Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Tucker Carlson Unintentionally Reveals The Role of The American Press
The most interesting part of the controversy over Obama advisor Samantha Power's referring to Hillary Clinton as a "monster" -- one might say the only interesting part -- is that immediately after Power said it, she tried to proclaim that it was "off the record." Here was Power's exact quote:
She is a monster, too -- that is off the record -- she is stooping to anything.
But the reporter who was interviewing her, Britain's Gerri Peev of The Scotsman, printed the comment anyway -- as she should have, because Peev had never agreed that any parts of the interview would be "off the record," and nobody has the right to demand unilaterally, and after the fact, that journalists keep their embarrassing remarks a secret. It's extremely likely, though, that had Power been speaking to a typical reporter from the American establishment media, her request to keep her comments a secret would have been honored. In one of the ultimate paradoxes, for American journalists -- whose role in theory is to expose the secrets of the powerful -- secrecy is actually their central religious tenet, especially when it comes to dealing with the most powerful. Protecting, rather than exposing, the secrets of the powerful is the fuel of American journalism. That's how they maintain their access to and good relations with those in power.
Illustrating that point as vividly as anything I can recall, MSNBC's Tucker Carlson had Peev on his show last night and angrily criticized her publication of Power's remarks. Carlson upbraided Peev for her lack of deference to someone as important as Power, and Peev retorted by pointing out exactly what that attitude reflects about Carlson and the American press generally (via LEXIS; h/t Mike Stark):
CARLSON: What -- she wanted it off the record. Typically, the arrangement is if someone you're interviewing wants a quote off the record, you give it to them off the record. Why didn't you do that?
PEEV: Are you really that acquiescent in the United States? In the United Kingdom, journalists believe that on or off the record is a principle that's decided ahead of the interview. If a figure in public life.
CARLSON: Right.
PEEV: Someone who's ostensibly going to be an advisor to the man who could be the most powerful politician in the world, if she makes a comment and decides it's a bit too controversial and wants to withdraw it immediately after, unfortunately if the interview is on the record, it has to go ahead.
CARLSON: Right. Well, it's a little.
PEEV: I didn't set out in any way, shape.
CARLSON: Right. But I mean, since journalistic standards in Great Britain are so much dramatically lower than they are here, it's a little much being lectured on journalistic ethics by a reporter from the "Scotsman," but I wonder if you could just explain what you think the effect is on the relationship between the press and the powerful. People don't talk to you when you go out of your way to hurt them as you did in this piece.
Don't you think that hurts the rest of us in our effort to get to the truth from the principals in these campaigns?
PEEV: If this is the first time that candid remarks have been published about what one campaign team thinks of the other candidate, then I would argue that your journalists aren't doing a very good job of getting to the truth. Now I did not go out of my way in any way, shape or form to hurt Miss Power. I believe she's an intelligent and perfectly affable woman. In fact, she's -- she is incredibly intelligent so she -- who knows she may have known what she was doing.
She regretted it. She probably acted with integrity. It's not for me to decide one way or the other whether she did the right thing. But I did not go out and try to end her career.
Credit to Tucker Carlson for being so (unintentionally) candid about the lowly, subservient role of the American press with regard to "the relationship between the press and the powerful." A journalist should never do anything that "hurts" the powerful, otherwise the powerful won't give access to the press any longer. Presumably, the press should only do things that please the powerful so that the powerful keep talking to the press, so that the press in turn can keep pleasing the powerful, in an endless, symbiotic, mutually beneficial cycle. Rarely does someone who plays the role of a "journalist" on TV so candidly describe their real function. For anyone who wants to dismiss Carlson as some buffoon who is unrepresentative of journalists generally, I would refer them to the testimony at the Lewis Libby trial of the mighty, revered Tim Russert, Washington Bureau Chief for NBC News:
When I talk to senior government officials on the phone, it's my own policy -- our conversations are confidential. If I want to use anything from that conversation, then I will ask permission.
As The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin put it: "That's not reporting, that's enabling. That's how you treat your friends when you're having an innocent chat, not the people you're supposed to be holding accountable." Unlike Carlson, Tim Russert is the Big Guy of the American press corps. He's the one they all look up to and admire, the one they invariably point to as proof that tough, adversarial journalism is alive and well in the U.S. Yet that's the same Tim Russert who admitted under oath that -- even with no "off the record" agreement -- all of his conversations with government officials are presumptively confidential, and he never reports anything unless they give him explicit permission in advance to do so.
It's the same exact subservient mindset Carlson expressed last night, just more formally and under oath. That's how the vast majority of them think and behave. As Peev asked in astonishment when Carlson insisted Power's comments should not have been published because doing "hurtful" things like that that makes the powerful dislike reporters: "Are you really that acquiescent in the United States?" See the Iraq War. Or the Bush administration. Or Tim Russert's operating rules.
I just had a very similar issue arise last week, and not for the first time. In response to media criticism I wrote, a well-known journalist emailed me out of the blue, unsolicited, with very petulant, whiny objections to what I had written. At the top of his email, he wrote "OFF THE RECORD," and he did the same with a subsequent exchange. I had never communicated with him before and never agreed to any such arrangement. But that's a common practice among journalists and many political figures; they think that they can unilaterally slap an "off the record" label on whatever they say and expect that it will be honored.
I ended up not publishing that exchange solely because the probative value was minimal and the primary effect from doing so would just have been to make him look foolish for being so petulant and thin-skinned. Publishing it would have been more vindictive and petty than instructive, so I didn't. But his unilateral "OFF THE RECORD" designation played no role in my decision.
