Another CBS News Consultant "Advocated" For Surge And Against Congressional Action
(May 11, 2007 -- 5:32 PM EDT // link // )

Okay, we have another CBS News Consultant who has repeatedly advocated in favor of President Bush's war policies, and against Congressional action on the war -- Mideast scholar Fouad Ajami.

As noted below, CBS is justifying its decision to fire retired General John Batiste as a news consultant because by criticizing President Bush and calling for withdrawal from Iraq in the new VoteVets ad, he engaged in "advocacy." As CBS spokesperson Sandy Genelius put it to me earlier today, it's a violation of CBS' internal "standards" to express "a public opinion that is coming from an advocacy point of view."

Fouad Ajami repeatedly appeared on CBS throughout 2006, and up through January of 2007, consistently identified in CBS news transcripts as a "CBS News Consultant." Here, however, are some examples from the same time period of Ajami very openly advocating in favor of Bush's policies and against Congressional policies in opposition to the war.

Ajami, advocating against Congressional opposition to the war in July of 2006 at a Council on Foreign Relations Forum:

And Congress, which voted for the war, shares a great responsibility for the war. But to run around and say, “I voted against it before I voted for it; I voted for it before I voted against it,” I think that’s ridiculous....

I just don’t think this works. I can’t—I can’t—I mean, I personally don’t function like that. I think what you do is you put your head down and you work and you wish our country success. You don’t wish our country failure.

Ajami, advocating again against Congressional action on the war in July 2006 on Charlie Rose (via Nexis):

FOUAD AJAMI: It just didn`t turn out -- this is not the war they signed up for. I mean, that`s why ...

CHARLIE ROSE: Many people, exactly, they would say that.

FOUAD AJAMI: But see, but that` -- that -- you can`t -- you can`t just -- see I think -- and we`ve -- we`ve talked about this and this -- we can go over names, there is no need. I think there is something to me, you cannot support and sanction a war and then pull the plug on it because it just gets terribly complicated and then become full of righteous indignation that this war has disappointed you.

Ajami, advocating against withdrawal from Iraq in September 2006 on OpinionJournal.com:

We needn't give credence to the assertion of President Bush--that the jihadists would turn up in our cities if we pulled up stakes from Baghdad --to recognize that a terrible price would be paid were we to opt for a hasty and unseemly withdrawal from Iraq. This is a region with a keen eye for the weakness of strangers. The heated debate about the origins of our drive into Iraq would surely pale by comparison to the debate that would erupt--here and elsewhere--were we to give in to despair and cast the Iraqis adrift.

Throughout 2006, there's no evidence that this advocacy complicated Ajami's relationship with CBS in any way. I've emailed CBS to ask if he's still on contract with the network.

The larger point raised by the examples above is that the line between analysis and "advocacy" is a murky one indeed. At what point does analysis become advocacy? In the above examples, Ajami clearly strayed from analysis into advocacy, and didn't pay any price for it at CBS. Nor should he have -- and nor should Batiste have paid a price, either. No, CBS' explanation for Batiste's firing is completely, comically bogus.

Meanwhile, as Think Progress notes, CBS amended its reason today for firing Batiste, saying it was not merely his advocacy, but the fact that he appeared in an ad to "raise money for veterans against the war” that makes him unacceptable to CBS. But as TP points out, the ad wasn't designed to raise money. It was designed, yes, to engage in advocacy -- just as CBS' other news consultants have themselves done repeatedly.

Update: A few commenters below are saying that it's Batiste's appearance in the ad that was over the line and thus led to his firing. The fact is that in my earlier discussions with CBS, the network was plainly saying that any sort of advocating at all was at odds with traditional journalistic goals. But taking CBS' amended explanation at face value for the moment, why should appearing in an ad disqualify him? Why does advocating in that particular forum somehow disqualify you as an analyst while giving a speech advocating for policies at the American Enterprise Institute or on a panel discussion doesn't? There's simply no convincing reason for this to be the case. Even Allahpundit over at Michelle Malkin's Hot Air basically agrees with me here, calling out the ad distinction as a bogus one and indeed labeling the firing as "stupid."

