About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

ABC's Sawyer whitewashes 9-12 protesters' extremism

September 15, 2009 3:32 pm ET — 51 Comments

During an interview with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer whitewashed the extremism on display during the 9-12 protests by asserting that people at the protests were "saying things like, look at the reality. We're facing a $1.6 trillion deficit. If you're facing IOUs to other countries, where suddenly they own America, our children are imperiled." In fact, far from simply complaining about the deficit, numerous protesters at the 9-12 rallies held signs featuring inflammatory attacks on Obama and other Democrats, and Good Morning America itself previously interviewed 9-12 protesters who said that "every Democratic politician is working for the mafia" and that Obama is a "communist."

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.

EMBED

Sawyer claims 9-12 protesters were "saying things like" the ballooning deficit "imperil[s]" our children

From the September 15 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:

SAWYER: There were tens of thousands of people in the street in Washington over the weekend, saying things like, "Just look at the reality. If you're facing a $1.6 trillion deficit, if you're facing IOUs to other countries, where suddenly they own America, our children are imperiled."

FEMALE 9/12 PROTESTER [video clip]: Stop spending our money. I have a grandbaby, we have a grandbaby, a year old, who isn't going to have a dime.

SAWYER: One woman said, "they won't have a discretionary dime."

But many of the protesters' signs and statements were extreme

Shuster: The 9-12 protesters gathered to "unite in apparent hatred" of Obama. On the September 14 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, guest host David Shuster noted signs at the 9-12 protest comparing Obama to "Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Fidel Castro"; "threaten[ing] the president's life"; "denigrat[ing] the ancestry and skin color" of Obama "while calling him a liar"; and portraying Obama as a "bloodsucking alien," an "illegal alien," and "the devil." Shuster also noted a sign that "use[d] the death" of Sen. Edward Kennedy to "bury" health care reform legislation.

Reported protest sign: "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy" From Talking Points Memo's 9-12 protest photo gallery:

Reported protest sign: Obama telling terrorists, "Whoa boys! I'll take it from here." From Talking Points Memo's protest photo gallery:

Reported protest sign: "Obamacare is elderly genocide." From Talking Points Memo's 9-12 protest photo gallery:

Reported protest sign: "We came unarmed [this time]." From Talking Points Memo's protest photo gallery:

Reported protest sign: "Stop" Obama "now" before "we smell the burning flesh from the ovens." From Talking Points Memo's protest photo gallery:

Reported protest sign: "The zoo has an African [lion] and the White House has a lyin' African!" From Wonkette:

ABC's own reporting undermines Sawyer's assertion

GMA previously aired protesters pushing "mafia" and "communist" smears. During the September 13 edition of Good Morning America, ABC's Yunji de Nies interviewed protesters who said that "every Democratic politician is working for the mafia" and that Obama is a "communist." Like Shuster, de Nies also noted that "Some [protesters] even called to bury Obamacare with Kennedy." During the show, ABC also aired footage of protesters holding signs depicting Obama as the Joker, comparing Obama to Karl Marx and Josef Stalin, and urging people to "Fight Liberal Fascism." One sign ABC aired read, in part: "We have waken up to your evil plans to destroy our country. Take your racist, un-American 'ACORN' groups and arrogant wife back to your own country."

During Sawyer's remarks, ABC aired protester's sign echoing Rep. Wilson's "You lie!" outburst. As Sawyer spoke about how the protesters expressed concern about the deficit, ABC aired footage of a protester holding a sign which read: "YOU LIE! NO BIG GVT. TERM LIMITS." The sign echoed Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-SC) outburst during Obama's September 9 joint address to Congress on health reform, in which Wilson shouted, "You lie!" when Obama said "our reform efforts" would not "insure illegal immigrants." But as ABC's Jake Tapper stated on the September 10 edition of World News: "Would the president's reforms apply to illegal immigrants? The answer is no."

Transcripts

From the September 15 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:

SAWYER: There were tens of thousands of people in the street in Washington over the weekend, saying things like, "Just look at the reality. If you're facing a $1.6 trillion deficit, if you're facing IOUs to other countries, where suddenly they own America, our children are imperiled."

FEMALE 9/12 PROTESTER [video clip]: Stop spending our money. I have a grandbaby, we have a grandbaby, a year old, who isn't going to have a dime.

SAWYER: One woman said, "they won't have a discretionary dime."

GEITHNER: We got into this because we borrowed too much. We lived beyond our means, both as a country -- many businesses did it, many families did it, and obviously, the financial sector did that. But, in a crisis, in a fire that was that powerful, the government had to do some deeply offensive things to help contain the damage. And we will get out of that as quickly as we can. We're not going to keep a penny in the financial system or in the U.S. economy longer than we think is absolutely necessary.

From the September 13 edition of Good Morning America:

BILL WEIR: Protesters descend on the nation's capital to rail against big government, while the president takes his health care pitch on the road. What the battle means for true reform.

[...]

KATE SNOW (ABC correspondent): A galvanizing moment in Washington on Saturday for those opposed to President Obama's health care plan. Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets to rally against Democrats in Congress and a whole lot more. And ABC's Yunji de Nies was on the National Mall for the rally. She joins us now from the White House this morning. Good morning, Yunji.

DE NIES: Good morning, Kate. The numbers are hotly debated. Washington officials estimate that as many as 75,000 people marched down Pennsylvania Avenue. Regardless of how many, their message was loud and clear.

[begin video clip]

DE NIES: They came with signs, costumes, and lots of energy. A government they see as too big, wasteful, and out of control.

PROTESTER: We don't want your new health care. We don't want any more taxes. We don't want any more stimulus. We don't want any more lies.

DE NIES: They carry a great mistrust of almost anyone in office.

PROTESTER: Every poli -- Democratic politician is working for the mafia.

MICHAEL GIBBS (protester from Ohio): He's a communist.

DE NIES: Do you really believe the president is a communist?

GIBBS: I believe he's not only a communist, but all you have to do is look at the people he's brought in as czars, you know, and look at the things he's doing.

DE NIES: Some even called to bury Obamacare with Kennedy. But the marchers insist they're not extremists.

DARIN INGE (protester from Texas): We have been mischaracterized as a mob, as terrorists, as racists, as gangsters, when really we're just Americans who are fed up.

DE NIES: The marchers' message was aimed squarely at the president.

JIM FLAUTHER (protester from Ohio): Start listening to the people, sir. We've had just about enough.

DE NIES: Mr. Obama held a health care rally of his own thousands of miles away in Minneapolis.

[end video clip]

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by MickD (September 15, 2009 3:38 pm ET)
      6  
      When is it the media's job to generally represent a political group (and cherry pick clips to further their perceived agenda)? This is awfully board-room-directed suspicious.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (September 15, 2009 3:52 pm ET)
        6  
        I agree. This is also what the press did when they cleaned up his grammar and incoherent ramblings when "quoting" him.

        Now they're trying to size up this group of protestors and give them some legitimate reason to be out there. We would be much better served if they simply had waded into the crowd and solicited random remarks directly from the people there.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mary59 (September 16, 2009 12:00 am ET)
          3  
          Speaking of incoherent, when I was referring to grammar clean-up and unintelligible ramblings, I was referring to dubya.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by wzwriter (September 15, 2009 3:59 pm ET)
      3  
      And this is the person they've chosen to be their next news anchor????
      Report Abuse
    • Author by right ON (September 15, 2009 4:06 pm ET)
      4 12
      Spare me, MMfA is no better than those who exaggerated the amount of protesters. As I said in the other thread, rockhard partisans will always over and underestimate so the narrative fits in with their rhetoric. This is MMfA's scientific backup of Sawyer's whitewash - "numerous protesters". Ridiculous.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by GRW2000 (September 15, 2009 4:20 pm ET)
         
      It's unbelievable to see how the media happen to manage to get a black man among at least 70,000 people to say they're not extremists. If a black man can say it's not about race so it should validate the protest as a peaceful and respectful one toward the president.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by only_myschly3567 (September 15, 2009 4:29 pm ET)
      7  
      "Regardless of how many, their message was loud and clear." Really? I think the 9-12 "movement" has the most unclear message I've ever heard from a protest of 65 000+ people.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by right ON (September 15, 2009 4:35 pm ET)
        4  
        On that I would probably agree with you. These protests are not about policy, but about partisanship. If these latest protesters were so concerned about big expensive government they would have taken to the streets when Bush pushed the prescription drug bill through, or expanded government and spent like crazy during his administration.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (September 15, 2009 4:39 pm ET)
          4  
          So the protest wasn't as focused and coherent as Sawyer depicted it to be?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by right ON (September 15, 2009 4:43 pm ET)
            3 4
            MMfA's complaint is because Sawyer didn't push the extremist nuts protesting and they include a few pictures as some backup of that. Of course, MMfA wants to highlight and argue against the extremists because that is red meat to them, and many of you here. Their complaint was not about focus and coherency, if that is what you infer from this thread, sorry I don't.