I considered publishing it, and I am certain that had I done so, he would have accused me of acting improperly by publishing something he unilaterally decreed to be "OFF THE RECORD." Just as Russert and Carlson said, rampant secrecy is the coin of their realm, the fuel that greases their access. Nothing should ever be disclosed unless everyone agrees to disclosure and it doesn't "hurt" the person whose comments are being reported.
The number one rule of the standard establishment journalist is to avoid offending the powerful because the more offense they give, the fewer favors the powerful will do for the journalists. Conversely, and by logical necessity, the more journalists please the powerful, the more favors the powerful will do for them. As Carlson put it: "People don't talk to you when you go out of your way to hurt them as you did." I can't think of any single dynamic that better explains what has happened the last eight years than that one.
* * * * *
As for Carlson's snide, self-loving claim that "journalistic standards in Great Britain are so much dramatically lower than they are here," just watch this relentlessly probing, adversarial interview by the BBC's Jeremy Paxman of John Bolton regarding the Bush administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq, and ask yourself: how many American TV reporters would ever dare to conduct an interview of a high Bush official like this, especially when it's with a Serious Foreign Policy Expert regarding our being a Nation At War?
Glenn Greenwald writes a regular blog column for Salon.com. His most recent book is A Tragic Legacy.
© 2008 Salon.com
91 Comments so far
Show AllWhat in God's name is Gerri Peev doing on a show with a pipsqueak like Tucker Carlson? Send him back to "Dancing With the Stars" where he belongs. He's not a journalist; he's an heirhead.
It is a crying shame that only 60% of the population supposedly do not trust the media. It should be at least 95%. Of course carlson is a buffon, and so is Russert. Who would actually WATCH any of these characters? That these clowns are on the air is enough of a demonstration of how terrible the U.S. press is; do not need comments from a clown like Carlson to indicate that. The woman who called Hillary is a monster is right, but she is rather stupid to do so if she did not want the remarks published. If this is the kind of fools Obama srrounds himself with, his much touted "change" will be even less than some people believe it will be. I have never believed that he will, or can do, do much but will have to support him because John McCain is probably the most dangerous man on the planet, is only marginally smarter than Bush, and will certainly be a McBush. If it is Hillary, my support will probably be to vote again for Pogo. At least he knew who the enemy was.
Carlson is a sneering representative of the top 1% who I will be happy to see do an honest day's work(I hope it is during my lifetime).
Carlson is a shining example of why 60% of Americans now don't trust the press - and not just the 'left wing' press, but nearly all facets of the mainstream press in this country. Peev was professionally and ethically correct in her handling of this situation - and I find it interesting that Ms. Power has not complained about Peev's reporting, only a right-wing sycophant like Carlson who has no journalistic (or moral, or ethical) basis could make such an obtuse connection.
Lots of teachers I know are beginning to use examples of such tirades as learning tools in their classrooms; the good news, most students readily see through the garbage that these talking heads spew forth. There is hope - people are waking up.
That explains why the Americans don't learn the truth about what their government is doing.
There is no such thing as "OFF THE RECORD" unless both parties agree beforhand that their conversation is between them. Converstions between friends or a lawyer can and should be off the record. Reporters are not in that catagory.
I'd bet if someone on Hillary's campaign staff had done that Tucker Carlson would not have bitched about it. That is how he is, horribly biased with his one sided opinions and he's no reporter, he's another mouthy, puffed up, Rush Limbaugh and often distorts the truth.
Thank You Mr. Greenwald!!!
This is why you don't let the ultra rich own the press. As things are now, they do, especially what we call the "main stream media". They are far from main stream. They don't report, they don't hold anyone accountable, they don't tell us what we need to know as voters. And their job is supposed to be precisely that.
Carlson has shown, though not intentionally, I'm sure, that the press in this country has NO standards, let alone higher ones than those in the UK. They will kiss the asses of those they are supposed to be keeping honest, and there is NO way to do that when those same asses are the ones who pay your salary. This is nothing more than collusion at it's most cynical.
I do blame Clinton for this. He signed the legislation to make sure that the rich could buy and sell us and our right to information on those in power right down the toilet. And they have done so with an alarming capacity for thievery.
When I was in college in teh 70's we had actual news. I've been watching as the idiot level has been steadily increased to the point where the press thinks that Brittany Spears is news, and that no one cares about Iraq, the wiretapping of Americans both before and after 9-11, or anything else that we NEED to know when making a decision at the ballot box. No wonder this country has lost everything. The ultra rich declared war on their own country for their own monetary gain, and both parties went right along with it, as well as a supreme court who thinks that money and speech are the same thing.
WJM : "This is why you don't let the ultra rich own the press."
Yeah? How do you stop it or, in our case, take it back? Ain't happenin'!
Tucker Carlson is a snotty little rich boy who rode on his father's coattails. He is a Walter-Cronkite-wannabe. He is not a journalist in any sense, but a spoiled, ego-centric brat.
surrneder
In Britain and in Canada they have a more free press...perhaps because they have state run organizations like the BBC and the CBC.
The BBC was attacked by the Blair government and an attempt was made to weaken it...but it is funded by the government and has a board of directors that kept it strong. The BBC has world wide news and an impressive news coverage. The BBC news is carried on our own weakened PBS and sometimes can be seen during times when there is high tv viewership.
Part of the weakness of America is the inability of many Americans to realize other nations sometimes have better solutions to issues and problems than America.
Ignorance is not bliss.
Scotsman editor: 'We are certain it was right to publish'
SOME commentators last night criticised The Scotsman for running quotes that Ms Power tried to retract.
She made no attempt to claim that the newspaper had breached "off the record" protocols, but political bloggers in the US took issue.