Do we really believe that if Ajami had appeared in an ad for even, say, the Bush campaign that CBS would have fired him? Doubtful, I'd say.

Again, the point here is not that Ajami should also have been fired for advocating; it's that neither Ajami nor Batiste should pay such a price for it. These people are paid to have opinions; opinions by nature stray into advocacy. To say that an analyst has rendered himself or herself unfit to continue as an analyst because his opinions have led him to advocate for this or that policy is plainly idiotic; indeed, it's obviously not the real reason CBS fired Batiste. As Joe Klein wrote yesterday: "It's outrageous that CBS fired General Batiste for speaking out against the war." It's really that simple.

CBS Fired Antiwar Batiste -- But CBS Consultant O'Hanlon Advocated For Surge
(May 11, 2007 -- 12:28 PM EDT // link // )

As MSNBC reported late yesterday, retired General John Batiste has been fired as an analyst for CBS News because he appeared in a VoteVets ad slamming President Bush and advocating for withdrawal from Iraq.

I just checked in with CBS for an explanation, and the network gave me this statement:

General Batiste inadvertently violated our standards by appearing in the advertisement. Therefore, we and the General mutually agreed to end his consultant's arrangement with CBS News.

When I asked CBS spokesperson Sandy Genelius to clarify which standards she was talking about, Genelius told me that CBS had "internal" standards that dictated against this sort of advocacy, which she defined as "expressing a public opinion that is coming from an advocacy point of view." She added: "You are not allowed to take a public position on an issue." Think Progress got a similar explanation from Genelius today.

But I've dug up something pretty interesting. On December 31, 2006 (via Nexis), the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon appeared on CBS as a "CBS News Consultant" -- the same type of arrangement Batiste had. O'Hanlon, however, has repeatedly "advocated" in favor of the "surge."

Here's an Op ed by O'Hanlon in The Washington Post called "A Skeptic's Case For The Surge":

President Bush's plan for a surge of American troops in Iraq has run into a brick wall of congressional opposition. Critics rightly argue that it may well be too little, way too late. But for a skeptical Congress and nation, it is still the right thing to try -- as long as we do not count on it succeeding and we start working on backup plans even as we grant Bush his request...

Rather than deny funding for Bush's initiatives, Congress should provide it now -- but only for fiscal 2007 (meaning through September). By that point, or even the August congressional recess, we should know if the surge is showing promise. If it does, Congress could consider continuing its support....

If the surge fails, we will need a whole new paradigm for Iraq policy, and it is hardly too soon for Congress to start fleshing out our choices. But for now, Congress should also give the president the money and support that he requests.

Here's O'Hanlon advocating that we should keep supporting the surge on April 24:

National pride should not of course keep us in a war we have indeed lost. But we should give the surge a chance, and consider a number of "Plan Bs" if it fails, before giving up this important fight to this heinous foe in this crucial part of the world.

Writing Op eds is not quite the same as appearing in an ad, of course. But clearly, by CBS's own definition, O'Hanlon has committed "advocacy" -- he publicly advocated in favor of one policy position over another. Has he been fired by CBS? Doesn't seem like it. According to Nexis, he was on the CBS Evening News on April 28 -- after both of his pieces advocating for the surge were published.

I've contacted CBS again for comment; I'll keep you posted.

Update: Okay, I've got an even more clear cut example. Here's O'Hanlon advocating for the surge at a panel discussion on December 21, 2006:

O'Hanlon supported the overall strategy elaborated by the AEI team. However, he disagreed that it was possible to indefinitely maintain 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. O'Hanlon expressed a concern that protracted tours in Iraq, which constitute the foundation of the AEI team's sustained strategy, could "break" the U.S. military. O'Hanlon argued, the United States should view 2007 as a critical year and try a new, more vigorous approach instead of committing to Iraq unconditionally. If the new approach fails and the situation does not improve within a year, then the United States should resort to a "plan B."

Ten days later, on Dec. 31 (according to Nexis), O'Hanlon appeared on CBS as a "CBS News Consultant."

Update II: Joe Klein on another dimension to all this:

It's outrageous that CBS fired General Batiste for speaking out against the war. My reporting--flawed as it may be, since I'm a member of the mainstream media--indicates that the leaders of the uniformed military are closer to Batiste's position than to O'Hanlon's.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Rudy Campaign Reportedly Snubs Farmer For Not Being Rich; Will Media Cover It?
(May 10, 2007 -- 4:47 PM EDT // link // )

Did Rudy Giuliani's campaign snub an Iowa farmer couple because they weren't millionaires and hence wouldn't be a suitable prop for Rudy's anti-"death tax" campaigning? And will the haircut-obsessed political media cover it?

Check out this unbelievable story from the Anamosa Journal-Eureka in Jones County, Iowa, the accuracy of which I've just confirmed by phone with one of the people in it:

OLIN–Last weekend Deb and Jerry VonSprecken of Olin received a call from former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s campaign office asking them if they would be interested in holding a campaign rally on May 4, after she had donated to his campaign.

“We thought it would be an honor and agreed,” said Jerry.

After agreeing to host Rudy's rally, Deb and Jerry Von Sprecken then set about doing a bunch of work to organize the event. They underwent a security check and called a bunch of local friends and acquaintances -- and even the local sheriff and fire department -- and proudly put the pieces in place for their rally.

But then...

On Tuesday Deb received a call from Giuliani’s Des Moines office and was asked to call New York.

“They wanted to know our assets,” she revealed, and added that she and Jerry have a modest 80 acre farm and raise cattle.

Later she received a call from Tony Delgado at the Des Monies location.

“Tony said, ‘I’m sorry, you aren’t worth a million dollars and he is campaigning on the Death Tax right now.’ then he said they weren’t going to be able to come,” Deb continued.

The Death Tax is a federal version of the Iowa Inheritance Tax.

The VonSpreckens then called Delgado back and told him how upset they were that the event had been cancelled, how much work they had done and that they had been expecting 75-100 people at their farm.

“I invited him into my home,” Deb said of Giuliani, fighting back tears.

And it doesn't even end there, by the way. Turns out the campaign called them back after all that, according to the paper, and offered them a consolation prize: The opportunity to get their picture taken with Rudy. The couple dismissed this as an effort to "cover their butts" -- presumably meaning that the campaign was hoping they wouldn't go to the media, or something.

A Giuliani campaign spokesperson declined to comment to the paper on the canceled event. In other words, no denial. The Rudy campaign just confirmed to me that its non-denial to the paper is real.

I just got in touch with Deb VonSprecken, who told me the story's accurate "word for word." To top this all off, she also told me that she's got Fibromyalgia.

Here's what she told me:

"I told [Rudy's aide] from day one that we were poor folks, just trying to scrape by...When they [asked us to host the event], I was just ecstatic. We were honored. It was an honor and a privilege. We worked so hard...Why would Rudy Giuliani not come speak to the average Americans that live in eastern Iowa, instead of qualifying you as a millionaire before he will show up to your place?"

Oh, incidentally, Deb also told me that she'd be willing to speak to the media about this, too.

So will anyone from the media contact Deb? Does anyone doubt that if John Edwards or any other Dem did this it would be covered by all the major networks and chewed over endlessly by cable chat-show hosts for days and days and days?

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

********************************************************************

Update: Somerby comments below: "Is there any sign that Giuliani had ever heard one word about this? Aren't we most likely dealing with staff work here? Are you sure this account is fully accurate? Do we want the press to stop the bullshit attacks against Dem candidates? Or do we want them to start such attacks against Reps? Do you think Giuliani knew this woman had a handicap? Do you think his staffers did?"

Absolutely fair questions; let me answer them. No, there's no sign that Rudy himself knows about this. I've changed headline to reflect this. Yes, we are working with staff work here. Is the account accurate? I left a message for the reporter, and called the woman, who said it was, and called Rudy's campaign, who confirmed their nondenial; if they want to say more, I'd be glad to print it. Yes, we want the press to stop the bullshit attacks against Dems; the main point of the item above was to point out the press' unbalanced obsession with such stories on Dems -- a point worth making that's not mutually exclusive with arguing that such attacks are superficial across the board. For the record, if the top execs at the big news orgs were to all pledge to cease superficial attacks on all the candidates, regardless of party, I'd be all for it. No, Giuliani probably didn't know of her handicap. Yes, his staffers probably did; I didn't put this in the above, but the woman told me she repeatedly said this to the staffer she was dealing with. Can I prove it? No, but that's what she told me.

