After Don Imus was fired by MSNBC for racist and sexist comments directed at the Rutgers University women's basketball team last year, NBC News president Steve Capus spoke of the responsibility NBC News and MSNBC have for the content they broadcast. “This is about trust. It's about reputation. It's about doing what's right,” he said, later adding, “I hope we don't squander this remarkable opportunity that we have to continue this dialogue that has taken place, to continue the dialogue about what is appropriate conduct and speech, to continue the dialogue about what is happening in America. I think we have, as broadcasters, a responsibility to address those matters.”
After Don Imus was fired by MSNBC for racist and sexist comments directed at the Rutgers University women's basketball team last year, NBC News president Steve Capus spoke of the responsibility NBC News and MSNBC have for the content they broadcast. “This is about trust. It's about reputation. It's about doing what's right,” he said, later adding, “I hope we don't squander this remarkable opportunity that we have to continue this dialogue that has taken place, to continue the dialogue about what is appropriate conduct and speech, to continue the dialogue about what is happening in America. I think we have, as broadcasters, a responsibility to address those matters.”
Capus was right. All broadcasters are responsible for the content they air. But he didn't address something that is just as important -- the responsibility of broadcasters for context they fail to air.
The truth is, what we don't hear from NBC and its sister channels says a great deal more than the flowery vows of responsibility from Capus.
Last week, NBC's Nightly News aired a segment with retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey discussing “Afghan security forces.” You'd think that McCaffrey's work for a defense contractor slated to receive hundreds of millions of dollars from the State Department to train a group that is a component of the Afghan security forces would have at least merited a mention -- perhaps even on-screen text noting his involvement?
You'd be wrong:
In a report on the war in Afghanistan, NBC's Nightly News included a clip of retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey discussing “Afghan security forces.” But neither NBC News nor McCaffrey disclosed during the report that he is a member of the board of directors of DynCorp International, which has been awarded a $317.4 million contract with the State Department to “provide at least 580 civilian police advisors to advise, train, and mentor the Afghanistan National Police and the Ministry of Interior.” According to the State Department, the “Afghan National Police” are one of two components of the “Afghanistan National Security Forces.”
Of course, anyone who watches NBC and MSNBC shouldn't be surprised.
Back in April, The New York Times published an explosive report detailing the hidden relationship among numerous media military analysts, the Pentagon, and defense contractors. Following suit, Media Matters released an exhaustive report which found that since January 1, 2002, McCaffrey and others named in the Times report appeared or were quoted more than 4,500 times by news outlets, including more than 600 appearances by McCaffrey alone on NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC.
In a follow-up article published last week, the Times focused on McCaffrey's ties to contractors and appearances on the various NBC channels. Steve Capus -- the same Steve Capus who last year extolled the virtues of “responsibility,” “trust,” and “doing what's right” -- responded by contending McCaffrey need not follow NBC's conflict-of-interest rules because he's a “consultant.”
Spin, baby, spin.
On Monday, Salon's Glenn Greenwald published emails obtained from a source reportedly between McCaffrey and NBC executives that uncovered efforts between the two parties to coordinate their spin and response to the Times:
Rather than honestly investigate the numerous facts which [Times reporter David] Barstow uncovered about McCaffrey's severe conflicts, NBC instead is clearly in self-protective mode, working in tandem with McCaffrey to create justifications for what they have done. As these emails reflect, both this weekend's story about McCaffrey and the earlier NYT story in April have caused NBC News to expend substantial amounts of time, effort and resources trying to manage the P.R. aspects of this story.
But remarkably, this “news organization” has still not uttered a peep to its viewers about these stories; has not reported on any of the indisputably newsworthy events surrounding the Pentagon's “military analyst” program; and continues to present McCaffrey to its viewers as an objective source without disclosing any of the multiple connections and interests he has that would lead any reasonable person to question his objectivity.
Perhaps most notable of all is how plainly dishonest the NBC response to Barstow is -- a response which, unsurprisingly (given their coordination) is tracked by the response posted on McCaffrey's website and by his hired P.R. agent, Robert Weiner, who is pasting a defense of McCaffrey in various places on the Internet (including my comment section yesterday) without identifying himself as such. As their only defense to these accusations, both NBC and McCaffrey are repeatedly emphasizing that McCaffrey criticized the Bush administration and Donald Rumsfeld's prosecution of the Iraq War, as though that proves that McCaffrey's NBC commentary was independent and honest and not influenced by his numerous business connections to defense contractors.
Both NBC and McCaffrey are either incapable of understanding, or are deliberately ignoring, the central point: in those instances where McCaffrey criticized Rumsfeld for his war strategy, it was to criticize him for spending insufficient amounts of money on the war, or for refusing to pursue strategies that would have directly benefited the numerous companies with which McCaffrey is associated.
McCaffrey's criticism of Bush's war management doesn't disprove accusations that he was deeply conflicted when appearing as an NBC “analyst”; to the contrary, the criticisms he voiced constitute some of the most compelling evidence proving that McCaffrey should never have been on NBC -- and still should not be.
Greenwald's entire piece is a must-read. The emails he obtained will turn your stomach. They paint a pretty dismal picture of the state of affairs that is NBC News under Capus.
On Wednesday, David Brock, the founder and CEO of Media Matters, sent Capus an open letter expressing deep concern over this ongoing lack of disclosure, which sparked a call to action. The letter read, in part:
You [Capus] contended in a recent New York Times article that Gen. McCaffrey is not obliged to abide by NBC's formal conflict-of-interest rules because he is a consultant and not a news employee. However, failing to acknowledge his ties to the defense industry on-air jeopardizes both his credibility and the credibility of your network because full disclosure is the minimum requirement when the integrity of journalism is at stake.
To eliminate even the appearance of a conflict of interest or doubt over the integrity of NBC News, it is imperative that in the future Gen. McCaffrey's role as a defense contractor be fully disclosed during his appearances, particularly when he is discussing topics of interest to his clients. As recently as November 27, NBC aired a clip of Gen. McCaffrey saying that “Afghan security forces” are the “answer” to the stalemate in Afghanistan -- without disclosing that DynCorp International has been retained by the State Department to train the Afghanistan National Police, one of two components of the Afghanistan National Security Forces.
This is far from an isolated incident; Media Matters has documented numerous examples this year of failures by NBC and its sister channels to disclose apparent conflicts of interest displayed in their news reports and of their on-air reporters, anchors, contributors, and guests.
MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews is the latest culprit, using his prime-time program to preen for Pennsylvania viewers while he reportedly contemplates a run for U.S. Senate in the Keystone State. As Media Matters reports:
Noting news reporting that MSNBC's Hardball host Chris Matthews is considering running for a U.S. Senate seat in Pennsylvania, Democratic strategist Phil Singer asserted in a blog post, “If Chris Matthews is seriously considering a run ... he shouldn't be on the air right now.” Singer went on to ask: “How could he do an interview with [Democratic Pennsylvania Gov.] Ed Rendell?” Indeed, Matthews has repeatedly gushed over Rendell during interviews with the Pennsylvania governor or when speaking about him on MSNBC throughout the past year.
We're probably more likely to see Dick Morris admit he doesn't have any idea what he's talking about, ever, than see anyone at NBC or MSNBC address this ethical issue on the record before Matthews makes his intentions public. As Politico's Michael Calderone points out:
NBC is maintaining a strict code of public silence on the issue, but there's only so long that network executives can brush everything off as mere rumor and innuendo.
[...]
Matthews, on the other hand, has helped fuel speculation by meeting with Pennsylvania political leaders, talking about his boyhood dream of being a senator, publicly professing his love for the Phillies and flattering Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell on his show. Privately, he's had conversations with several political operatives to lay the groundwork for a possible run.
On Monday, Matthews' two worlds -- potential candidate and talk-show host -- almost collided, as he met with political insiders in Philadelphia to discuss the Senate run and then hosted “Hardball” from the city a few hours later.
[...]
But so far, NBC has been unwilling to comment on multiple reports, and the network's coverage of Specter and potential challengers doesn't include Matthews.
If past is prologue, Calderone shouldn't hold his breath waiting for Capus to adequately address the ethical foibles of one of MSNBC's marquee talents -- he's going to need some outside encouragement from the very people watching Matthews night after night.
The conflicts of interest at NBC are by no means the sole domain of anchors, reporters, and guests -- they've also infected news reports on important issues.
This past summer, as the energy crisis ate up significant airtime, NBC News and MSNBC seemed to join the conservative chorus of “drill, baby, drill” as Today, Nightly News, and MSNBC Live broadcast segments live from an offshore drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico.
I wonder whose parent company is a major supplier of equipment and services for the offshore drilling industry ... hmmm, I can't quite put my finger on it.
As Media Matters documented at the time:
In the midst of the debate over lifting the federal moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling, NBC's Today and Nightly News, as well as MSNBC Live, aired segments on June 26 in which NBC correspondent Janet Shamlian reported live from a drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico owned by Chevron Corp. But while two of Shamlian's reports included quotes from a Chevron spokesperson, none of her reports included an interview with or quote from any environmental organizations. And though Shamlian acknowledged the existence of “environmental debates” in one report and in another that "[m]any people believe there are environmental concerns," Shamlian did not explain those concerns. Further, neither Shamlian nor the anchors and hosts of the broadcasts on which her reports aired mentioned that General Electric Co., which holds a controlling interest in NBC Universal, has an affiliated business unit that is invested in the acquisition and production of oil and natural gas and another that is a major supplier of equipment and services for the offshore drilling industry.
These reports were hardly alone. They were kept company throughout the summer as NBC/MSNBC played fast and loose with journalistic ethics during coverage of the energy crisis.
In June, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell hosted a discussion on energy policy with former Sens. John Breaux and Trent Lott -- who she noted had just “formed a firm” together.
Viewers were treated to a conversation ranging from the energy policies of Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama to energy independence and the need for increased oil and gas production as Lott and Breaux struck a classically conservative tune. Left on the green room floor, however, was any mention of what exactly Breaux and Lott's new firm, the Breaux Lott Leadership Group, actually does.
Had Mitchell enlightened her MSNBC audience, they would have known that their firm conducts lobbying and that its clients include oil and gas companies Chevron, Shell, and Plains Exploration & Production Co.
Just two weeks later, on MSNBC Live, Chris Jansing again hosted Lott for a discussion of McCain's energy policy, and like Mitchell before her, she failed to inform viewers that Lott is on the payroll of the oil and gas industry.
Despite having failed to note Breaux and Lott's connections to the oil and gas industry, Mitchell eventually took the right first step of disclosure, informing her audience of the former senators' ties during an appearance later that summer -- this after Media Matters pointed out the problem and criticism mounted.
Mitchell is actually an excellent teaching tool here for Capus. Now that he is well aware of the problem -- and believe me, he's well aware -- he has an obligation to actually do something about it.
All the spin in the world can't dig NBC out of the ethical hole it has dug for itself this year. Capus shouldn't even try. Instead, he should do the right thing and take the first step in the right direction.
Maybe he thinks those who care about the integrity of the news they receive will just walk away.
If so, he couldn't be more wrong.
Karl Frisch, communications director for Media Matters, is filling in for Jamison Foser this week while Foser is away on a much-deserved vacation.
Editors Note: Frisch worked at MSNBC for one week leading into the 2004 presidential election helping to produce segments featuring Democratic strategist Joe Trippi.