December, 16 2013, 03:58pm EDT
60 Minutes Does NSA PR
One-sided report excludes agency critics
WASHINGTON
The National Security Agency has been the source of major controversy, thanks to the journalists writing critical stories based on files shared by whistleblower Edward Snowden. But the agency got a very different media reception from CBS correspondent John Miller, whose lengthy December 1560 Minutes report looked more like PR than journalism.
Miller explained at the top of the segment: "Full disclosure, I once worked in the office of the Director of National Intelligence, where I saw firsthand how secretly the NSA operates." (As with most "full disclosures," this is hardly full; Miller has spent much of his career inside government, with roles ranging from serving as a spokesperson for the NYPD to directing public relations for the FBI.)
The first part of the segment was based heavily on interviews with NSA director Keith Alexander--beginning with Alexander saying that the NSA is "not collecting everybody's email, we're not collecting everybody's phone things." This is at best questionable; the New York Times (8/8/13) reported that the NSA copies and sifts through most emails sent into or out of the country.
Miller followed up by noting that "there is a perception out there that the NSA is widely collecting the content of the phone calls of Americans." But that is not what anyone has been reporting about the NSA; what critics are actually criticizing is the collection of metadata on phone calls, information on who people called and when (Guardian, 6/5/13). As posed, Miller's question only gave Alexander a chance to look like he's debunking an important myth about the agency.
Miller reported that Alexander "agreed to talk to us because he believes the NSA has not told its story well." That feeling seemed to be shared by CBS as well--that the NSA's real problem is ineffective public relations. In a Web-only video interview with Miller and the show's producers, he says: "We've heard plenty from the critics. We've heard a lot from Edward Snowden." Miller explained there was a "distinctive shortage" in getting the NSA's side. So the need to hear the NSA director and to profile young NSA geniuses was more pressing than interviewing any of the agency's many critics on camera.
It's odd to suggest that the NSA hasn't been given opportunities to rebut its critics. In fact, current and former NSA officials have been interviewed widely in the press and have testified before Congress. In Alexander's case, he used to claim that NSA bulk phone records collection thwarted 50 terrorist plots; then he shifted that answer, and admitted that perhaps it was "one or possibly two" (FAIR Blog, 10/4/13).
That record of misleading the public means that Alexander should face tough questions. But on 60 Minutes, Alexander was given time to allege that other people have gotten things wrong. Some of the earliest reports (Guardian, 6/6/13; Washington Post, 6/6/13) based on the Snowden documents concerned PRISM, a program to tap into data centers of major private companies like Google and Facebook. On CBS, those reports were presented as false:
MILLER: One of the Snowden leaks involved the concept that NSA had tunneled into the foreign data centers of major US Internet providers. Did the leak describe it the right way?
ALEXANDER: No, that's not correct. We do target terrorist communications. And terrorists use communications from Google, from Yahoo, and from other service providers. So our objective is to collect those communications no matter where they are. But we're not going into a facility or targeting Google as an entity, or Yahoo as an entity. But we will collect those communications of terrorists that flow on that network.
What Alexander offered here was a classic non-denial denial, suggesting the stories are incorrect but, as reporter Barton Gellman noted on Twitter (12/15/13), essentially confirming them. (To say that the NSA is not "targeting Google as an entity" does not mean that the agency is not collecting information on Google users.)
It was clear throughout that the 60 Minutes segment was intended to bolster the image of the agency. Miller told viewers that one agency meeting "is called the stand-up because no one sits down, which is almost a metaphor for the pace of daily life in the NSA operations center." Miller went on to explain that "while Edward Snowden's leaks have been a disaster for the agency, the rest of the NSA's mission has not slowed down."
The agency was eager to share success stories--like a sketchy story about a supposedly devastating computer virus plot (likely from China) that the NSA claims to have thwarted before it wreaked havoc on the American economy. But computer security expert Robert Graham (Errata Security, 12/15/13) derided the CBS report as "gibberish."
If the CBS segment seemed like PR, maybe it's because that's how it started out. In that Web-only video, CBS explained that NSA chief Alexander "made the call to invite us in. He's fighting for his programs right now." And the video went on to note that a team of minders followed the CBS team throughout, and that Alexander asked to take "time outs" if he wasn't sure how to answer a given question.
In the video, Miller said that he wanted to give the agency "a chance to make their case." He has a habit of doing this; just weeks ago, he got exclusive access to outgoing CIA deputy director Mike Morell, and his report was more boosterism than journalism (FAIR Blog, 10/29/13). Perhaps unsurprisingly, Miller is reportedly planning on going back through the revolving door and resuming government work, being eyed for a top intelligence or counterterrorism job with the NYPD (Huffington Post, 12/12/13).
Of the NSA report, Miller said he didn't "want this to be a puff piece." But by conducting softball interviews with agency officials and excluding the responses of their critics, that is exactly what CBS gave its viewers.
