear worried about it, because here's what Clinton's press secretary said. Asked for comment, he said -- I'm quoting now -- "We don't comment on books that are utter and complete failures."

In other words, we only comment on John Grisham novels. That's the only thing we're going to talk about. What does its sales numbers have to do with the truth or falseness of the allegations?

HEARN: Nothing at all, but, I mean, if you're him, you don't want to admit anything on this. They never -- apparently they never challenged anything in the book at all.

CARLSON: Right. That's what the author says.

STODDARD: And they've known about it, obviously, since before -- probably before the book was published.

CARLSON: Well, just to be clear, these are not two guys from The American Spectator. These are two -- in at least one case, I think, a pretty well-established, at least, former liberal. I mean, they're not screaming right-wingers, they're just -- they're reporters.

STODDARD: And we're all guilty of not reading the book right when it came out and discovering this for ourselves.

CARLSON: I'm embarrassed, I --

STODDARD: Look at Alex [ph].

CARLSON: You know what? I didn't read it for the same reasons a lot of people didn't. I just feel like, what could you tell me new about Hillary Clinton? I spent the entire '90s, you know, writing about this stuff, but I guess there is a lot new. But I -- people -- my strong sense about Hillary Clinton is, people don't want to know. They don't want to know. They don't care.

STODDARD: Well, the people who support her and have decided to overcome their discomfort and support her -- and there are a lot of them, and that number's growing -- probably don't want to hear about it. It'll be interesting to see what she says about it if she's pressed. But for Republicans, they have to work with what they have, and they are interested in hearing about this.

CARLSON: And they don't have squat. They don't have squat. I mean, if this were about --

STODDARD: But they'll take what they can get.

CARLSON: If this were a story about Rudy Giuliani from 1992, it would lead every show on MSNBC today. There's just no question it would. Is that -- I mean, you know it would. Rudy Giuliani using a police scanner to listen to people's cell phone calls? Holy smokes, man.

STODDARD: But, no, no. But it's not clear that she -- it was her husband's campaign.

CARLSON: Her campaign.

If it was Bernie Kerik working on behalf of Rudy Giuliani -- I'm not just claiming media bias, it's more complicated than that, but do you -- would that not be a story?

STODDARD: It might be true. It might be true.

CARLSON: Could he get away with saying --

STODDARD: Well, anything about Bernie Kerik is a story these days. I mean, to be fair.

CARLSON: All right, we're going to be back. You thought that was bad news for Republicans, wait till you hear this. Wall Street has always backed them, you knew that, forever. Well, not anymore. We'll tell you what happened in a minute.

From the October 16 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

ANGLE: There is no allegation Senator Clinton ordered the wiretapping, only that she knowingly listened to it.

GERTH [audio clip]: The person who told us about this was present at the playing of the tape recording.

ANGLE: A Clinton spokesman had earlier dismissed the account of the eavesdropping, saying they wouldn't comment on a failed book, but stopped short of denying it. Today, however, the Clinton campaign decided to go further and flatly denied the account. Communications director Howard Wolfson said, "This story is categorically untrue."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by jscott (October 16, 2007 10:44 pm ET)
         

      So now they have taken to pointing to a book that apparently no one has read in the several months it's been out, as proof of Hillary's wrongdoing.  That's some REAL investigative journalism there Tucker.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by billiybobjones7678 (October 17, 2007 12:18 am ET)
           

        Paul Waldman was not "anonymous" when he went on the Tucker Carlson program and stated that Hillary Clinton lied about "starting" MMFa.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (October 17, 2007 12:46 am ET)
             

          Quick, look over there, it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what is being talked about but look ANYWAY.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (October 17, 2007 1:42 am ET)
             

          Billybob, you need a new gig! A few of you  guys seem very concerned about who started MMFA. Why? What difference would it make?

          Report Abuse
        • Author by anyfreedomleft (October 17, 2007 8:42 am ET)
             

          There is a tiny little smattering of truth to the statement of Hillary starting MMFA.

