CBS, NBC evening news broadcasts ignored IG report finding illegal actions in Justice Department hiring practices; ABC devoted less than 30 seconds
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Evening news broadcasts on CBS and NBC failed to cover a new report finding that the actions of top aides in the Justice Department who used political considerations in hiring "violated federal law and Department policy, and also constituted misconduct." ABC's World News, meanwhile, devoted less than 30 seconds to the report. Despite the potential implications for U.S. counterterrorism efforts, all three networks ignored the finding that "an experienced career terrorism prosecutor" was denied a counterterrorism assignment while "a much more junior attorney who lacked any experience in counterterrorism issues and who officials believed was not qualified for the position" was hired instead.
CBS and NBC again ignored the investigation into illegal hiring practices at the Justice Department, not mentioning in their July 28 or 29 evening news broadcasts a July 28 report by the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) and Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which found that the actions of top aides in the department "violated federal law and Department policy, and also constituted misconduct." ABC devoted less than 30 seconds to the report during its July 28 evening newscast. Among the report's conclusions was that the use of political considerations in hiring was "particularly damaging to the Department because it resulted in high-quality candidates for important details being rejected in favor of less-qualified candidates." The report cited as an example "an experienced career terrorism prosecutor" who was rejected for an assignment on counterterrorism issues "because of his wife's political affiliations" while "a much more junior attorney who lacked any experience in counterterrorism issues and who officials believed was not qualified for the position" was hired instead. None of the three networks mentioned that finding, despite its potential implications for U.S. counterterrorism efforts.
In March 2007, the Justice Department launched an investigation into allegations that several U.S. attorneys were forced to resign for improper reasons, including improper political purposes, and expanded the investigation to include the allegation that Monica Goodling, former White House liaison and senior Counsel to the Attorney General, "inappropriately used political or ideological affiliations in the hiring process for career Department employees." As Media Matters for America has documented, the three networks also ignored a previous report released by the IG/OPR on June 24, which was part of the investigation of the "issues related to the removal of certain United States Attorneys." According to the The New York Times, the June 24 report found that "Justice Department officials illegally used 'political or ideological' factors in elite recruiting programs in recent years, tapping law school graduates with Federalist Society membership or other conservative credentials over more qualified candidates with liberal-sounding résumés."
According to a July 29 New York Times article, the July 28 report concluded: "Senior aides to former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales broke Civil Service laws by using politics to guide their hiring decisions, picking less-qualified applicants for important nonpolitical positions, slowing the hiring process at critical times and damaging the department's credibility." In addition to the findings about counterterrorism, the report stated that officials' use of "political and ideological affiliations in soliciting and selecting" immigration judges (IJs), not only violated departmental policy and the law, but "caused significant delays in appointing IJs," adding: "These delays increased the burden on the immigration courts, which already were experiencing an increased workload and a high vacancy rate [Pages 137-138]."
From the July 28 report:
As the Department's White House Liaison, Goodling regularly screened candidates for political positions at the Department, and most of the persons Goodling screened or interviewed had applied for political positions. However, Goodling also approved the hiring of career AUSAs by interim U.S. Attorneys. She also approved the selection of career attorneys applying for details in several Department offices. In addition, she interviewed many candidates who were interested in obtaining any position in the Department, whether career or political, and she sometimes sought to place these individuals in career positions.
[...]
Our investigation found that Goodling improperly subjected candidates for certain career positions to the same politically based evaluation she used on candidates for political positions, in violation of federal law and Department policy.
[...]
The evidence also showed that Goodling considered political or ideological affiliations when recommending and selecting candidates for other permanent career positions, including a career SES position in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) and AUSA positions. These actions violated federal law and Department policy, and also constituted misconduct.
In addition, we determined that Goodling often used political or ideological affiliations to select or reject career attorney candidates for temporary details to Department offices, including positions in EOUSA that had not been filled by political appointees. Goodling's use of political considerations in connection with these details was particularly damaging to the Department because it resulted in high-quality candidates for important details being rejected in favor of less-qualified candidates. For example, an experienced career terrorism prosecutor was rejected by Goodling for a detail to EOUSA to work on counterterrorism issues because of his wife's political affiliations. Instead, EOUSA had to select a much more junior attorney who lacked any experience in counterterrorism issues and who EOUSA officials believed was not qualified for the position.
[...]
The evidence showed that the most systematic use of political or ideological affiliations in screening candidates for career positions occurred in the selection of IJs, who work in the Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). In the spring of 2004, [Kyle] Sampson created and implemented a new process for the selection of IJs. The new process ensured that all candidates for these positions were selected by the Attorney General's staff. Under this process, staff in the OAG would identify and select candidates for these positions using the Attorney General's direct appointment authority.
[...]
In sum, the evidence showed that Sampson, [Jan] Williams, and Goodling violated federal law and Department policy, and Sampson and Goodling committed misconduct, by considering political and ideological affiliations in soliciting and selecting IJs, which are career positions protected by the civil service laws.
Not only did this process violate the law and Department policy, it also caused significant delays in appointing IJs. These delays increased the burden on the immigration courts, which already were experiencing an increased workload and a high vacancy rate. EOIR Deputy Director [Kevin] Ohlson repeatedly requested candidate names to address the growing number of vacancies, with little success. As a result of the delay in providing candidates, the Department was unable to timely fill the large numbers of vacant IJ positions.
On the July 28 broadcast of ABC's World News, anchor Charles Gibson's coverage of the IG report was limited to the following: "There was strong criticism today for top aides to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. According to the Justice Department's inspector general, the aides broke federal law and department policy and committed misconduct by using political or ideological considerations when screening candidates for judgeships and career jobs at Justice. There was no indication, though, that Gonzales knew of the activity." CBS and NBC did not report on the investigation in their July 28 or 29 evening news broadcasts.
The New York Times reported in a July 29 article:
Last month, the inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, and the Office of Professional Responsibility released a separate report that found a similar pattern of politicized hiring at the Justice Department in reviewing applications from young lawyers for the honors and intern programs.
The report released on Monday goes much further in documenting pervasive evidence of political hiring for some of the department's most senior career positions, including immigration judges, assistant United States attorneys and even senior counterterrorism positions.
The pattern appeared most damaging in the hiring of immigration judges, as vacancies were allowed to go unfilled -- and a backlog of deportation cases grew -- while Mr. Gonzales's aides looked for conservative lawyers to fill what were supposed to be apolitical jobs.
From the July 28 broadcast of ABC's World News:
GIBSON: There was strong criticism today for top aides to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. According to the Justice Department's inspector general, the aides broke federal law and department policy and committed misconduct by using political or ideological considerations when screening candidates for judgeships and career jobs at Justice. There was no indication, though, that Gonzales knew of the activity.
I HATE corruption in our government. But this is all so complicated, and it happened so long ago...
Who's on "Wife Swap"
tonight?
Neon,
You hit it on the head, in my opinion. This is less about media bias or some directive to spare the Bush administration some embarrassment, but more about the news programmers decision to skip over stories they don't feel have the visual or emotional impact they feel their viewers want. So they opt for mustard jars dropping off shelves during the LA earthquake, or gotcha soundbites from politicians.
Mustard jars?
More conservative misinformation.
I'm pretty sure it was Applesauce.
Media Matters doesn't ascribe any motivation to the news media who didn't cover this or gave it only a few moments of attention.
They don't say that anything they document proves conservative bias either.
That doesn't change the fact that this fits their mission statement. The lack of information about the gross violation of proper hiring practices for non-political jobs in the Bush Justice Dept furthers the conservative agenda. These kinds of offensive behaviors need to get pointed out, and when the viewing public isn't kept informed, it makes conservatives and the Bush Administration look better than they deserve to look. I know, they look pretty crappy to anyone who pays attention now, but they need to be exposed when something this corrupt happens.
The MSM dropped the ball by not covering this in more detail.
For example and emphasis.....
Among the report's conclusions was that the use of political considerations in hiring was "particularly damaging to the Department because it resulted in high-quality candidates for important details being rejected in favor of less-qualified candidates." The report cited as an example "an experienced career terrorism prosecutor" who was rejected for an assignment on counterterrorism issues "because of his wife's political affiliations" while "a much more junior attorney who lacked any experience in counterterrorism issues and who officials believed was not qualified for the position" was hired instead.
How can they fail to cover this? It can't be possible that all the other stories they covered both days were more important to their listeners than this. How can they disrespect the American public so much that they don't offer them a chance to learn more about this kind of information on their network news shows?
"Media Matters doesn't ascribe any motivation to the news media who didn't cover this or gave it only a few moments of attention"
You're not serious Sue, you can't possibly be that naive. Of course they ascribe motivation, the covering up of a story that is unfavorable to the Bush administration. And there is no proof of that, the only thing MMFA has is that it went unnoticed on two of three network newscasts, you can jump to your own conclusions as to why that is, I have already told you mine.
...which fits MMFA's mission statement perfectly.
The omission of the story helps the Bush administration.
It's not complicated.
it's really not an either/or situation. there was plenty of time to cover the fluff and still at least note this story, which is actually a very important story. not just important today or yesterday, but a continuing story. it's not the first time the bush administration has been accused of politicizing jobs that supposedly go to the best candidate. it's a pattern.
whatever their motivations, the news media failed again to carry a story that would have made bush look bad. and since their licenses, their right to use the public airwaves for profit, are supposed to be dependent on also serving the public good, maybe that is something that needs to be looked at. after all, since you seem to be saying that real news is taking a back seat to fluff, that would not seem to be serving the public good. you would expect rush not to cover this, because he's biased. you would expect that the networks would cover it. they didn't and they without a doubt should have at least noted it.