ACTION: Please let 60 Minutes know that their December 15 report, based on exclusive access to National Security Agency officials and excluding critics of the agency, was more PR than journalism.
CONTACT:
CBS60 Minutes
Email:60m@cbsnews.com
Twitter:@60Minutes
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints.
LATEST NEWS
Sanders, Khanna Lead Push to Tackle Medical Debt Crushing US Workers
"The time has come to cancel all medical debt and guarantee healthcare to all as a human right, not a privilege," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
May 08, 2024
A quartet of progressive U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday introduced bicameral legislation "to eliminate all $220 billion in medical debt held by millions of Americans, wipe it from credit reports, and drastically limit the accrual of future medical debt."
The Medical Debt Cancellation Act—introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Sen. Jeff Merkely (D-Ore.), and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)—is a four-point plan for ending the medical debt that's crushing so many working-class Americans.
"Our current healthcare system is bankrupting Americans."
"The medical debt crisis has exploded in recent years, decimating Americans' bank accounts and deterring them from seeking healthcare," Sanders' office said in a statement. "Among all working-age adults in the United States, an estimated 27% are currently carrying medical debt of more than $500, and 15% have medical debt loads of $2,000 or more."
If passed, the Medical Debt Cancellation Act would:
- Amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, making it illegal to collect medical debt incurred prior to the bill's enactment and creating a private right of action for patients;
- Amend the Fair Consumer Credit Reporting Act, effectively wiping medical debt from credit reports by preventing credit reporting agencies from reporting information related to debt that arose from medical expenses;
- Create a grant program within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to cancel medical debt, prioritizing low-resource providers and vulnerable populations; and
- Amend the Public Health Service Act, updating billing and debt collection requirements to limit the potential for future debt to be incurred.
"This is the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world," said Sanders. "People in our country should not be going bankrupt because they got cancer and could not afford to pay their medical bills. No one in America should face financial ruin because of the outrageous cost of an unexpected medical emergency or a hospital stay."
But many do. In 2018 alone, 8 million people in the U.S. were driven into poverty due to medical debt. According to Sanders' office, nearly three-quarters of U.S. adults say they are worried about unexpected medical bills and nearly 1 in 4 people report having foregone medical treatment over cost concerns—including almost 20% of adults covered by health insurance.
"The time has come to cancel all medical debt and guarantee healthcare to all as a human right, not a privilege," said Sanders, a longtime proponent for Medicare for All in the only industrialized nation without universal coverage.
Khanna lamented that "our current healthcare system is bankrupting Americans."
"I've heard heartbreaking stories from constituents who have skipped doctor's appointments due to cost, who have lost loved ones because they couldn't afford their medication, and who aren't able to buy a house or get a job because of crippling medical debt," the congressman said.
"I'm so proud to join Sen. Sanders to cancel medical debt, wipe it from credit reports, and reform our system going forward," he added. "This bill would transform the lives of millions of Americans and I couldn't ask for a better partner in the fight."
This isn't Congress' first attempt to address the issue of medical debt. Last year, Tlaib
introduced the Restoring Unfairly Impaired Credit and Protecting Consumers Act, which would reduce the amount of time that negative information remains on a credit report from seven years to four and compel reporting agencies to erase adverse data stemming from "predatory loans and fraudulent activity."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Study Links Abortion Restrictions and Intimate Partner Homicide
"In thinking about pregnancy itself as a risk factor for homicide, it follows that the ability to prevent or end a pregnancy" could have "immediate implications" for the safety of pregnant people, said one researcher.
May 08, 2024
A new study links abortion restrictions to an increased risk that pregnant people will be murdered by their intimate partners—and since researchers examined laws that were in place before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and cleared the way for statewide abortion bans, the authors warn that the threat may be even greater than the analysis shows.
In the study released Monday, researchers at Tulane University looked at five separate abortion restrictions and compared them to the intimate partner homicide rates reported by the National Violent Death Reporting System at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
For each of the abortion restrictions, all of which were in place from 2014-22, the rate of intimate partner homicide among women and girls of reproductive age rose 3.4%.
The researchers found that extrapolated across the United States, an additional 24 women were killed by their intimate partners over the time period.
The study controlled for domestic violence risk factors including income inequality and gun ownership.
Intimate partner homicide is "consistently among the leading causes of death in pregnant and postpartum people," lead author Maeve Wallace, an associate professor at Tulane, toldThe Guardian.
Because it is still relatively rare, however, the research team used girls and women of reproductive age as a proxy for victims of violence who were likely pregnant or postpartum.
"In thinking about pregnancy itself as a risk factor for homicide, it follows that the ability to prevent or end a pregnancy" could have "immediate implications" for the safety of pregnant people in states with severe abortion restrictions and bans, Wallace told The Guardian.