          After the Scaife mass-purchasing success of the smear of Anita Hill by MMFA's founder David Brock, the Repukes decided to cash in on their success, and hired Brock to do a similar assault on on Hillary.

          After starting on his book, he found that he was unable to smear her like he did Anita Hill, and wrote a somewhat milder book.  Of course, Republicans realized that he might have intelligence, and started attacking him for going soft, for not pulling absolute lies out of his ass like he did with Anita Hill.

          Therefore, Brock was ostracized by the Righties.  Later, he found MMFA.  That is probably the way that Hillary "started" MMFA ... by being the catalyst that started Brock seeing the light, that his former life had been wrong. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by kozakid1769 (October 17, 2007 11:15 am ET)
               

            Actually, there is more than a smattering. The New York Times in 2004 reported that MMFA was started after Borck consulted with Hillary, Al Gore, and Tom Daschle. Later, a businesswoman who is one of Hillary's closest friends and others close to Hillary provided the funded to launch MMFA. MMFA was intially given office space to use by the Soros-funded Center for American Progress. CAP, of course, is run by John Podesta, Bill Clinton's last chief of staff.

            The connections between Bill and Hillary Clinton, CAP, MMFA, MoveOn are obvious to anyone who has taken the time to examine them.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by dave_chicago (October 17, 2007 12:06 pm ET)
                 

              The right-wingers have set different rules for "liberals", for they are required to start a media watchdog website without any support, money or consultation with any liberals anywhere at any time. Brock was supposed to use only his own money and maybe some from small, average-Joe donors.

              IOKIYAR, in action. 

              Report Abuse
            • Author by anyfreedomleft (October 17, 2007 1:09 pm ET)
                 

              Please provide the link, or the date and page from the NYTimes ...

              Was it from an article by the guy who took the bribe from Bush, or the columnist who was found to fabricate his data?

              Or is this the same guy who held on to the information at the White House's threats about the warrantless wiretapping? 

              Report Abuse
            • Author by Blue Dog (October 17, 2007 5:17 pm ET)
                 

              So you agree that bush stole the election since his cousin at FOX called the election for him? And that cheney is profitting directly from the war because of his ties to halliburton? And that the energy companies wrote the energy legislation, because cheney met with them right before it was written?

              Report Abuse
        • Author by dangrady (October 17, 2007 11:10 am ET)
             

          SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

          Is this it, this is the vast-left-wing-CLintonian conspiracy?!

          Man, if this is all they got, Hillary may well be the shoe-in nominee, and victor in the general election, which as you all know would suit me fine.

          Billy Bob, open a new bottle of Jack, and don't wake up til 2009.

          Happy Thoughts;

          Dan Grady

          Report Abuse
        • Author by dave_chicago (October 17, 2007 11:55 am ET)
             

          "[Waldman] stated that Hillary Clinton lied"

          The liar is you. Waldman did not say "Hillary lied" or anything similar, you can't produce a quote because none exists.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by novaman7966 (October 17, 2007 2:07 pm ET)
             

          Hillary herself stated recently that she did start Media Matters. Is she lying?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by ufleirx (October 16, 2007 11:28 pm ET)
         

      "anonymously sourced allegation"

       Again, with the some people say. Besides the GOP should not have a problem with this aren't they all for wire tapping?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by sundog (October 17, 2007 12:32 am ET)
         

      Hey congratulations Republicans, you managed to get four stories onto MMFA in one day that show you bashing Hillary Clinton!  How better to display your clear desire to help her to the nomination.  Maybe sometime in mid 2008 after swearing in President Romney, people will briefly talk about how the Democrat's decision to nominate her may have been influenced by an intentional smear campaign exactly like you pulled on Kerry to help him get nominated. 

       Two elections in a row where you get the exact opponent you need to keep the White House.  That's so neat.  Maybe you do deserve to be rulers for life if the opposition keeps falling for the same tricks.  Anyway, way to go.  It's apparently not too obvious because everyone is waiting till after the nomination to talk about it. 

       If the Democrats fall for this again and nominate her, I give up.  I'll follow baseball in the summer and write kids books the rest of the time.  I certainly won't argue with one more as hole  Republican.  They must have something figured out if they can keep fooling the same people with the same trick. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (October 17, 2007 1:04 am ET)
           

        I gotta say a very similar feeling made me LEAVE the Democratic Party. I still usually vote for them but they dont get my money anymore.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (October 17, 2007 9:59 am ET)
           

        Without evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume a Hillary candidacy will be like her husband's, in that she'll actually win, and then lead the country through the longest period of peace and prosperity this generation has seen, cleaning up piles of republican dooty in the process.

        With the rash of super-polite, "I'm very very sorry" spineless Democrats, I wouldn't trust anyone but Hillary to actually try to win after being nominated.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by sundog (October 17, 2007 11:33 am ET)
             

          Evidence to the contrary? Like President Romney? Is that the evidence that will convince you? Why would you assume any of that? Have you been paying any attention to how the GOP operates and how the country responds? This sounds like the Nader voters I talked to in 2000 who simply believed there was no chance of W becoming president because it was simply too terrible an idea to be true.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by steeve (October 17, 2007 1:23 pm ET)
               

            I've seen no evidence that the Clintons don't win when in this position.

            Remember, they actually care about winning.  They actually strike back against their attackers.  And they actually hate the thugs in power.

            If you want to see President Romney, watch Obama or Edwards in a general election.  They'll play fair, take the high ground, keep it civil, stay focused in the issues, and lose.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by copiousdissent.blogspot.com (October 17, 2007 12:44 am ET)
         

      Hillary Clinton Started MMFA.........

      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (October 17, 2007 12:47 am ET)
           

        Copraphagous never knows what he is talking about.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (October 17, 2007 1:44 am ET)
           

        Hillary Clinton Started MMFA.........

        So? If true, why does it matter? If true, why is it soooo important to you? What is your point? Do you have a point?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (October 17, 2007 10:07 am ET)
           

        And Hillary has done more good for this country in ONE DAY that anyone on the right has done over all of their miserable lives.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (October 17, 2007 11:12 am ET)
           

        CorpulentDescent, I really don't care if Hillary is involved in MMFA or not. Let's look into some of the incestuous relationships on the Right, shall we? Fox "News", the Washington Times, the American Spectator...who owns them? Who donates money to them? To whom do their owners donate money? Let's dig into the snakepit that orchestrated the Paula Jones perjury trap...how many familiar names will we find there? Wanna play?

        All I can say is that it's about time the Democrats learned to play this game. If MMFA has a leftward slant...HOT DAMN! Hillary isn't perfect...she's not my first choice...but I'll vote for her over ANY Republican.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by dave_chicago (October 17, 2007 12:12 pm ET)
           

        "Hillary Clinton Started MMFA........."

        Iraq has WMDs...

        The War will last six weeks, I doubt six months...

        Paul is dead...

        George Bush will make a great president... 

         

         

        Report Abuse
    • Author by nopinhm28181 (October 17, 2007 3:10 am ET)
         

      Pearl,  Isn't it obvious?? If HC started or helped start MMFA then this site has no credible claim to objectivity.  It is ostensibly here to correct misinfo by the right wing media but it clearly just tries to spin in favor of Hill and Demos, especially Hill.  Did anyone watch the clip? Its mostly boring but they all agree that there is no illegality with this incident, just hypocracy given HC's stand on wire tapping. That is the problem with yous guys, blatant hypocracy fails to penetrate your perception.....that and the whining,  boo hoo, the vast right wing conspiracy made us nominate a phony soldier in '04,  boo hoo now they are making us nominate a socialist harpy,  boo hoo our 14% approval Demo congress can't get us out of Iraq.....   President Romney is better than you deserve.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dave_chicago (October 17, 2007 2:53 pm ET)
           

        "it clearly just tries to spin in favor of Hill"

        No it doesn't. And if you took a few minutes to look, instead of being a parrot, you'd see that this site has highlighted misinformation from the right pertaining to Obama, Richardson and Edwards. All of whom have been subject to distortions, lies and other typical tactics from the right-wing playbook.