But the newspaper insisted it had acted correctly.
An off-the-record quote can be used to inform a journalist, to give useful background. Before the interview began in London, Ms Power was asked whether it could be taped. She agreed.
However, she tried to withdraw the comment on Hillary Clinton after she said it, claiming it was "off the record".
Mike Gilson, The Scotsman's editor, said: "We have no opinion on whether Ms Power was right to quit and perhaps politics should be able to retain people with talent who are prepared to learn by their mistakes, but we are certain it was right to publish.
"I do not know of a case when anyone has been able to withdraw on-the-record quotes after they have been made. The interview our political correspondent Gerri Peev conducted with Ms Power was clearly on an on-the-record basis. She was clearly passionate and angry with the tactics of the Clinton camp over the Ohio primary, and that spilled over in the interview. Our job was to put that interview before the public as a matter of public interest. It was for others to judge whether the remarks were ill-judged or spoke of the inexperience in the Obama camp."
The full article contains 259 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Last Updated: 07 March 2008 10:10 PM
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Scotsman-editor-39We-are-certain.3857605.jp
I've got an idea. Why don't we get our liberal segment of the press (if there is one) to follow McCain around for the next eight months and print--with bleeps if necessary, every cuss word he utters either "on" or "off" the record.
When all the real evangelicals in America hear it again and again and every day, Hillary or Barack either one will be elected. My grandparents voted for Nixon in 1968 when such things were not printed much. Had they known (they certainly did not) that Nixon was one of the most habitually foul-mouthed men to ever enter the White House, I assure you they would have turned immediately to Hubert Humphrey, liberal or not.
As for the "monster" thing being bad for Obama, I doubt it.
All the conservatives and half the liberals already have such a suspicion about Mrs. Clinton. Yes, Obama had to accept a "resignation" to keep appearances of a "high road" right now, but the "M-word" spoken in honesty can only help him, not hurt him.
Clearly, this indicates our problem. No stories unless the government employee involved gives permission?!! Small wonder we in America are in such a mess.
How do we take it back? How did the gov't break up Standard oil back in the previous century? It's called leadership. It's called morality. It's called putting the needs of the country ahead of the few, the rich, the ultra greedy.
We need someone like Teddy Roosevelt, who stood up for what was right instead of what was politically expedient. Is there anyone out there who has that kind of integrity, that kind of moral fibre, that kind of belief in what this country should be? I don't know. But it has happened before. Look to the end of the gilded age, when we were in trouble much like now, though now we are set up for a much larger fall.
How do we take it back? I don't know, at this point, but it has to happen or the country is over.
With a few rare exceptions, tele-media news personages are a threat to our security and democracy . . . creating agendas, manipulating citizens, candidates running for office . . . and controlling so-called debates.
Political parties should hold the debates . . . if it's just two competing candidates, they simply debate . . . no time limit for answers . . . In other words THEY DEBATE amongst themselves . . . no intrusive, self-important nut cases, closet queens, etc.
If the network news manipulators don't wish to carry such intimate debates we must regard them as unpatriotic . . .
It's been happening for a lot longer than eight years. Jack London wrote a hundred years ago, "You have forgotten the editors. They draw their salaries for the policy they maintain. Their policy is to print nothing that is a vital menace to the established. The press of the United States? It is a parasitic growth that battens on the capitalist class. Its function is to serve the established by moulding public opinion, and right well it serves it."
Media whores like Carlson and Russert will always be around and whore houses like Fox News will always exist in a society that accepts image over reality.
Hoa binh
Yes the problem is image over reality.
The politicans say what people want to hear. If the people don't pay attention, not much will change. People have to hold politicians and news people accountable ..and most Americans seem unable to do that..except for a minority..like here at Common Dreams.
(sigh)
Thank you Glenn Greenwald for this important piece. I am an american, a journalist for over 20 years and once a student at a prestigious (name brand) journalism school. So with some insight, I have a few comments.
WJM above mentions that in the 70s we had real news. Well yes, it was much better than today. I was in school in the early 80s and I can tell you that I was punished by one 'journalism professor' for asking too difficult questions of the leadership of the school's public safety force, and not smiling and swallowing the crap they gave as answers to my questions. My grade was actually lowered because I pushed for the truth and upset someone who apparently was higher on the totem pole than the J. dept. So basically I felt then that I was being taught how to be a wet noodle, how to cower in the face of 'power'. What crap.
Further, I do wonder about these so-called 'journalists' in our media. Did they actually study journalism? At a weak-kneed school like mine? Or were they perhaps biz majors who found their ways into broadcast jobs? I won't spend my time googling the records of a twit like carlson, but I wonder where these people come from. It's one thing to have dim people who studied journalism at a J. school (good or bad) and went on to become MSM twits. It's another to have people call themselves journalists when they never even attended a bad J. school.
Also, it is sad in our country that people fawn over the rich and 'powerful' like they do. And you would think someone in a 'powerful' media position would still lick at the boots of someone just because they're a few rungs up the ladder. And what do these idiots think it will get them? I can't see how it would ever get them to a real scoop, a real huge nugget of reportage. They must think that if they're subservient enough to the gov't then they'll eventually be granted a huge story and be catapulted to the highest levels of tv news. Or maybe they just hope to keep receiving invites to fancy white house parties.
