MEDIA MATTERS
Fox's Hume, Wilson take cue from conservative blogs, repeat unfounded claim that Bush "pleaded" with New Orleans mayor to evacuate city
On the September 5 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Brit Hume claimed that New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin had ordered a mandatory evacuation of the city on August 28 after President Bush "pleaded" with him. During the same show, Fox News correspondent Brian Wilson repeated the claim, reporting that Nagin had proceeded with the mandatory evacuation "only after President Bush insisted that he do so." But while numerous conservative weblogs had earlier made nearly identical claims, news reports indicate that Bush called Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco -- not Nagin -- on the morning of August 28 to ensure that such precautions would be taken. Moreover, Blanco stated that Bush called "just before" she and Nagin held a press conference to announce the mandatory evacuation, casting doubt over Hume and Wilson's suggestion that Bush's phone call triggered the decision to evacuate.
Read more...
=======
Media largely ignored relief delays caused by Bush's New Orleans visit
In reporting on President Bush's September 2 visit to New Orleans to survey damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, most national media outlets* have ignored reports that helicopter flights were banned for the duration of Bush's stay, stalling relief efforts and preventing sick and injured survivors from being airlifted to treatment centers.
Read more...
=======
Letter to Washington Post ombudsman
September 6, 2005
Letter to Washington Post ombudsman
September 6, 2005
Michael GetlerOmbudsmanThe Washington Post1150 15th Street NWWashington, DC 20071mailto:20071ombudsman@washpost.com
Dear Mr. Getler:
I am writing to express my deep concern over the recent use of a dishonest anonymous source by The Washington Post. As you have surely become aware, on September 4, the Post printed an article titled "Many Evacuated, but Thousands Still Waiting; White House Shifts Blame to State and Local Officials." In the article, an anonymous "senior Bush official" sought to dismiss criticism of the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina by contending falsely that "[a]s of Saturday [September 3], [Louisiana Gov. Kathleen] Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency."
The Post was responsible enough to print a correction to the original article, pointing out that, in fact, Blanco declared a state of emergency on Friday, August 26 -- before the hurricane made landfall -- though the correction did not note that the error occurred because the Post relied on a "senior Bush official" who provided false information. Nonetheless, I believe this incident raises serious questions the Post needs to address.
The use of anonymous sources has come under attack from many quarters in recent weeks. We at Media Matters for America are not among those who contend that anonymous sources should never be used. To the contrary, we fully understand that anonymous sources are often vital to uncovering stories that those with power do not want told.
In this case, however, the Post reporter's reliance on an anonymous source defies reason. The statement made by the anonymous source was an assertion of fact that could have been easily refuted. Blanco's declaration was widely reported at the time it was made, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune reprinted an August 27 letter from Blanco to President Bush in which she noted that she had declared the state of emergency. That the Post allowed itself to be the conduit by which "a senior Bush official" delivered a political attack -- the accuracy of which could have been determined quickly and on the record -- is unconscionable.
It is bad enough that the paper quoted an anonymous "source" spinning, but, in this case, the source was, put simply, lying. The Post's correction is far from adequate. It would seem to us that if your newspaper discovers that an anonymous source blatantly lied to one of your reporters, the implied contract of the source-journalist relationship has been broken, and the source has forfeited his or her right to anonymity. Further, the fact that a "senior Bush official" is lying in an apparent effort to blunt criticism of the Bush administration seems extremely newsworthy -- the sort of information that should be the topic of an article in your newspaper, not merely hinted at in a two-sentence correction.
Reporters might protest that a policy of "outing" dishonest sources would make others less likely to talk in the future. But are your readers' interests best served by the reporter-source relationship as it exists now? If this incident is any indication, the answer seems to be no. The "senior Bush official" will suffer no consequences and will be free to spin, smear, and lie again in the pages of the Post or other news outlets -- all without revealing his or her identity.
What, precisely, is the Post's policy on anonymous sources who abuse the protection offered by your newspaper's reporters? Does a policy even exist? If not, we would encourage you to create one. After all, sources are not the only ones who need protection; the Post's readers do as well.
Sincerely,
David BrockPresident and CEOMedia Matters for America
Read more...
=========
Limbaugh linked New Orleans humanitarian disaster to "the welfare and entitlement thinking of government"
On the September 1 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh linked the humanitarian disaster in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to "the welfare and entitlement thinking of government." Referencing an entry in the American Thinker weblog by Thomas Lifson, who asserted that New Orleans failed to develop economically due to a history of corrupt and intrusive government, Limbaugh claimed that the urban poverty underlying the current humanitarian crisis is a result of social welfare programs: "If you, as a mayor, or if you, as a city council, run a city based on the welfare and entitlement thinking of government -- bammo! -- you're going to get poor citizens!"
Read more...
=========
Media touted questionable Wash. Post/ABC poll to say public opinion of Bush's hurricane response is mixed
Media outlets have repeatedly cited a September 2 Washington Post/ABC News poll to claim that public opinion is split on President Bush's handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. But The New York Times, The Washington Post, National Public Radio, and ABC News did not inform their audiences of factors that undermine the poll's reliability and usefulness: The sample was small, and it was taken on the Friday evening of a national holiday weekend.
Read more...
Link Here
On the September 5 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Brit Hume claimed that New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin had ordered a mandatory evacuation of the city on August 28 after President Bush "pleaded" with him. During the same show, Fox News correspondent Brian Wilson repeated the claim, reporting that Nagin had proceeded with the mandatory evacuation "only after President Bush insisted that he do so." But while numerous conservative weblogs had earlier made nearly identical claims, news reports indicate that Bush called Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco -- not Nagin -- on the morning of August 28 to ensure that such precautions would be taken. Moreover, Blanco stated that Bush called "just before" she and Nagin held a press conference to announce the mandatory evacuation, casting doubt over Hume and Wilson's suggestion that Bush's phone call triggered the decision to evacuate.
Read more...
=======
Media largely ignored relief delays caused by Bush's New Orleans visit
In reporting on President Bush's September 2 visit to New Orleans to survey damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, most national media outlets* have ignored reports that helicopter flights were banned for the duration of Bush's stay, stalling relief efforts and preventing sick and injured survivors from being airlifted to treatment centers.
Read more...
=======
Letter to Washington Post ombudsman
September 6, 2005
Letter to Washington Post ombudsman
September 6, 2005
Michael GetlerOmbudsmanThe Washington Post1150 15th Street NWWashington, DC 20071mailto:20071ombudsman@washpost.com
Dear Mr. Getler:
I am writing to express my deep concern over the recent use of a dishonest anonymous source by The Washington Post. As you have surely become aware, on September 4, the Post printed an article titled "Many Evacuated, but Thousands Still Waiting; White House Shifts Blame to State and Local Officials." In the article, an anonymous "senior Bush official" sought to dismiss criticism of the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina by contending falsely that "[a]s of Saturday [September 3], [Louisiana Gov. Kathleen] Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency."
The Post was responsible enough to print a correction to the original article, pointing out that, in fact, Blanco declared a state of emergency on Friday, August 26 -- before the hurricane made landfall -- though the correction did not note that the error occurred because the Post relied on a "senior Bush official" who provided false information. Nonetheless, I believe this incident raises serious questions the Post needs to address.
The use of anonymous sources has come under attack from many quarters in recent weeks. We at Media Matters for America are not among those who contend that anonymous sources should never be used. To the contrary, we fully understand that anonymous sources are often vital to uncovering stories that those with power do not want told.
In this case, however, the Post reporter's reliance on an anonymous source defies reason. The statement made by the anonymous source was an assertion of fact that could have been easily refuted. Blanco's declaration was widely reported at the time it was made, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune reprinted an August 27 letter from Blanco to President Bush in which she noted that she had declared the state of emergency. That the Post allowed itself to be the conduit by which "a senior Bush official" delivered a political attack -- the accuracy of which could have been determined quickly and on the record -- is unconscionable.
It is bad enough that the paper quoted an anonymous "source" spinning, but, in this case, the source was, put simply, lying. The Post's correction is far from adequate. It would seem to us that if your newspaper discovers that an anonymous source blatantly lied to one of your reporters, the implied contract of the source-journalist relationship has been broken, and the source has forfeited his or her right to anonymity. Further, the fact that a "senior Bush official" is lying in an apparent effort to blunt criticism of the Bush administration seems extremely newsworthy -- the sort of information that should be the topic of an article in your newspaper, not merely hinted at in a two-sentence correction.
Reporters might protest that a policy of "outing" dishonest sources would make others less likely to talk in the future. But are your readers' interests best served by the reporter-source relationship as it exists now? If this incident is any indication, the answer seems to be no. The "senior Bush official" will suffer no consequences and will be free to spin, smear, and lie again in the pages of the Post or other news outlets -- all without revealing his or her identity.
What, precisely, is the Post's policy on anonymous sources who abuse the protection offered by your newspaper's reporters? Does a policy even exist? If not, we would encourage you to create one. After all, sources are not the only ones who need protection; the Post's readers do as well.
Sincerely,
David BrockPresident and CEOMedia Matters for America
Read more...
=========
Limbaugh linked New Orleans humanitarian disaster to "the welfare and entitlement thinking of government"
On the September 1 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh linked the humanitarian disaster in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to "the welfare and entitlement thinking of government." Referencing an entry in the American Thinker weblog by Thomas Lifson, who asserted that New Orleans failed to develop economically due to a history of corrupt and intrusive government, Limbaugh claimed that the urban poverty underlying the current humanitarian crisis is a result of social welfare programs: "If you, as a mayor, or if you, as a city council, run a city based on the welfare and entitlement thinking of government -- bammo! -- you're going to get poor citizens!"
Read more...
=========
Media touted questionable Wash. Post/ABC poll to say public opinion of Bush's hurricane response is mixed
Media outlets have repeatedly cited a September 2 Washington Post/ABC News poll to claim that public opinion is split on President Bush's handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. But The New York Times, The Washington Post, National Public Radio, and ABC News did not inform their audiences of factors that undermine the poll's reliability and usefulness: The sample was small, and it was taken on the Friday evening of a national holiday weekend.
Read more...
Link Here
posted by Kangaroo Brisbane Australia at 4:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home