One last point: The Rudy campaign's apparent snubbing of this farmer couple would seem to flow directly from its policy positions, i.e., while Edwards' haircut and Gore's earth tones decidedly don't.

Update II: Another commenter says her affliction is a disorder, not a disability. If this is true, I didn't know this. She described herself as "disabled" to me, but I probably shouldn't have accepted this at face value. Text edited above.

Update III: Let me add that I don't expect the media to actually call these two. That's kind of the point of this post, not to urge the media to make the call.

Update IV: Many, many commenters below are saying that her aliment is in fact a disability. If so, apologies to Deb.

Wolf Blitzer Looks Other Way While GOP Operative Lies About CNN's Own Poll
(May 9, 2007 -- 12:24 PM EDT // link // )

Here's a sad postcript to the news about that really interesting CNN poll that came out late yesterday. Give this a watch:

As you may have noticed, Wolf's guest, GOP operative Rich Galen, said the following about CNN's numbers on support for withdrawal timetables:

"Sixty-one percent in that same poll said that they -- they disagreed with a timeline. They agreed with benchmarks. But 61 percent of the American people disagreed with them...when it comes down to the crunch, paying for the soldiers, paying -- paying the bills to continue this war against terrorism, that's 61 percent of the American people."

Wolf didn't challenge this in any way.

Wolf! The man is deceiving your viewers about your own network's poll. After all, CNN's survey showed that 57% support withdrawal timelines. Galen says 61% opposes them. But 57 plus 61 equals 118. My rudimentary understanding of mathematics tells me that the maximum number for a percentage is 100.

In reality, the poll actually found that 41%, not 61%, opposes timetables. The 61% Galen was referring to was the number that backs an approach that uses benchmarks without timetables, as Galen also pointed out. But it emphatically does not refer to the number that opposes timetables -- again, 41% -- when people are directly asked about them. The overarching political reality that there's solid majority support both for an approach that uses timetables (57%) and for an approach that uses only benchmarks (61%). Galen, for obvious reasons, was trying to obscure this reality. That's why he conflated the numbers the way he did.

This is important stuff, Wolf. Don't let the Galens of the world lie to your viewers about it.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

AP Played For Chumps As Another GOP Hit On Pelosi Bites Dust
(May 8, 2007 -- 4:36 PM EDT // link // )

Oh, man. The GOP has a new hit out on Nancy Pelosi that's even more absurd than the bogus plane story or the "controversy" over the trip to Syria. And predictably, the Associated Press is already running with the story. The AP has already gotten its reward for doing this: A pat on the head from Matt Drudge, who predictably linked the story today, complete with a big pic of Pelosi next to the headline.

Yet this latest hit is so easily debunked -- all it took was one phone call on my part -- that it's truly astonishing that the AP ever published this garbage in the first place.

Here are the specifics: The GOP is hammering Pelosi for including a provision for $25 million in waterfront improvements in San Francisco in a big water redevelopment bill passed by the House in April. The GOP is insinuating that the provision was included by Pelosi because it could boost the value of land her husband owns in the city.

The AP jumped at the GOP's accusations late yesterday, moving this story about the GOP's attack.

As the AP story noted, Pelosi's aides are defending her by pointing out that "the waterfront improvements were requested by the Port of San Francisco," not by Pelosi, and noting that the rental properties owned by Pelosi's husband are at least a mile away from the project.

If it were proven that the improvements were in fact requested by the Port of San Francisco, and not Pelosi herself, of course, it would render the story thoroughly bogus -- unfit for publication, really. The AP, however, merely attributed this line to Pelosi's people. It's unclear whether the AP made a serious effort to determine whether it was objectively true or not. This allowed the news org to run with the GOP hit as a he-said-she-said dispute.