        Maybe what you ought to do -but won't- is, instead of posting inane messages here, write some letters to the people on your side who can't seem to get enough of Hillary-bashing. But you'll need a lot of stamps.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by cpinva (October 17, 2007 3:55 am ET)
         

      after getting reamed by dr. paul krugman the other nite, carlson had to come up with something, anything, to regain his "standing". that it came from a book which is in large part comprised of anonymously sourced, or already discredited items, shouldn't come as a surprise.

      i have it on good authority, from an anonymous staff member who was there, that the clintion's are responsible for the demise of the dinosaurs. hey, prove me wrong!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Graydogs (October 17, 2007 9:10 am ET)
           

        On the Today Show this morning, they discussed gossip and why many people tend to believe it, even after they are shown printed facts that refute the stories.

        They said not only do people tend to believe the words from another human over printed word, but the gossiper holds a lot of power.....bringing up, or taking down, people with their words.

        It's easy to argue here with posters if they are passing gossip that can be refuted with an original source, and link....such as photos, articles, dates, etc. As we know, it is impossible to argue with someone who throws a complete lie at you.....and you shouldn't try.

        When someone spreads gossip that is clearly a fabrication, the best thing to do is stand your ground, and insist that they shut up until they can provide the original source and facts to back it up......not link to some web site blogger who says the source is "someone close to the source", "sombody says" or "some people say".

        Report Abuse
        • Author by neondesert (October 17, 2007 9:30 am ET)
             

          That sounds like a good plan, until you see that they never shut up, show any proof, nor refute arguments debunking them.  They just move on to another article where they repeat their same allegations.

          Some people say these rumor mongers are partisan deranged lunatics.  Others say they are not lunatics.  Anonimously sourced reports state that they are authoritarian paranoids with oedipus complexes.  I wonder - do they harbor sexual tendencies toward their mothers even after they move out of the basement?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Graydogs (October 17, 2007 10:27 am ET)
               

            I've been reading MMFA since day one, so I do understand your point that these posters never shut up once they start posting lies...they move from thread to thread.

            However; many of these comments come from regular right wing posters who are simply passing more lies from right wing posts and talk show hosts.

            That said, I have seen some wonderful examples lately, of various regulars who stood their ground, and told the offenders to "put up facts or shut up." Yes, this happens all the time, but in these cases, other posters backed them up with the same threat, and the offender stopped.

            The offending statements were met with several posters "scolding" the offender by saying something like; " You know, you said, this, and then XXXX told you to offer some solid facts or proof, and we will discuss it, but you didn't, so move on." ...and if they said it again, the same thing happened. We know, it gets very tiresome being on the defensive.

            This is basicaly what MMFA is doing on a larger scale, they...joined by bloggers, media personalities, politicians, web sites, etc. as a group, are pointing our fingers at these abusers main stream media, and telling them we are on to their lies, and we are not going to let them get away with it...because HERE are the facts. 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by kozakid1769 (October 17, 2007 11:22 am ET)
                 

              I find that MMFA does a great deal of lying. For example, Eric Boehlert recently had a column about Hillary's "cackle" and John Edwards' haircuts. Boehlert claimed that the media never focuses on the personal quirks of GOP presidential candidates. That's a blatant falsehood. Just Google "Bush smirk."

              And MMFA continues to lie about Limbaugh's "phony soldier" comment.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Pithaughn (October 17, 2007 12:23 pm ET)
                   

                Hi K, is this a direct quote? "Boehlert claimed that the media never focuses on the personal quirks of GOP presidential candidates" Because I can remember a steady stream of "Ford is clumsy" , just to name one. I'd like to see the actual quote that you are refering to.

                Thanks

                Report Abuse
                • Author by dave_chicago (October 17, 2007 3:01 pm ET)
                     

                  "I find that MMFA does a great deal of lying. ... Boehlert claimed that the media never focuses on the personal quirks of GOP presidential candidates."