            I don't argue with or against extremists, it's a waste of time.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (September 15, 2009 4:50 pm ET)
              6  
              Let me ask you this:what kind of people go to a protest that doesn't actually focus on a specific issue? Don't you think that moderates are pretty likely to shun such an event? Isn't the very nature of it sort of extremist?

              If you're saying MMfA could have framed this better, I agree. But Sawyer's portrayal seems incredibly charitable, which seems noteworthy one way or another.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by right ON (September 15, 2009 5:04 pm ET)
                2 4
                Perhaps, but those people that are just hardline Republicans protesting against big government the other day, and there were plenty of those because I saw several interviewed were all complaining about Obama and what they view as expansive government; where were they when Bush was growing government. That was my point with those protesters.

                The extreme ones, the ones most in the media love to highlight and show because of it's titillating nature, are always there, and they bring signs and act like idiots to get attention - I have no time for them or care what they do. Actually, I think Sawyer was actually doing a service to the whole debate by not showing these idiots. They don't deserve the attention.

                I am disappointed in MMfA for wanting to inflame the debate by encouraging it to deteriorate to the level where these extremists are given national TV exposure. It only makes things worse.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mary59 (September 15, 2009 5:15 pm ET)
                  5  
                  Tommy, I think you're missing an important factoid. The group that turns out for these things are a strange marriage of people who just don't like Obama as Prez, and people who are more libertarian and given a venue by Fox to push their disgruntlement with the size of government.

                  Both groups are there in force. The extremists, unfortunately, are a large part of the crowd. If I were a libertarian, I'd want no part of them and wouldn't hang out in a mad tea party with 'em.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by right ON (September 15, 2009 5:25 pm ET)
                    1 4
                    What I am not missing is those that want and encourage the extremists to be highlighted, propped up, focused on and given stature by the media. And generally the media does exactly that and follows suit, all to the gleeful delight of their opponents.

                    But this time Sawyer didn't follow the playbook and tried, just a little, to highlight a normal protester who was not carrying around an insane sign of hatred. Oops. MMfA kicks into gear and attemtps to shift back into inflammatory mode and says Sawyer is whitewashing what went on simply because she may be trying to elevate the debate and make it about issues instead of idiots.

                    So when MMfA complains about the tone from the right and grandstand by acting like it turns their stomach and they want it to stop, they turn right around and complain when it isn't slobbered on all over the media. How sad.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Brabantio (September 15, 2009 5:33 pm ET)
                      4  
                      I would think that putting the spotlight on poor behavior would be part of the concept of personal responsibility. How are they supposed to be held accountable if people brush their behavior under the carpet?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by right ON (September 15, 2009 5:37 pm ET)
                        2 4
                        Do you think when the media goes gaga over them that somehow holds them accountable for their behavior? Where does that odd angle come from? I couldn't care less whether these idiots feel responsible or not for their anger and hatred, and for that matter they don't me an apology for it either, or you, or anyone.

                        As I said, it is counterproductive and useless to argue from extremes. If you and others want to take the media's bait by all means, I choose not to.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Brabantio (September 15, 2009 5:44 pm ET)
                          4  
                          I think most people would disagree with protesting based on partisanship and nothing else. So it's not really about how the protesters feel, or apologizing, but actually being held accountable to the more mainstream elements of society. I don't see how it's counterproductive or useless to recognize the nature of these people's behavior.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by right ON (September 15, 2009 5:46 pm ET)
                            1 3
                            Why? There is all sorts of bad behavior, by fringe extremists from both sides. You want it recognized and given exposure, I want it shunned and ignored. I guess we just want different things.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by funnymanpants (September 15, 2009 5:56 pm ET)
                              5 2
                              >>There is all sorts of bad behavior, by fringe extremists from both sides.

                              Such as? The protests against the war were not dominated by the fringe. The protests in DC against Obama *were* the fringe.
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by Brabantio (September 15, 2009 5:56 pm ET)
                              4  
                              How do you recognize a pattern of behavior if the behavior isn't exposed? And how do you gauge public reaction to something if that's the case?

                              How about Kanye West as an example? What if they cut out his idiotic jump on the stage, and nobody brought it up? As it is now, he had to apologize, and even then he might face some backlash from consumers. But otherwise, how would he be accountable for his actions?
                              Report Abuse
                      • Author by right ON (September 15, 2009 5:41 pm ET)
                        2  
                        Look, I have the same attitude about this recent ACORN nonsense. Many on the right want this plastered all over the media, that is absurd. It is essentially a blip of a story that deserves limited coverage. But No, many partisans want to argue about how ACORN promotes prostitution or whatever, who cares? Once again, encouraging inflammatory nonsense to shift the debate from issues to idiots. I want no part of it, from either side.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Brabantio (September 15, 2009 5:48 pm ET)
                          4 1
                          But I don't see how it's unfair to point out that the protests were partisan, hypocritical and ultimately unjustified. That's not the same thing as highlighting the worst element as being representative of the group as a whole, which is what the ACORN hype is all about.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by right ON (September 15, 2009 5:54 pm ET)
                            1 4
                            Whoa, I never said it was unfair to point out their partisanship or their hypocrisy. I just told you that is how I feel about many of them. This topic and this thread is about extremism, not hypocrisy. You'd rather blanket them all and encompass both into one corner, just as MMfA tries to do. Uh-huh, it doesn't work with me, sorry.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by funnymanpants (September 15, 2009 5:57 pm ET)
                              5  
                              >>This topic and this thread is about extremism, not hypocrisy.

                              As if those two topics are mutually exclusive. The protesters were both hypocritical and extreme.
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by Brabantio (September 15, 2009 6:03 pm ET)
                              3  
                              You yourself brought up hypocrisy. I'm saying the entire protest is poor behavior, since it's partisan nonsense. You seem to have implied agreement with that, so I don't understand why that concept shouldn't be relayed to the public.

                              On what basis do you claim I want to "blanket them all"? I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
                              Report Abuse
                          • Author by right ON (September 15, 2009 5:58 pm ET)
                            1 3
                            I think we're finished here. Your attempt to do exactly what I find distasteful on this whole topic (shift the debate from issues to idiots) is counterproductive and a waste of my time.

                            Slick, just not enough. :)

                            Enjoy your evening.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by right ON (September 15, 2009 5:59 pm ET)
                                4
                              Oh, and that was to Brabantio, but funnymanpants is wearing the same pants, so it can just as easily be directed to you. Thanks for proving my point.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by funnymanpants (September 15, 2009 6:01 pm ET)
                                4  
                                >>Oh, and that was to Brabantio, but funnymanpants is wearing the same pants, so it can just as easily be directed to you. Thanks for proving my point.

                                That's not a very coherent post, Tommy.
                                Report Abuse
                            • Author by funnymanpants (September 15, 2009 6:00 pm ET)
                              4  
                              >>I think we're finished here.

                              You might be, but we'll continue to post. Of course, my point still stands: the movement that represents the counter to Obama is represented by extremists. That is obviously news.
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by Brabantio (September 15, 2009 10:28 pm ET)
                              2  
                              That seemed uncalled for. I don't see where you think I'm shifting anything. Why do you always get so defensive and hostile when someone wants you to explain your views?
                              Report Abuse
                    • Author by funnymanpants (September 15, 2009 5:59 pm ET)
                      3  
                      >>What I am not missing is those that want and encourage the extremists to be highlighted, propped up, focused on and given stature by the media.

                      The protesters were extreme. The *majority* of them. And they are supposed to represent the counter to Obama's policy. That certainly is news.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by baba19 (September 15, 2009 8:27 pm ET)
                           
                        Furthermore, if you want to eliminate the fringe extremists from the discussion, that's fine. They should then be deducted from the total count, leaving just those attending for non-extremist concerns. From what I've seen from non-mainstream media sources -- both right and left -- that leaves a non-coverage-worthy amount.
                        Report Abuse
    • Author by SLRTX (September 15, 2009 5:06 pm ET)
      3  
      From the transcript...