But I've just gotten off the phone with the Port of San Francisco. Guess what? Its representatives told me in no uncertain terms that it requested the improvements, and that Pelosi only included the improvements at their request. Here's what Brad Benson, the special project manager of the Port of San Francisco, said to me:

"The port initiated these requests. They came entirely from the city and county of San Francisco. [The requests] were generated at the staff level. The port initiated our request through the city and county of San Francisco. Our requests were funneled through the mayor's office on up to Speaker Pelosi's office...If anyone is claiming that Pelosi initiated these requests in some way, that's completely false."

Got that? Those funding provisions that the GOP is insinuating Pelosi included because they benefit her husband's real estate were actually initiated by a local agency in San Francisco, the agency says, and not by Pelosi herself. It took one phone call to nail that down -- and to show that this is a complete non-story. But the AP went ahead and ran with this crap anyway. It was bad enough that the AP even ran some versions of the story with a headline that wasn't even supported by the story in the first place, as Media Matters noted. Now we find that the story doesn't hold up at all.

You might note a pattern here. If you recall, the GOP blasted Pelosi for allegedly requesting a bigger plane and the big news orgs gleefully played along. Then when Pelosi's people said that the House Sergeant-at-Arms had requested the plane, and not Pelosi, the big news orgs that had flacked the story buried that inconvenient piece of info. A similar dynamic played out with the bogus Syria tale, too.

And now again with this Port story. How the hell do we make the hackery stop?

Update: In fairness, I should point out that the story did say that the GOP offered no evidence to substantiate its insinuation. Nonetheless, the GOP's insinuation in this case should never have been put into print in the first place, as one simple telephone call revealed.

Update II: A commenter below points out that the AP prominently featured the Pelosi camp's assertion that the Port of San Fran had requested the provision. But let me reiterate: That's completely insufficient. The AP quoted this point by attributing it to the Pelosi camp, rather than taking the extra step of independently verifying it. This allowed AP to run this story as a he-said, she-said piece.

My point is that given the extent to which this central fact completely renders this a non-story, AP should have (a) independently verified that central fact; (b) concluded that this fact deals a lethal blow to the story and proves it to be nothing more than a political hit; and as a result, (c) not run the story at all. That's my point. Now, because of the failure of AP to take this simple step, the tale is already making the rounds in wingnuttia thanks to Hannity and Drudge. This story should have never run in the first place, as that one phone call shows. Quoting the Pelosi denial is simply not enough by any stretch.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Chris Matthews To War Supporter: You Got A Problem With Democracy?
(May 7, 2007 -- 6:17 PM EDT // link // )

Chris Matthews' guest, a pro-war vet, pumps his host's head up with winger talking points until it finally explodes:

In response to the inevitable "Congress is micromanaging the troops against the wishes of the Commanders" argument, Matthews says:

"...Democracy -- that means politicians run countries. You got a problem with that?"

Yeah, something like that. Geez, Matthews really was ticked -- but of course, it can get pretty exasperating just how often the basics need to be restated.

Special thanks to TPM Reader GB for flagging this.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Why The Virtual Liberal Silence On Murdoch's Bid For Wall Street Journal?
(May 7, 2007 -- 11:37 AM EDT // link // )

Suppose a billionaire megalomaniac and avowed GOP partisan with a known history of turning news organs into propaganda outlets for his chosen political party was on the verge of taking over one of the most influential and respected newspapers in the world.

The liberal blogosphere and left-leaning opinion leaders would raise a huge stink and launch an aggressive, all-out campaign to try to stop it from happening, right? Well, no.

As you know (or perhaps you don't), Rupert Murdoch is very aggressively trying to buy The Wall Street Journal over the objections of the Bancroft family, which is the Dow Jones Company's controlling shareholder, and against the wishes of the staff, which has launched a campaign to persuade the family to stand firm in its opposition to Murdoch's takeover. But the reaction on the left, unless I'm missing something, has been strikingly limited.

Some business-writer types have argued that Murdoch is just the thing business-wise for The Journal. But that's an absurdly narrow way to look at what's happening. What matters a heck of a lot more is the potential takeover's possible implications for our politics, our journalistic standards, and the quality of our discourse. For people interested in such soft-headed and peripheral matters, a Murdoch takeover could be a potential disaster in the making.