                  Here's what Boehlert really said (emphasis mine):

                  You simply cannot find examples in recent years of Republican presidential candidates' physical tics or trivial personal foibles that the press has pounced on and announced to be wildly important and deeply revealing.

                  Boehlert is absolutely correct.

                  Recent examples are Giuliani in a dress, and Romney with his dog on the roof of his car. Neither of those got nearly the coverage they would have had they been, say, Edwards and Obama. That's just obvious. 

                  Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (October 17, 2007 12:31 pm ET)
                   

                OK.  I Googled "Bush smirk"

                Here are the notable results from any site resembling a major media source found on the first 5 pages of the search results: 

                First page of results: 

                The first result was from Slate, in a column that dates to 1999.

                Seventh on the list is a story from CNN, also dating to 1999.

                The rest are blogs, forums or political hackery sites. 

                Second page:

                All blogs, forums or political hackery sites.

                Third page:

                One post on an ABC News discussion forum.

                The rest are blogs, forums or political hackery sites.

                Fourth page:

                One story from CBC that relates to someone else by the name of Ian Bush who smirked when he was arrested. 

                The rest are blogs, forums or political hackery sites.

                Fifth page: 

                One story from the Washington Post.

                The rest are blogs, forums or political hackery sites.

                Yep, the media sure has taken Bush's smirk and run it into the ground alright.

                 

                 

                Report Abuse
              • Author by Graydogs (October 17, 2007 12:44 pm ET)
                   

                Great....Looks like Kozakid did his job redirecting the thread away from Tucker, rumors, and anonymous sources, etc.

                He posts that Hillary started MMFA, and later he posts that Hillary got hundreds of FBI files (no one took the bait, thank you)

                Now we are talking about unflattering desciptions of politicians, and what Boehlert didn't say in an article ???

                Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (October 17, 2007 1:07 pm ET)
                   

                Bush's smirk is seen as contempt for the "little people" who are not his "base".

                It's not a smear.  It's the truth.

                Now the "Clinton runway haircut" and "Dean's scream", those were smears.

                Report Abuse
            • Author by Graydogs (October 17, 2007 11:25 am ET)
                 

              Oops...I meant to say

              "....are pointing their fingers at these abusers of main stream media,...."

               

              Gossiping... reporting mis-information, and "somebody said", "someone close to them said", "some say", are abuses of their position in the media.

               

              Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (October 17, 2007 9:53 am ET)
         

      Seriously, how many of these "anonymous sources" are just made up?

      If I repeated everything an "anonymous source" told me about what Tucker Carlson does in his private life, I'd be banned from this site.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Graydogs (October 17, 2007 11:54 am ET)
           

        Yes, that's the beauty of anonymous sources....no one can fact check the story because there is no source, which is basically gossip via the media.

        Whether it's a source of power or attention for these media mouths, or politically motivated, they are allowed to say it, and unfortunately their audience is millions who believe them. Because they said it, it must be true.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by kozakid1769 (October 17, 2007 10:19 am ET)
         

      Hillary is the same woman who somehow got access to hundreds of FBI files. The report that she engaged in a felony act of eavesdropping seems to fit her modus operandi.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Blue Dog (October 17, 2007 5:26 pm ET)
           

        Well, you should write some letters and get an investigation started!

        Let us know how that works out for you.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by jscott (October 17, 2007 6:17 pm ET)
           

        See, NOW it's FELONY eavesdropping.  By next week they'll have her crawling around planting bugs in the offices of the RNC.  Wait a minute, that story sounds familiar.....

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Pithaughn (October 17, 2007 11:31 am ET)
         

      I'll just steer the thread back on course here "Citing a single anonymous source, " "Citing a single anonymous source, " The point is, this is attack politics disguised as news analysis. Tucker is attacking Hilary, he wants to maintain whatever privelages he gets for doing the Republicans dirty work.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by juliajayne (October 17, 2007 11:44 am ET)
           

        Pit, thanks for steering. I wish others would do the same. Then we wouldn't have all of these troll ridden threads. 

        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.