ABC and NBC missed mark while reporting on Obama's, McCain's Afghanistan proposals
SUMMARY: ABC's World News and NBC's Nightly News both reported that Sen. John McCain vowed to send more troops to Afghanistan. But neither program noted that McCain also reportedly suggested that, in the words of The Washington Post, "he might call on NATO to supply part of the additional troops he hopes to send to the region." ABC's Charlie Gibson did not report that Obama, too, called for increasing troops in Afghanistan in his July 15 speech.
On the July 15 edition of ABC's World News, anchor Charles Gibson reported on Sen. Barack Obama's and Sen. John McCain's foreign policy speeches earlier that day and uncritically reported of McCain's speech: "John McCain said that he would send 10,000 more troops to join the fight in Afghanistan." On the July 15 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell similarly uncritically reported that "while Obama argues that Afghanistan, now more dangerous than Iraq, needs two more combat brigades, McCain tried to one up him, saying he would send three." But neither Gibson nor Mitchell mentioned that after his speech, McCain reportedly said that his proposal to deploy three additional brigades to Afghanistan would require "greater participation on the part of our NATO allies," and also said that, in the words of The Washington Post, "he might call on NATO to supply part of the additional troops he hopes to send to the region."
In a July 15 post on the NBC News blog First Read, NBC/National Journal's Adam Aigner-Treworgy and NBC deputy political director Mark Murray reported that, in his July 15 speech, McCain said, " 'Thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available, and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them' ... implying that additional troops could either be shifted directly from Iraq or from other regions due to troops coming home from Iraq." They added: "Yet while speaking to reporters on his bus after this morning's town hall, McCain would not commit to whether those additional brigades would definitely be American ones." The First Read post went on to note that two other McCain campaign officials similarly suggested that "some" of the additional troops McCain sought to add in Afghanistan could come from NATO:
On a conference call today, in response to a question on where the troops to Afghanistan would come from, McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann said, according to a transcript of the call: "The most immediate way to make those troops available is to ask our NATO allies to step up to the plate and send more troops. When Sen. McCain is sworn in as president, if he wins this election, it will be different rotational schedule and additional brigades will be available. We have 53 brigades or brigade equivalents in the Army and Marine Corps right now. Eighteen are deployed. Sen. McCain is looking for an additional three, some of which may come from NATO, some could be the US."
When First Read asked a senior McCain official what would happen if NATO allies decided not to contribute to an Afghanistan surge, the official replied that McCain "preferred to get as many as possible from NATO allies." But if US commanders needed three brigades, and the only troops he could send were American ones, then he'd send three American brigades, the officials said.
Moreover, Gibson reported of the two candidates' proposals regarding Afghanistan: "John McCain said he would send 10,000 more troops to join the fight in Afghanistan. Barack Obama said the war in Afghanistan would be at the top of his foreign policy agenda, and defended his call to withdrawal all combat troops from Iraq in 16 months." But at no point did Gibson report that Obama, too, called for increasing troops in Afghanistan in his July 15 speech.
From the July 15 edition of ABC's World News:
GIBSON: Next we're going to turn to presidential politics, where foreign policy was the focus of the day. John McCain said he would send 10,000 more troops to join the fight in Afghanistan. Barack Obama said the war in Afghanistan would be at the top of his foreign policy agenda and defended his call to withdrawal all combat troops from Iraq in 16 months.
Foreign policy also dominated our latest ABC News poll, and George Stephanopoulos joins us now with some of the results of that. And on the foreign policy issue, it is not particularly good news for Barack Obama.
From the July 15 edition of NBC's Nightly News:
MITCHELL: Barack Obama tried to show he can be a commander in chief by laying out his military strategy for withdrawing from Iraq and building up forces in Afghanistan.
OBAMA [video clip]: As should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain, the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was.
[...]
MITCHELL: And while Obama argues that Afghanistan, now more dangerous than Iraq, needs two more combat brigades, McCain tried to one-up him, saying he would send three. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington.
What caught my eye in this is Mitchell's use of the word "tried" in respect to both candidates. She's reporting what they both "tried" to do, meaning not the facts, but motives.
Nothing wrong with some analysis of the men's words or actions, but I just found it strange that she had to tell us that Obama was "trying" to show that he could be CIC, and McCain was "trying" to one-up him.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it seems as if she's trying to appear balanced while implying very different things.
Trying to one-up somebody is seen as aggressive and competitive, even if it's just lip-flapping or wrong.It can be seen as a strength.
Obama "trying" to show that he can be Commander in Chief plays into the inexperienced/ empty suit/ weak on war caricature that the media has been pushing. Grampy's "trying" is about out-doing Obama and being a badass, while Obama's "trying" is about just proving himself worthy or qualified.
Eh, like I said, maybe I read too much into it. Maybe Mitchell just likes guessing what people are trying to do, and reporting it as fact.
I caught that too, Col. Beach. Though, I got a different impression from it.
In my mind, Mitchell was reporting this as though it was a sporting contest, with a nuance toward the candidates statments being nothing more than campaign strategy. I get the impression that she doesn't believe the statements are either's true intentions, and this is just another handy comparison point - in what to journalists is going to be a long campaign season - that she got stuck reporting.
But maybe that's just consistent with Andreas style?
Teh whole surge thing is pretty unbelievable, I turned on Fox a couple of times last night. First there's Hannity whining that Obama won't admit that the surge is working ( a pretty subjective & empty idea in the first place), then BilldOreilly screaming about the "corrupt American media" that is failing to report every bit of White House propaganda as gospel.
They're even dragging out the "invested in defeat" BS again.
And what do you have against any American investing is something to make a profit?
I've been investing in defeat for more than two years now and my portfolio has increased by 250 %.
In fact, I doubt even Science guy's investment's do better than mine.
As soon as defeat takes a downturn I'm going to start moving my money into de-hands.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, WK. When I wrote 'the "invested in defeat" BS', of course I meant the criticism of investing in defeat.I've got a pretty good nut invested in defeat, ever since about 2000. It seemed like a wise investment with such a loser stepping into the White House.
Now I suppose all of those who weren't responsible or savvy enough to have spotted the burgeoning failure market that would naturally follow George Bush are filled with class envy, and want their share of our defeat dividends.
Colonel and Neon, I've just got a tip that the smartest investment will be in chaos and abject despair.
Come November many on the right will be trying to corner the market on the later.
How can McCain continue to get away this?
If you're asking me it's because, contrary to the RW medias claim that Obama has thousand of press agents in the media,Grampy is getting a lot of help from the mythical Liberal Media.