Liberal bloggers and other leading left-leaning commentators have been very aggressively taking on Fox News of late, exerting pressure on Democrats to shun Fox and deny it the credibility it craves and doesn't deserve. These efforts are showing some successes. But shouldn't folks be equally revved up by the fact that the owner of the very same Fox News now wants to get his hands on one of the most prestigious journalistic institutions in the world?

There are several reasons for the lack of liberal response here. One is that for various reasons The Journal simply isn't on the radar of liberal bloggers and media-critic types the way The New York Times, The Washington Post and the cable chat shows are. Another reason is that I think that when the family came out recently and opposed the takeover, many breathed a sigh of relief and considered the story over. But it isn't over -- at all. Murdoch's takeover bid is very much alive, and he's upping his bid to ratchet up pressure on the family. He even has begun to reveal bits about his plans for the paper.

Continue reading "Why The Virtual Liberal Silence On Murdoch's Bid For Wall Street Journal?"

Washington Post Corrects Story Claiming Dems "Backed Off" On Iraq
(May 6, 2007 -- 8:02 AM EDT // link // )

Updated below with Weisman's objections to my interpretation of the correction.

The Washington Post has now added a correction to its widely-discussed story saying Congressional Dems had "backed off" by telling the White House that they would drop withdrawal timetables from their Iraq war-funding bill:

Correction to This Article

A May 3 Page One article about negotiations between President Bush and congressional Democrats over a war spending bill said the Democrats offered the first major concession by dropping their demand that the bill it include a deadline to bring troops home from Iraq. While Democrats are no longer pushing a firm date for troop withdrawals, party leaders did not specifically make that concession during a Wednesday meeting with Bush at the White House.

In other words, the premise and headline of WaPo's front-page story were essentially false. While it does seem likely that the withdrawal timetables will be gone from whatever final compromise emerges, this concession to the White House simply never happened.

Nonetheless, the story got tons of play. As this blogger rightly notes, WaPo's story had a major impact on the debate. It caused a great deal of consternation on the left, forcing Nancy Pelosi to go before the Dem caucus to tell her charges that the story was false. It was also picked up by some reporters at the big news orgs, such as Time.com's Karen Tumulty. And it caused a fair amount of whooping and high-fives on the right. "Dems retreat on surrender initiative!" shrieked hapless winger Jules Crittendon. Except, of course, that they didn't.

Update: As a commenter below points out, it looks as if David Broder didn't read his paper's correction. In a column that otherwise makes some fair points, Broder writes today:

The Democratic leadership already has signaled its readiness to drop the timetable, and further concessions are likely as negotiations continue with the White House.

Saying Dems have "signaled" a willingness to drop the timetable isn't as definitive as the original story was, and again, it looks as if the timetables may be dropped in the end. But this concession simply hasn't been made yet in negotiations with the White House. Why the eagerness to say that it's been offered when it hasn't?

Update II: In fairness to Weisman, I'm reprinting his entire comment below objecting to my interpretation of this. He writes:

The posting was supposed to be a clarification, not a correction, and your misinterpretation ratifies the concerns of the editors who didn't want to run it in the first place. The article stated that the Democrats had made the first real concession, agreeing to drop a fixed timeline to withdraw troops from the war-funding bill. That was completely accurate, and we stand by it. House Democrats are now considering a short-term funding bill with benchmarks but no timeline. The Senate may not even go that far.

Due to the phrasing of the story's lead, Nancy Pelosi believed it sounded like that concession was offered face to face as she and Bush met at the White House. If it did sound like that, it was completely unintentional. Indeed, the editors of the paper believed the lead made no such inference at all. The concessions were made to me, as a reporter, talking to senior leadership aides and members of leadership. But because the speaker was so insistent that we clarify that the offer was not made to the president himself, I saw no harm in running the clarification as a clarification. We were not retracting or correcting anything.

I am wondering now if once again, no good deed goes unpunished. We should have run no clarification at all, and taken the heat from the speaker. And one note, Greg Sargent, you know how to reach me. Why don't you pick up your phone before you post conjecture. I'd be happy to help.

To visit the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.