Finally, while I don't think the Brits have all THAT much wiggle room to lecture the US on Iraq, I am impressed to watch Paxman's performance - you could see that he wanted to cut off Bolton and scream (or maybe it was just tv theatrics - I love how he holds his head in frustrated disbelief) but he didn't cut Bolton off (too badly) and he let Bolton finish his thoughts, then responded thoughtfully and calmly. Would we get to see such respect on US tv? NO!!! Would Twit Carlson or Hannity or any of the other s&!theads handle themselves this way? NO!!! They'd be interrupting, yelling, sensationalizing, lying, and all the rest. Even the US 'good guys' like maybe a Bill Maher would interrupt, cut off, yell and basically shut down the voice of 'the enemy' - not as much as the others, but he still does it.
So just some observations, and another thank you to Glenn Greenwald.
Colleen you are exactly right. Until there is some accountability nothing will change. What's happening is that people accept the status quo and begin to function accordingly, to either survive or thrive. The tipping point is long past and the empire is in decline. And the vast majority of Americans don't even know it.
Hoa binh
It seems to be a cultural difference that caused the misunderstanding. In Britain, EVERYONE knows that the only way to stop confidential information from being published is to keep it out of the hands of journalists, and even to believe a journalist who asks a confidential question saying "this is strictly off the record, of course" is considered the height of naiveté, the political equivalent of buying beachfront property in Arizona.
Spin me some truth
Spin me some truth
I can't look at the mirror no more.
Spin me something fair
Spin me something balanced
I can't look at the mirror no more.
Sign me some spin
Dumb ee up our win
Spin up some fear
Clown code me safe
Clown code my home
(Does it take spine to win?)
Spin me some serum
And I'll perform as long
As the rattler on the hood of America
takes us all for a spin
lets lock all that awe
in the memory hole of shock
Spin me some truth
I can't look at the mirror no more.
My question is...So what?
In Power's opinion, Hillary is a monster...so what? This is news? This is a firing offence?
Personally, I dont like Hillary, but would not go as far a "monster".."scumbag", maybe...but maybe I just dont know her well enough
Example of Tucker Carlson being interviews after saying that Canadians were "like America's retarded cousin" - it is hillarious!:
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=773
RE: - It's extremely likely, though, that had Power been speaking to a typical reporter from the American establishment media, her request to keep her comments a secret would have been honored.
This may have been true during the Kennedy era when affairs were routinely covered up, but not now. There was a period when reporters were willing to report stories - but their stories were later killed by their editors. What happens now is that the reporter would usually be willing to report it unless doing so would hurt them professionally. Reporters who report unflattering details may not be granted further interviews or may be fired by their bosses.
When Reporters really wanted to get the story out, but the organization they worked for was unwilling to print such stories, they tended to leak the stories to their counterparts in Canada and the UK.
RE: - PEEV: Are you really that acquiescent in the United States? In the United Kingdom, journalists believe that on or off the record is a principle that's decided ahead of the interview. If a figure in public life.
She has a point - and I gather that "acquiescent" is a polite way of saying either "brown-nosing" or "rimming."
It is a different situation in the UK because they have Prime Minister's Questions (like Question Period in Canada). There is the Prime Minister with his Cabinet and the Leaders of the Opposition parties with their Shadow Cabinet. If the PM or his Ministers are not interested in talking to reporters, the Opposition is more than willing to do so. Secondly, while a PM may be able to avoid Reporter questions, they cannot avoid similar questions from the Opposition Leaders and their respective Shadow Cabinets.
RE: - the relationship between the press and the powerful
Note the use of the phrase "the powerful" - I doubt if Peev would use that term to describe politicians and their entourage. That said, Powers does not strike me as very media savy - nothing you say to a Reporter on duty is off record. If they want further information from you, they may try to keep your name secret, but that is as far as it goes.
RE: - The interview our political correspondent Gerri Peev conducted with Ms Power was clearly on an on-the-record basis. She was clearly passionate and angry with the tactics of the Clinton camp over the Ohio primary, and that spilled over in the interview.
Seems like the Editor figures the anger justified - or that Clinton had engaged in "tactics" which resulted in Power's moment of indiscretion.
RE: - Our job was to put that interview before the public as a matter of public interest. It was for others to judge whether the remarks were ill-judged or spoke of the inexperience in the Obama camp.
Seems like the editor is hinting strongly that the person who allowed Powers to take the interview showed "inexperience." I take that to mean that the editor figures that no one in charge of a political campaign should have allowed Powers to agree to an interview. The editor may have a point.
RE: - As for the "monster" thing being bad for Obama, I doubt it.
Agree with you - though it would have been very tempting, on Obama's part, to have let the comment stand after Clinton jumped on the NAFTA-gate bandwagon. I don't know enough about Obama to know whether he is taking the high road (for the good of the party) because he genuine believes in doing so or because he figures it makes him look good.
What strikes one wrong about the "Monster" comment is that it can be construed as a personal attack - which is considered hitting below the belt - rather than an attack on one's opponent's policies.
RE: - We need someone like Teddy Roosevelt, who stood up for what was right instead of what was politically expedient.
It is easier to see the best in past leaders because they become idealized through history. Even though what I know about this particular President seems to be good, I am not sure if I can say the same for the press. In fact, the American Press, as Tucker Carlson describes it, seems to have returned to an earlier time in American history.
Even in Europe this was the case. By his own admission, Prince Charles was not the first Royal to have a Mistress - but the press tended to be more discrete about covering these things back then.
The mainstrream press and American churches have failed America in a terrible way.
American capitalism rules supreme.
Tucker Carlson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Carlson
"He is one of the sons of Richard Warner Carlson, a former banker, Los Angeles local news anchor, U.S. ambassador to the Seychelles, director of the U.S. Information Agency, and president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. His mother is the former Patricia Caroline Swanson. He has one sibling, Buckley Swanson Peck Carlson. Carlson's maternal grandmother, Roberta Fulbright Swanson, was a sister of U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright.[1].
Carlson attended St. George's School, a boarding school in Middletown, Rhode Island. After graduation, he majored in history at the private liberal arts Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, where he left before receiving a degree in 1992"
skip
"Carlson began his journalism career as a member of the editorial staff of Policy Review, a national conservative journal now published by the Hoover Institution. He later worked as a reporter at the regionally influential Arkansas Democrat-Gazette newspaper in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Carlson is currently host of the MSNBC program Tucker at 6 p.m. ET. Carlson joined MSNBC in February 2005 from CNN, where he was the youngest anchor in the history of that network. At CNN, he hosted a number of shows and specials, including the network's political debate program, Crossfire. During the same period, Carlson also hosted a weekly public affairs program on PBS, Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered. As a magazine and newspaper journalist, Carlson has reported from around the world, most recently from Iraq and Lebanon. He has been a columnist for New York and Reader's Digest. He currently writes for Esquire, The Weekly Standard, The New Republic and The New York Times Magazine."
Loose lips sink ships, in this case the Obama campaign, so best Power leave before she does any damage. However, I have no affiliation with the Obama campaign, so I can call Hillary Clinton a monster. Monster! Monster! Monster!
I have a feeling that journalism is far from alone operating in an "Off the record" world.
Carlson just had her on so he could repeat her statements "clinton is a monster, clinton is a monster, clinton will stoop to anything, clinton will stoop to anything..." OVER AND OVER AND OVER
To reaffirm the Clinton Camps assertions of Victimhood... and point the finger at Obama... [subtext: big mean black man attacking miss prissy, paragon of southern white womanhood] shameless... vile ploy.
All while Clinton goes on her Merry Way lying and slandering with every breath... creating whole new depths of Orwellian double speak as she goes.
Carlson is no journalist and this article is an intellectual exercise at best. A false ethical construct, juxtaposing ideas to prove a sophomoric thesis... trying to paint a Picasso on cardboard.
Reading the wiki article about Carlson. Carlson had a similar dispute with the Bush campaign. Carlson said that Bush had mocked a soon to be executed woman in Texas and swore like a sailor and he was called a liar by Karen Hughes.
(For me, when I saw the video of Bush mocking a woman who would be killed that told me a great deal about Bush's character or lack of)
from wiki:
1999 Bush interview
"In 1999, during the 2000 Republican Presidential primary race, Carlson interviewed Bush, then Governor of Texas, for Talk magazine. Carlson reported that Bush mocked soon-to-be-executed Texas death row inmate Karla Faye Tucker and "cursed like a sailor." Bush's communications director Karen Hughes publicly disputed this claim.
Asked by Salon about the response to his article on Bush, Carlson characterized it as "very, very hostile. The reaction was: You betrayed us. Well, I was never there as a partisan to begin with. Then I heard that (on the campaign bus, Bush communications director) Karen Hughes accused me of lying. And so I called Karen and asked her why she was saying this, and she had this almost Orwellian rap that she laid on me about how things she'd heard — that I watched her hear — she in fact had never heard, and she'd never heard Bush use profanity ever. It was insane. I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness. They get carried away, consultants do, in the heat of the campaign, they're really invested in this. A lot of times they really like the candidate. That's all conventional. But on some level, you think, there's a hint of recognition that there is reality — even if they don't recognize reality exists — there is an objective truth. With Karen you didn't get that sense at all. A lot of people like her. A lot of people I know like her. I'm not one of them."[8]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_Carlson
"People don't talk to you when you go out of your way to hurt them as you did in this piece."
Pissant and sycophant come to mind.
cranky_chatter is correct. Tucker is a spokesperson for immutable corporate/m.i.c.interests. He's got more sacred cows in his herd than the largest ranch in Montana.
The corporatist media in the US are entirely absorbed into the 'Vichy' government.
Both parties and the MSM are part and parcel of this 'Vichy' facade behind which the corporatist Empire hides.
This is much more sophisticated than the single party 'Vichy' regime that the Nazi Empire hid behind ---- with limited success (other than being recognized as the valid government of France by the US)!
If you have both parties and the media acting fully at the behest of the corporatist Empire ---- my god man, Goebbels would turn over in his grave with envey.
"With that kind of a facade --- you could really run a thousand year Reich."
glenn greenwald thank you for the article...
especially the quote...
"The number one rule of the standard establishment journalist is to avoid offending the powerful because the more offense they give, the fewer favors the powerful will do for the journalists. Conversely, and by logical necessity, the more journalists please the powerful, the more favors the powerful will do for them"
thank god for Democracy Now.....
obama missed an opportunity, there was no need to dismiss powers. he should have said ms powers is entitled to her opinion, let's get back to those tax returns, where are they? it's pathetic that a person who actually has wisdom (prof, pulitzer prize) is disqualified for being candid (in context even!!! - monster b/c of campaign tactics). if anything it illustrates our puritanical heritage. i think the tabloid press in britian and the public in the UK is more honest about their feelings(listen to PM questions on c-span). isn't this why talented US journalists like g palast set up shop in britian. the scotsman did the right thing, the response of americans (politicians/american MSM/the public's 'how dare she') is telling. as if millions of americans aren't repeating the same words (hillary is a monster) in the privacy of their parlors.
let's just put what powers said in context?
define the terms. what is a monster? what is the behavior of a monster ? (total disregard for social mores - hence they're scarry).
the clinton's are exhibiting reckless (not subhuman actually very human) behavior in their campaign tactics (the context in which powers used the term monster) and the clintons are demonstrating reckless disregard for the constitution by manipulating language to subvert the intent of the constitution (specifically trying to recapture the white house as a team, clinton is subverting the intent of the 22nd amendment; also clintons recklessly defines terms, remember,i did not have sex with that woman). i would describe clintons behavior as reckless and scary thus i think the word monster applies. (human monsters, … check out the OED, there are many legitimate ways to define monsters).
obama missed the boat, he should have let powers stay in the campaign and let her explain exactly what she (powers) meant by her words (the redaction was not called for). her comments were not 'secret' per se, rather they represented they views of millions in america.
may we continue to embrace the value of the first amendment.....
also, i would encourage people to listen to 2 interviews, first amy goodman's interview with samantha powers.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/25/barack_obamas_senior_foreign_policy_adviser
then listen to amy's own commentary about her interview w/ bill clinton. (the same moment hillary magically turned planning state dinners into experience to become a NY state senator.)
www.democracynow.org/2004/6/22/bill_clinton_loses_his_cool_in
take the pepsi challenge (it takes 20 minutes) and then tell me who you perceive is a monster. hillary is bill at this point. even MSM admits that...
...see you on the streets of denver..................
.......peace....................................
Comm'on folks, get real. Peev's making hay, doesn't give a shit about who she's interviewing. Powers has got to be really naive in trusting the discretion of any journalist. They're in the business of indiscretion. And Hillary? She's a street fighter. She's tough. She's smart and calculating - she's only loosing at this point because she is also smug and arrogant. She has an ego as big as a house. She wants the presidency badly, and no one and nothing is going to get in her way in her effort to get it. HRC doesn't give a damn about any political party. Loyalty - what was loyalty to Cesare Borgia? She's not just a monster, she's a demonic monster. Say it a few times, it's fun. Heh, she's a demonic monster.
Even if she had lost all four of those states, this sideshow would still be going on. How the Democrats anointed the woman is beyond me, but they're paying for it with many sleepless nights, and may pay for it with the election as well. Four more painful years of that ghoulish, leprosy infected Republican Party bumbling and crashing down the road to despond.
There are no winners, just all us poor saps here in the good ol' USofA. We're up to our ears in an abyss beneath an abyss of shit in the eighth circle of Hell.
It has always been the case in journalism that a politician can shut you and your paper out. Every reporter has to deal with this relationship consisting of having to be nice to someone who wants you to just go away. If you piss the politician off too much then they shut you down. This makes your job as a reporter more difficult. The reporter, however, should not rely solely on the politician for the story. Most of these politicians are master game players. Half the time after interviews they are patting the little journalist on the head and once on the fanny as they usher them out of the doors of their governmental offices where the real shit continues to go down untalked about.
The only way to continue covering your "beat," that is, have access to those in the know, is to make sure that what is and is not off the record is very clear. No duplicity. A place where the interviewee knows they could be digging their own grave. This is not some new idea being put out there by British journalists. Every American journalist knows this as well except perhaps Tucker Carlson and Tim Russert.
RE: - Carlson just had her on so he could repeat her statements "clinton is a monster, clinton is a monster, clinton will stoop to anything, clinton will stoop to anything…" OVER AND OVER AND OVER
Probably.
Whether Tucker has ever been a journalist is besides the point, he was not employed as one in his last few shows.
RE: - and "cursed like a sailor."
Was there ever footage of that? The only footage I've ever seen of Bush swearing was when he called that reporter "an asshole." CBC not only showed it without bleeps but closed captioned so that the hard of hearing would not miss what he said.
I remember once when the then Health Minister was under the knife for Prostrate cancer that the CBC kept having experts on to tell us the side effects of that particular operation - which included impotence (note that this was after the release of the Linda McQuaig book "The Cult of Impotence."
They don't do this when American politicians go under the knife.
RE: - obama missed an opportunity, there was no need to dismiss powers. he should have said ms powers is entitled to her opinion, let's get back to those tax returns, where are they?
Obama appears to be putting his party's interests over his own by firing Powers. Though, seriously, Powers would have been fired even if she said it about McCain, if Obama was a man of integrity.
Secondly, Clinton appears to the public as even more of a (the M word) IF (and only if) Obama takes the high road. Contrast is important. Larry Flint looks even more debaucherous when compared to Mother Teresa than he does when compared to Hugh Hefner (sp?).
RE: - i think the tabloid press in britian and the public in the UK is more honest about their feelings(listen to PM questions on c-span). / the response of americans (politicians/american MSM/the public's 'how dare she') is telling. as if millions of americans aren't repeating the same words (hillary is a monster) in the privacy of their parlors.
That is not the way it is looked at there - they see it as Ms Powers humiliating herself by going overboard on the rhetoric. Ms Powers would have been better off describing what Clinton has been up to (in her opinion) and letting Clinton's actions speak for themselves. Then again, if Ms Powers did this, she would probably be sued - if she could not back up these allegations - because they may damage Clinton's reputation.
Isn't Harper presently suing the Liberals for slander - oh yes, he is. They don't seem to worried about it, though. In fact, being SLAPPED has made them even more cheeky.
Oh, I pulled a Powers - by comparing Clinton to Harper!
RE: - Peev's making hay, doesn't give a shit about who she's interviewing. Powers has got to be really naive in trusting the discretion of any journalist.
Well yeah! Peev's job is to report something that no one else has. This story is going to be going on for months and months so it gets harder to come up with a new angle or a new story. Seems that Peevs is covering the race - who else has Peev's interviewed? Powers should have done a bit of research on Peev before showing up for that interview - and, possibly, even before agreeing to it.
Even when Jack Layton went on Lou Dobbs, Layton made sure that he knew something about what Dobb's views were on various topics before hand. Layton found the one topic that Dobbs and the NDP agreed on and worded his responses carefully so that they were in keeping with both NDP policy and with Dobb's own views. You could also tell that Lou Dobb's knew next to nothing about Jack Layton - that when Jack spoke about toys and toothpaste from China that Jack was intentionally limiting his views to products from China and not extending these views to persons of Chinese descent. On the other hand, Jack knew, ahead of time, that as long as he said nothing that Dobbs disagreed with, Dobbs would let him keep talking.
We all know what Dobbs is, but when there is an SPP conference in New Orleans in April, having the opportunity to talk about NAFTA with someone else who opposes it is a good thing.
ive always envisioned him as a future talking head of big brother.....and im not talking about the tv show
The incestuous relationship between the rich and powerful and the press is well recognized though rarely acknowledged so blatantly. You pee in my pocket and I'll pee in yours, is the main rule in the game.
So much for truth! But then how many humans can handle the truth, about themselves, about life?
Breaking News: Hillary/Barack wedding! see
www.dangerouscreation.com
Carlson and Russert are journalists? Since f**king when?
The ultimate problem is, of course, the fat-and-happiness side effect of Chronic Greedism.
Pay a "journalist" or "reporter" millions, he'll lick any set of balls he's ordered to.
Ya wannna return to Journalism and Reporting? Pay 'em workin man's wages with the opp for performance bonuses.
Performance meaning deepest truth digging, not an expose on what "a fantastic time" the Loonitary Decider has had during his illegal occupation of our White House.
This illustrates why so many Americans now get their information from the British.
Carlson, Russert et al are mere hosts to the powerful. Holding powerful people to account for their actions is definitely "off the table," as Pelosi would say.
The BBC, Channel 4, The Guardian, The Independent all still practice journalism, rather than meek stenography. Keep it up, chaps - we need you more than ever.
I highly recommend watching BBC or Channel 4 news reports from occupied Palestine. Compare and contrast those to the AIPAC-filtered propaganda inflicted upon us by U.S. corporate media.
WJM
You said:
When I was in college in teh 70's we had actual news. I've been watching as the idiot level has been steadily increased to the point where the press thinks that Brittany Spears is news, and that no one cares about Iraq, the wiretapping of Americans both before and after 9-11, or anything else that we NEED to know when making a decision at the ballot box.
I read yesterday that the government now wants to keep the new NIE on Iraq secret, apparently to avoid influencing the outcome of the elections in November! A few years ago, when goppers were running Congress, they actually announced they would delay the second part of the 911 Commission report dealing with how intelligence was used prior to September 11; because, it might affect the outcome of national elections (can't remember if it was '02 or '04). Isn't this exactly why we have regularly scheduled elections? Wouldn't that have been a great time for the "liberal media" to repeatedly ask why the public shouldn't be allowed to give their blessing to the professional way events were handled previous to and during the catastrophe? The Press let them get away with that. Maybe this flap with The Scotsman will shed a little (much needed) light on the role of the Press in a free society.
the powers quote from the scotsman..
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Obama-aide-quits-over-Scotsman.3857569.jp
"In Ohio, they are obsessed, and Hillary is going to town on it because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win," Ms Power said, before the former first lady's team victory in the state was announced."She is a monster too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything."
interesting, a guarded puritianical MSM in america doesn't even allow the citizen to hear the entire comment in context. most of the american public didn't even hear the original quote below...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/07/barackobama.hillaryclinton
"Power, who is in the UK promoting a book, told The Scotsman: ""We fucked up in Ohio. In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win. She is a monster, too - that is off the record - she is stooping to anything."
did you cover your ears vaudree...
and then most americans's weren't able to put the comments (justified) in context.
(same source)
"Power also told The Scotsman there was an air of desperation about the Clinton campaign. "You just look at her and think, 'Ergh'. But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."
---------------------
vaudree March 8th, 2008 4:28 pm
1. "Obama appears to be putting his party's interests over his own by firing Powers. Though, seriously, Powers would have been fired even if she said it about McCain, if Obama was a man of integrity."
how prudish, he should have let powers call a spade a spade and let it stand. there was once a time in america (i'm not so sure about canadian newspapers..) when independent journals and newspapers were not afraid to stand up and state the obvious (in this case clintons' campaign is a smear campaign). if you disagreed w/ the view, don't read the journal or put the comments into context.
2. ".....Ms Powers humiliating herself by going overboard on the rhetoric"
hey vaudree thanks for framing what is acceptable discourse and limiting people's expression (use of the word monster). how exactly would you characterize the clintons' behavior?
3. "Ms Powers would have been better off describing what Clinton has been up to (in her opinion) and letting Clinton's actions speak for themselves. Then again, if Ms Powers did this, she would probably be sued - if she could not back up these allegations - because they may damage Clinton's reputation"
great idea, i would love to hear ms powers spend a week explaining in detail how the clintons are monsters to a british judge. i suggest she bring voluminous legal dictionaries with her and dossiers from the 1990's onward to prove her points. exactly how much should the clintons claim in damages for being called monsters? and should american taxpayers sue the clintons for sullying US reputation when bill was president. hear! hear!
im convinced she would win her case, drawing even more attention to the clintons' successful/failed (pending on perspective) political carriers.
--------------------------------
an english opinion of US political race from simon jenkins in this mornings london times..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/simon_jenkins/article3511885.ece
{"here it is simply incontrovertible that the election of Barack Obama would transform, indeed electrify, America's image worldwide. Monochrome would become colour. A drone of antagonism would turn into a cry of pleasure. With the genes of an Irish-American and a Kenyan, and the nurture of Hawaii, Indonesia and Chicago, Obama has personal roots in four continents."}
{"In choosing a president for a world half of which America seeks to evangelise, voters could hardly find a candidate better cast. He embodies a yearning expectation of a new contract and a new beginning.
Obama's published prospectus must raise expectations, especially abroad, that no president could possibly meet, but it gives his candidature a substance that I had not expected from his platform performances. They offer not the remotest justification for Clinton implying that he is a security risk.
All this may cut no ice among the famously pragmatic American electorate. In election year, voters have domestic concerns and they see the outside world through the far end of the telescope. But they should bear in mind that they are electing not one president but two. When they go to the polls, they carry with them the eager proxies of half the world."}
...see you on the streets of denver...........
...peace..........................
Petition Clinton to disclose her tax returns. In the comment section suggest asking that she please also disclose her records as First Lady and her and her husband's $500 million charity which also employed some of their key campaign staffers and received tens of millions in donations from their top campaign donors.
http://www.petitiononline.com/hcinctax/petition.html
Frank 1569 sez: "Carlson and Russert are journalists? Since f**king when?"
Since George W is a "president."
The story is that Hillary Clinton is an unethical person. If you want to colloquialize that into "monster" I don't have a problem with it except that it probably gives Clinton too much credit. She is basically weak, a person with no integrity or virtue. The monsters are actually the people around her she is failing to control or limit to ethical behavior.
I cannot think of another example of one Democrat attacking another in the manner Clinton has treated Obama. I suppose racism is partly to blame.
She should become a pariah and object of scorn for anyone who has any loyalty to the Democratic Party, and considered a scheming immoral beast to anyone who has any sense.
Ah, whos standards are lower?
It is really a hoot to see a puffed-up little dweeb like Tucker Carlson lecturing on journalistic ethics!
These people like Carlson, Russert, et al, who actually imagine themselves to be "journalists" are nothing more than parrots for the ruling class. There isn't one of them fit to carry a microphone for Ed Murrow.
I F Stone had a great understanding of real reporting when he said "...always believe the government is lying until you have proof positive that they are telling the truth."
Claud Cockburn's "Never believe anything until it has been Officially Denied" is another good starting point.
The way Hillary has been praising McCain lately, I've begin to wonder if she isn't trying to be his running mate in Nov.
One should not use the name "Tucker Carlson" and the word "journalist" in the same article. He's a little twit that someone needs to bitch-slap.
The way to defeat the monopoly media is to create more interesting channels and sites on the internet.
RE: - did you cover your ears vaudree…
Covering my ears doesn't stop me from snickering. That is one of the few words CBC Newsworld beeps - except during a documentary - nothing gets beeped during a documentary. I doubt it was the "F" word that got Powers fired since too many politicians use it. Pierre Elliott Trudeau said worse. Richard Cheney said worse. Brian Mulroney has said much much worse. And "fired" from what - she was an unpaid volunteer! I keep forgetting that.
In Politics, "Monster" trumps "fucked up" - so does "Ergh" and "unattractive."
I can't believe that she was that stupid, though!
CTV, which aired The Osbornes completely unbleeped, excluded any reference to the F-word - but the CBC mentions it in passing:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/03/07/power-obama.html
Kathleen Petty interview where she pressured David Wilkins into admitting that NAFTA-gate amounted to "interference" on Canada's part. Wilkins is an old friend of Bush's and doesn't seem very upset about this at all - which is strange behaviour on his part (beginning):
http://www.cbc.ca/thehouse/audio.html
RE: - how prudish, he should have let powers call a spade a spade and let it stand.
They are of the from the party - and whoever wins, the other is expected to fall in line and pretend to be happy about it. Whoever wins faces McCain - and it makes winning more difficult with a party divided.
I said "appear" to be putting the interest of the party first - the most effective attacks on Obama's part are attacks that draw blood but don't actually appear to be attacks at all. Obama is very good at those. Hillary Clinton has many scams of her own bag of tricks (ie treating any criticism of herself as a witchhunt/Kenneth Starr) but engaging in character assassination while appearing above the fray is not one of them.
RE: - hey vaudree thanks for framing what is acceptable discourse and limiting people's expression (use of the word monster). how exactly would you characterize the clintons' behavior?
I think that Hillary Clinton has been less than honest in her tactics - she has a tendency to put out automatic calls the day before a vote which accuses her opponents of really bad things - which is very dirty. By the time Edwards (and, probably, Obama) find out about them, it is too late to get the real information out. Clinton had nothing to do with NAFTA-gate - but her instinct was to capitalize on it before (or instead of) finding out the truth.
What we are talking about is the use of colourful rhetoric - and the tradition in Parliamentary politics where such language is a sign that one has temporarily lost one's ability to argue rationally - example (which gets replayed every time the topic comes up):
Tuesday, February 4, 1997
Mr. Stinson: I hear the word ``racist'' from that side. Do you have the fortitude or the gonads to stand up and come across here and say that to me, you son of a bitch? Come on.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Hopkins): Order.
Mr. Stinson: I will not have some s.o.b. sit here and call me a racist.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Order please. Hon. members know that sometimes tempers flare in debate but I think if the hon. member would continue to engage in verbal sparring rather than the other sort we would all be better off. I think that is true throughout the House.
I invite the hon. member if he wishes to resume his remarks to do so. If he feels it is not a good time for that obviously he can allow another member to speak. If he has a problem that he wishes to raise he can do it through the Chair. I invite him to address his remarks through the Chair, indeed all hon. members to address their remarks through the Chair rather than directly.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/chambersittings.aspx?View=H&Parl=35&Ses=2&Language=E&Mode=1
RE: -
RE: -