|
Connie Chung's (CNN) downfall: The over-idolization of the Bush Administration
SOURCE: FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting)
ACTION ALERT:
October 10, 2002
On her October 7 broadcast, CNN's Connie Chung took a U.S. congressmember
to task for doubting George W. Bush.
After Rep. Mike Thompson (D.-Calif.) told Chung that there seemed to be no
evidence that Iraq posed an immediate danger to the people of the United
States or its allies, the anchor responded, "Well, let's listen to
something that President Bush said tonight, and you tell me if this
doesn't provide you with the evidence that you want."
She then aired a clip from the speech that Bush made in Cincinnati:
"Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include
one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad
this year and who has been associated with planning for chemical and
biological attacks.
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making, in
poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September 11, Saddam
Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America."
After this soundbite, Chung continued: "Congressman, doesn't that tell you
that an invasion of Iraq is justified?"
Thompson began to respond: "Connie, we haven't seen any proof that any of
this has happened. I have sat through all the classified briefings on the
Armed Services...."
But this questioning of what Bush said appeared to be too much for Chung.
She interrupted Thompson's answer, saying, "You mean you don't believe
what President Bush just said? With all due respect....you know... I mean,
what..."
Faced with Chung's obvious alarm that someone might not take Bush's word
as definitive proof, Thompson tried to reassure her: "No, no, that's not
what I said.... I said that there has been nothing in the committee
hearing briefings that have substantiated this. If there is
substantiation, we need to see that in Congress, not hear it over the
television monitor."
Later in the broadcast, Chung returned to the question of whether Thompson
trusted Bush, suggesting that skepticism toward Bush was equivalent to an
endorsement of Saddam Hussein:
"Congressman Thompson, there are those who believe that you and your two
colleagues who went to Iraq came back with the basic position of President
Bush may be trying to tell you something that in his effort to get
approval for an invasion in Iraq, that you shouldn't believe. So it sounds
almost as if you're asking the American public, 'Believe Saddam Hussein,
don't believe President Bush.' "
Rather than insinuating that it's unpatriotic to question a commander in
chief, Chung might better have looked into the question of whether or not
Bush's statements on Iraq have been trustworthy. That was the approach
taken by two reporters for the Knight-Ridder newspaper chain, Warren
Strobel and Jonathan Landay, who interviewed more than a dozen military,
intelligence and diplomatic officials on this question (10/8/02):
"These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated
evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses-- including
distorting his links to the Al Qaeda terrorist network-- have overstated
the amount of international support for attacking Iraq and have downplayed
the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East. They charge
that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence
analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the
White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the
United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary."
According to Strobe and Landay, none of the officials they interviewed
disagreed with this assessment.
The Knight-Ridder story addresses the very issue on which Chung chided
Thompson for doubting Bush: "The officials said there's no ironclad
evidence that the Iraqi regime and the terrorist network are working
together or that Saddam has ever contemplated giving chemical or
biological weapons to Al Qaeda, with whom he has deep ideological
differences."
While it's Chung's job to ask tough questions of politicians like
Thompson, asking him how he dares to contradict another government
official is hardly the way to go about it. A skeptical response to
official claims is something Chung would do well to emulate, not attack.
ACTION: Please encourage Connie Chung to show more skepticism of official pronouncements-- rather than criticizing those who demonstrate such skepticism.
CONTACT: CNN
Connie Chung Tonight
mailto:conniechungtonight@cnn.com
As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously if
you maintain a polite tone. Please cc fair@fair.org[/email] with your
correspondence.
See the Strobel and Landay story at:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printst.../nation/1607676
----------
Please support FAIR by subscribing to our bimonthly magazine, Extra! For more information, go to: http://www.fair.org/extra/subscribe.html . Or call 1-800-847-3993.
FAIR SHIRTS: Get your "Don't Trust the Corporate Media" shirt today at FAIR's online store:
http://www.merchantamerica.com/fair/
FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html .
FAIR's INTERNSHIP PROGRAM: FAIR accepts internship applications for its New York office on a rolling basis. For more information, see: http://www.fair.org/internships.html
Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to fair@fair.org .
You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org . Our subscriber list is kept confidential.
FAIR
(212) 633-6700
http://www.fair.org/
E-mail: [email]fair@fair.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sent her a 2 page email (in word.doc form). I hope she reads it and replies (though it is doubtful), i am interested in what she has to say.
__________________
ni pour ni contre; ça m'est égal
"The weight of this sad time we must obey,/ Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say./ The oldest hath borne most; we that are young/ Shall never see so much, nor live so long."
King Lear (V.3.300-304)
|
10-15-2002 12:17 AM