      DE NIES: They carry a great mistrust of almost anyone in office.

      PROTESTER: Every poli -- Democratic politician is working for the mafia.

      The protester almost had the right group to be mad at, but his Beck-induced mind-control kicked in at the last second. Then it went down hill from there.

      I'll repeat my chant again.

      Why is this supposed to be a protest against "government" when the some of the same folks who belong to "government" are right there with you - and they just happen to be Republican politicians?

      Why, because you (protesters) are too ignorant or stupid to see that you are being conned by Republicans into venting your anger at just Obama and the Dems.

      You can't see that the other source of your frustration is standing next to you, within choking distance!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by loonz (September 15, 2009 5:06 pm ET)
      2  
      I'm not sure what these psychos want. We have lower tax revenue due to Americans being out of work which increases the deficit. And because Americans are out of work, they are applying for government assistance which also increases the deficit. Do they want us to cut off some Americans at a time when they're in dire need of help?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (September 15, 2009 6:45 pm ET)
      2  
      Sawyer whitewashed the commentary coming the protest attendees. That's what this is about.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pbg (September 15, 2009 8:56 pm ET)
      4  
      Let me anatomize for a second.
      Here's what's nuts about these folks:
      1) Young earth creationism.
      The world is only seven months old. The deficit and the downward slide in the economy began in January. They don't say everything was fine before--none of that existed.
      2) The Apocalypse
      Barack is going to destroy America. Did Bill Clinton try, and fail? Or does Obama have the One Ring?
      3) "She turned me into a newt!"
      Protesting things that haven't happened, and pretending they've been damaged when they aren't. Taxed enough Already--they just got a tax cut.
      4) They're the only people in the room.
      They don't see the plight of their neighbors--their middle-class white neighbors. The recession doesn't exist. The enormous unemployment, people losing their homes, the plight of the victims of 'health care"--it's not that they think things are fine, they don't see any of it. Really don't see any of it.

      This adds up to real schizophrenia.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NoNannyNeeded (September 15, 2009 10:43 pm ET)
      1 7
      It's a good thing the Left never goes to extreme, huh?
      "Bush is the International Terrorist" was just one of the signs in Charlotte.
      "Liar and Thief was another" in NYC 2003. NEVER heard him refered to at Hitler..How quickly we forget the past..
      Tell me,if these people who marched on Washington are so "extreme", where at the riots, fires, cars overturned, etc. Face it-these are people who are fed up with the way this government is behaving.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (September 15, 2009 11:58 pm ET)
        4 1
        Face it, we are fed up with the way the tea baggers are behaving. They're boors.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (September 16, 2009 12:41 am ET)
        5  
        So in the first part of your post, you say that the left goes to extremes because of signs that were held up. But a couple of sentences later, you're saying that the right doesn't go to extremes because they're not setting fires and flipping over cars. The lack of such violence proves that they're acting in good faith. But the lack of such violence on the left doesn't prove anything. Those people are still extreme.

        Did I read that about right?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fantagor (September 16, 2009 4:56 pm ET)
             
          Yes, it's the right resetting the rules to suit their tastes.

          Liberals holding up signs painting Bush as Hitler = extreme.

          Conservatives holding up signs painting Obama as Hitler = mainstream, because there wasn't a riot.

          They disregard that BOTH are extreme and unwarranted, but refuse to see it that way.

          Randy
          Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (September 16, 2009 6:06 pm ET)
         
      you need to consider who her guest was. Geitner is not going to comment on the tea baggers who are dumb and don't know what they are protesting about. I don't think she whitewashed anything. She tired to hold an intelligent conversation on a legitimate subject....deficits and debt.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bylinesullivan (September 17, 2009 3:54 am ET)
         
      This is how it begins. The mainstream media is infected with the extermist vocabulary, then the extremists ratchet things up, then the media meet them halfway, on and on. We'll soon be stuck in a new McCarthy era, and this relentless dehumanization could lead to worse. In the 30's, people thought they were being eminently reasonable by asking how they were going to solve "the Jewish question."
      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.