Media Matters does not ascribe any motivations to the media.
Tommy can try to claim that they do, but they don't.
Media Matters doesn't proclaim that anything they cover proves bias either. They don't even try to claim what the motivation is of people or the MSM.
They simply document items in the media that are not credible, reliable or accurate and that forward the conservative agenda. There's no place in that for them to determine the motivation of the media for doing so.
Tommy would like it to be the case that they do try to assess the motivation of the media, but they don't.
I know it's painful for many on the left to see that Bush isn't getting impeached, when we all know that what he did wrong to our country was much worse than what Clinton did wrong to his wife and in a deposition.
It's painful to us to see the Justice Dept so crippled by corruption. It's painful to think that they'll never be a day of reckoning. I think that day will come. I would prefer that it happen today, or next week. It's not going to. I think it will come next year, or in the fews years after that. I think people like Karl Rove will be called to account for the mismanagement and abuses people like him took part in.
I can wait.
"I get where you're coming from but disagree with it. People do not watch evening news to get entertained. People what to be informed of the events of the day."
Then you almost get where I'm coming from, but not quite. Some people want to be informed of the events of the day (regarding the few who actually watch the network news), and of those, the larger segment want their information in bites of less than 60 seconds. If a story takes more than that to explain, they lose interest.
And yet people can sit through a complete hour of slow, inane "personality study" reality programming - and its reruns, I might add.
I might be stretching to assume that these are the same people, but both make up a large segment of our society which impacts programming. In other words, these are the people who determine what you see on tv, more than the broadcast executives.
If in-depth investigation into substantial issues was more popular, MacNeil/Lehrer would have ruled during the sweeps, and the networks would have adopted the same format.
It's fairly easy to believe that people in our modern society give less weight to being informed than to being entertained.
It's fairly easy to believe that people in our modern society give less weight to being informed than to being entertained.
I do not think that is the case with evening news viewers.
"This is less about media bias or some directive to spare the Bush administration some embarrassment, but more about the news programmers decision to skip over stories they don't feel have the visual or emotional impact they feel their viewers want."
And MMFA does not draw either conclusion.
Oh please, do you think if this wasn't about a Republican administration MMFA would be so concerned about the possible counterterrorism implications?
this suppression of facts by the media is not a new phenomenum. But the intensity of this effort is.
.
"But the intensity of this effort is."
Never before has the Right been under such threat, hence the desperation on their part.
Donald, your comments are all so correct I don't know where to start pointing out why you are right.
Answering your last inquiry, the Huffington Post, Firedoglake, Raw Story, Americablog, The Black Commentator, Black America Web, Digby, Crooks & Liars, are 8 liberal/progressive sites pointing out how this corporatist conservative Republican news media is actively throwing assists and lifelines to Liar McCain while they attack Obama.
This same corporatist conservative Republican news media also attacks any person or group that criticizes Liar McCain in any way.
Worse than that, Irony.
In the corporatist conservative Republican Party controlle media's case, they are PART of the corruption. The media of today are 5 corporatist conservative Republican extensions of the Republican National Committee.
Sadly, many members of the public are either ignorant, and/or they place their own Republican partisanship ahead of the country, and/or they are just as or MORE corrupt than the Republican liars they support.
"The report cited as an example "'an experienced career terrorism prosecutor'" who was rejected for an assignment on counterterrorism issues "'because of his wife's political affiliations'" while "'a much more junior attorney who lacked any experience in counterterrorism issues and who officials believed was not qualified for the position'" was hired instead."
Interesting. Bush's entire re-election campaign rested upon the idea that he was the best candidate to fight terrorism. He, Cheney, and Rove warned us that Kerry was a political opportunist who would play personal politics instead of defending of our country (I'm sooo glad we didn't elect THAT GUY!).
"ABC devoted less than 30 seconds"
You can only squeeze in so much news in one segment...
Gibson and Stephanapolous were BOTH repugnant, for 2 different repugnant reasons.
Gibson is a lying right wing Republican who wants Liar McCain, or any other Republican, to be the president. Stephanapolous wants to make nice with both the lying DINO-Con Republican Lite Clintons and his corporatist conservative Republican bosses at GOP-Disney-ABC, and GOP-Disney-ABC wants Liar McCain to be the president.
As a lifelong member of the National Sarcasm Society, let me just assure you that, oh yeah, we're REALLY concerned that you don't understand us.
And you can bet that we'll get right on deconstructing that post for you...
Dawuss:
1. You don't think crimes committed by the DOJ are worth reporting?
2. Do you have an excuse for the others not reporting on it, too?
Don't you recognize a right-wing shill when you read him (or her)? I know it is difficult to avoid responding to some idiotic statement. You want to bitch-slap them, but you must know they are just doing their job. They have to show that we are just a bunch of complaining liberals who don't see the big picture. So what's the big deal about a little thing like the DOJ being used as another shill for the President? Remember what that
fine, upstanding, heroic, and honest statesman, Richard Cheney said. "So?"
I suppose I'm either optimistic or naive--I keep hoping that reality will bite them in the @$$ and that they will at least SHUT UP on these threads.
There was no indication, though, that Gonzales knew of the activity
Those emails have long been destroyed, I guess. Gonzo should be the first to go to jail, his dept. having enabled torture and warrantless spying.
FHLH,
The Gong Show that is today's MSM is no accident. As AG, Gonzo, and therefore Dick-n-Duhhbya, are privy to the darkest secrets in the closets of the MSM's corporate masters. These guys are as likely to dig into the butt-humping of the Constitution as Charles Krauthammer is going to appear on Dancing With The Stars.
BTW, if you map out Gonzo's meteoric rise from an attorney at an oil industry-linked law firm to USAG, you'll see what a BORG-like attachment he has to Duhhbya. So, Gonzo in jail? Na Ga Ha Pen.
First, the attack ad. Many, MANY people, Republicans included, have stated that the ad presented FALSE statements about Obama's trip. That nasty old liberal, Olbermann, did a fine job, as usual. Andrea Mitchell REPEATEDLY presented a truthful and eye-witness account, refuting the claims of the ad. There was very little assistance from the rest of the anchors like Joe S. and others.
Second, the concerted plan by the White House to replace justices with GOP-friendly hacks. This story has very strong "legs" and should not be skimmed over in 30 second bites. It is important! It is dangerous! It is shameful!
In addition, and perhaps even more important, everyone should read the various comments at the end of these stories. The posters, for the most part, demonstrate a blind loyalty to a disgraceful and disgraced regime. They don't care about fairness or decency; even worse, they don't care about truth. So, whatever importance we may place on the actual "story", it is the comments made below the story that hold the key to a "clear and present danger" to our survival as an honorable country.
And the beat continues to go on.The dumbing down is in full court press.
Case in point,This new ad,trying to link Barack,Brittney and Paris Hilton.
It's very weird that the networks are ignoring this.
My favorite* Goodling interview question: "[W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?"
How many other officials in our government have absolutely no clue how a democratic government is supposed to work? I think these people truly want to live in a dictatorship.
*and by "favorite" I mean the one that scares the crap out of me the most.
"[W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?"
That was my favorite, too. But only because I was imagining Goodling as those Twilight Zone aliens in " To Serve Man". I'd probably go with a baloney and pretzel stuffing.
Great post, s.i.r.! Your clear assessment of the DOJ sale to the lowest bidder, in this case, The White House, was appreciated, especially since it was a take-down of our own beloved Tommy.
By the way, TOMMY, you wouldn't be a lawyer by any chance?
And to further illuminate this point, here's another White House official, Brad Blakeman, who has no clue how the DoJ is supposed to operate.
"Look, what you have is a very smart attorney general who's trying to protect his client and that's the president of the United States, an executive privilege."
Link to Glenn Greenwald's article, The Right Wing Understanding of Government:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/18/blakeman/
Did I say they shouldn't investigate wrongdoing? If you can't argue your point without falsely characterizing mine, then there is no point in continuing down your dishonest path.
"Did I say they shouldn't investigate wrongdoing? If you can't argue your point without falsely characterizing mine, then there is no point in continuing down your dishonest path."
Did I say you said that? Where?
It's almost August. My month. And I'm plenty hot!! Why hasn't this gross violation to our checks and balances system been hotly debated? Presidential race you say, foreclosures across the U.S. you say. I say wake up. It's has nothing more to do with ratings than Jeremiah Wright had to do with Barack being unpatriotic. We have a serious flaw in our country where the right wing agenda is constantly presented as what is "right" and everything liberal is "evil". When confronted with this bias, the bobbleheads on the right quickly play the blame game!! "The liberal media!!! The liberal media!!" The liberal media asked questions about torture, the liberal media reported the war honestly, the liberal media didn't drive a man to pick up a gun and shoot innocent people attending church because they accepted homosexuals!! The right wing media will never lives up to the same standard they hold those on the left to. Never.
To say it somehow flies in the face of the democratic process is an overreaction. -Tommy
To dismiss it as part of politics is foolish. They have attempted to change the ideology of the judicial branch of our government. You know . . . the branch that interprets the LAW. How does that not fly in the face of our democratic process. How is that not yet another egregious attack on our checks and balances system. I don't know about you Tommy, but I don't want our laws being interpreted from a conservative view alone.