The newspaper reported that the research "is almost certainly an underestimate of the potential risk to pregnant and postpartum women, because intimate partner violence is generally underreported."
The study is the latest research illustrating "the horrific reality for women in America," said U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
Another study published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons in February found a 75% higher rate of peripartum homicide—the murder of a pregnant person or within a year of their giving birth—in states that restricted abortion access from 2018-20.
Reproductive justice advocates have pointed out that at least four states with abortion bans in place also ban divorce for married people who are pregnant.
"An abusive partner oftentimes views pregnancy as a loss of control, that their victim will now not be solely dedicated to them but will have somebody else that diverts their attention away from the abusive partner," Crystal Justice, chief external affairs officer at the National Domestic Violence Hotline, told The 19th last month after the Arizona Supreme Court reinstated an 1864 abortion ban, which has since been repealed by state lawmakers but still could be in effect for part of this year.
"Not only is the state now saying with this harmful and antiquated law that you must stay pregnant against your will," Justice said, but "during that pregnancy, the state is not going to let you legally divorce your abusive partner. I can't think of anything more outrageous or cruel."
The U.S. National Domestic Violence Hotline can be reached at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), by texting "START" to 88788, or through chat at thehotline.org. It offers 24/7, free, and confidential support. DomesticShelters.org has a list of global and national resources.
Keep ReadingShow Less
White House Needs a Strategy for Combating Islamophobia, Say Rights Groups
"Any genuine attempt to combat Islamophobia must start with the government acknowledging the harm it continues to inflict both domestically and internationally, and offering adequate redress to affected communities at home and globally."
May 08, 2024
Nearly 100 organizations joined Muslims for Just Futures on Tuesday in calling on U.S. President Joe Biden to introduce a White House Islamophobia Strategy that centers government accountability and solidarity with Muslim and Arab American communities, demanding that the Biden administration honor the "lived experiences" of people who have faced Islamophobic attacks that have ramped up since Hamas attacked southern Israel last October.
The coalition's 26-page community memorandum, dated April 2024, was publicly released on Tuesday, the same day Biden spoke about fighting antisemitism in a speech marking the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's Days of Remembrance.
Biden's conflation of antisemitism with protesters' and voters' demands to end U.S. support for Israel in order to save the lives of Palestinians in Gaza, said the community memorandum, has had "profound negative effects" on Muslim and Arab Americans.
The coalition said that organizations involved in drafting the memorandum—including Afghans for a Better Tomorrow, American Muslim Bar Association, and the Center for Constitutional Rights—"emphasized the direct role of the White House in perpetuating Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism, and anti-Arab racism through its ongoing support for the genocide and occupation in Palestine," among other military campaigns.
"Any genuine attempt to combat Islamophobia must start with the government acknowledging the harm it continues to inflict both domestically and internationally, and offering adequate redress to affected communities at home and globally," reads the memorandum.
The document includes a number of recommendations for agencies across the federal government, including a call for all agencies to vet potential employees "for affiliation with white nationalist or white supremacist" groups.
In the first weeks of Israel's bombardment of Gaza last fall, one high-profile alleged Islamophobic attack was perpetrated by a former State Department official who had served in the Obama administration and was filmed harassing a food cart vendor in New York.
The document makes other recommendations including:
- Biden to call for an immediate and permanent cease-fire in Gaza and end U.S. support for Israel's bombardment of the enclave;
- The closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention center;
- The U.S. intelligence community to "stop weaponizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act against Black, Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, and South Asian (BAMEMSA) communities by surveilling citizens and non-citizens and collecting communications without a warrant;
- The Department of Justice Civil Rights Division to consult with Black, Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, and South Asian communities about their needs and concerns, amid a surge in Islamophobic attacks that was recorded by the Council on American-Islamic Relations last year;
- The Federal Bureau of Investigation to end its use of "secret and discriminatory watchlists," which includes 1.5 million people in 2019—95% of whom had Muslim names; and
- The government to ensure that universities and schools end the targeting of "Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, and allied students supporting Palestine," who have been "discriminated against by their universities, and physically attacked, doxxed, and intimidated in efforts to silence their advocacy for Palestinian rights and opposition to Israel's genocide."
The memorandum was released as a research scholar at Arizona State University, Jonathan Yudelman, was reported to be on leave after cellphone video last weekend captured him intimidating and yelling at a women wearing a hijab.
Other Islamophobic attacks in recent months have included the stabbing of a young Palestinian American man in Austin, Texas and the shooting of three Palestinian students in Burlington, Vermont.
"By embracing a framework that honors lived experiences and acknowledges the diverse impacts within Muslim and related communities, we can begin the urgent task of dismantling systemic barriers that harm Muslim communities and those racially perceived as such," said Muslims for Just Futures. "Additionally, the government must take decisive action to dismantle policies that perpetuate Islamophobia while actively involving affected communities in decision-making processes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular