Accuracy in Media
Curvy Graphic

    
AIM Report
Barack Obama’s Global Tax Proposal
August 14, 2008
Blood On the Hands of Obama’s Terror Associate
July 23, 2008
Hold Russia Accountable For KAL 007 Shootdown
July 14, 2008
Media Excuse Obama’s False Advertising
July 1, 2008
Mainstream Media Try to Burn a Book
June 24, 2008

Visit the complete AIM Report archives.

AIM Report: Senator Clinton and the Fake News Scandal - April B


AIM Report  |  April 14, 2005


Clinton had declared, “It is critical to the credibility of an independent news media that covert government propaganda be rejected for use by news organizations.” But it turns out that the Clinton administration had produced them as well.

The New York Times, which suffered through its own fake news scandal in the Jayson Blair case, thought it had caught the Bush administration in similar practices in a March 12 front-page story on the use of video news releases, or VNRs, by the federal government. It was headlined, "The Message Machine: How the Government Makes News; Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged News." Over 6,000 words were devoted to the matter.

It was an issue tailor-made for Senator Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, who had previously issued a statement declaring that the Bush administration's use of VNRs constituted illegal "covert propaganda." Clinton had declared, "It is critical to the credibility of an independent news media that covert government propaganda be rejected for use by news organizations." But it turns out that the Clinton administration had produced them as well.

The Times story led to charges that the Bush administration had filmed "phony" news segments, complete with "phony" news reporters in expensive govern-ment studios, in order to fool the people. With the "complicity" of television news stations, it was said that "millions" of viewers saw the material broadcast in whole or in part as a news report. It was quickly termed a scandal. How could the administration do such a thing?

Other media, especially Andrea Mitchell of NBC News, quickly followed the Times' lead, doing stories about the Bush administration's use of VNRs and public relations agencies. But what information did media withhold from you the news consumer?

Here are the highlights of what an AIM investigation found:

Video news releases are to television media what print news releases are to print media: a time-honored way of getting your message out to the press, in the hope they'll cover it. VNRs often include footage, sound bites, and text. The controversy over so-called "pre-packaged news segments" featured in the Times' March 12 story referenced recent decisions from the GAO that the production and dissemination of such news segments had run afoul of the prohibition against appropriating federal funds for the dissemination of "propaganda." But this is the case only if the segments are not clearly identified as created by the government.

The Times report failed to emphasize that the GAO found just one part of the VNRs (namely the prepackaged segment) was out of compliance with the law regarding labeling requirements. The Times also failed to report that the GAO found the VNR package itself (which contained the segment) was clearly labeled and any news agency getting the VNRs would have known that the government was the source.

Despite the fact that VNRs have been used for decades by government and television news, the recent controversy has been framed by media as a uniquely Bush administration practice and problem.

The use of loaded word choices within articles sensationalized the story and gave the impression that the use of VNRs by government and television news was a new development. The following phrases from the New York Times report by David Barstow and Robin Stein added to the impression that this was a new and dramatic story about a unique Bush propaganda program:

The Times report did mention that VNRs were produced by the Clinton administration, but no details were forthcoming.

Outrage expressed by Democratic senators and congressmen generated more media coverage and contributed to the sense this was a major Bush scandal. Back in March 2004, when the New York Times first  started covering this controversy, top Democrats called on television stations to refrain from using VNRs from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) promoting the new law offering a prescription drug benefit. 

In this case, Senators Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Frank Lautenberg, Jon Corzine, Debby Stabenow and John Edwards had signed a letter addressed to television network news directors calling the Bush Medicare VNRs "illegal" and "covert propaganda." Station directors were urged to not run the allegedly misleading segments. Senators Kennedy and Lautenberg subsequently criticized the Bush Department of Justice for rejecting the GAO findings that the VNRs had violated the law. Kennedy and the other senators wrote: "It is wrong to deceive the public with the creation of a phony news story. It is also illegal."

What the media didn't want to highlight was the fact that the Clinton HHS had produced similar material. A simple telephone call to HHS revealed that. 

What the New York Times and other media didn't tell you was this: That in 1999 the Clinton administration produced the same type of VNRs even on the same topic—the administration's position on prescription drug benefits. The VNRs were produced by HHS under Donna Shalala. Like the Bush VNRs, the Clinton VNRs included prepackaged news stories that were not identified as having been produced by the government, and which featured what media called "phony" reporters.  Despite the fact that this information was reported in the recent GAO report, only the Bush VNRs became news, and a scandal. One exception was Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page who stated, "Such fake news came out of HHS under the Clinton administration, too."

What did the GAO report say about the Clinton VNRs? GAO said that "Much like the story packages at issue here, the [1999] story packages contain footage of seniors engaging in various activities, then-HHS Secretary Donna Shalala appearing to answer questions regarding the provisions of proposed legislation …and a report of the Administration's proposal."

Unlike the Bush VNR, which was about a Medicare law that had already been passed, the Clinton VNR promoted legislation that then-President Clinton wanted to pass. AIM also discovered that the Clinton administration produced VNRs on AIDS. The Clinton AIDS VNRs were used and broadcast by various television stations across the country and became the subject of a scholarly study published in 1996 by journalism and public relations expert Glen T. Cameron. (Journalism and Mass Com-munications Quarterly, Winter 1996). AIM found no media criticism of the practice, which occurred almost ten years ago.

The GAO reviews of 10 Bush VNRs (2 on Medicare and 8 on drug abuse prevention) were all initiated directly or indirectly by Democratic senators and congressmen. The Democrats can rest easy, however, because the GAO won't be looking into any Clinton VNRs. Why? Because the statute of limitations concerning their compliance with the law has passed—something surely known to Democrats as they began their vendetta against Bush.

Manufactured Scandal

The Bush VNRs were being examined to see if certain agencies' use of appropriated funds to produce prepackaged news stories contained in the VNRs constituted "covert propaganda" in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibitions contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of 2003, and the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2002. It was the first time any government VNRs had been reviewed by the GAO.

With media turning a blind eye to the Clinton VNRs, and the GAO blocked by law from investigating them, it's no wonder Senator Hillary Clinton could confidently work the Bush "scandal" to her own party's benefit, telling the press that the Bush VNRs were political advertising masquerading as public information. When the media failed to report the political subtext, these cynical machinations were obscured from public view, and the Democratic agenda was advanced— actions which are the very definition of political propaganda. Indeed, the meld of political plotting with media complicity was exactly what the New York Times and the rest of media were accusing Bush of.

The Bush VNR reporter, Karen Ryan, has become a lightning rod for international criticism due to the Times coverage, even as the Clinton VNR reporter has remained a mystery. The Washington Post had reported in 2004 that "Democrats pounced on a New York Times report that HHS's video news releases included the voice of a woman saying, 'In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting.'"

"Reporter" Karen Ryan

 In its most recent report, on March 12, the Times reported on Karen Ryan again, in addition to several other reporters paid to appear in the government VNRs. "Karen Ryan cringes at the phrase 'covert propaganda,'" the article stated. "These are words for dictators and spies, and yet they have attached themselves to her like a pair of handcuffs." But the Times did not review Clinton's use of government-paid "reporters." The 1999 Clinton VNRs had ended with the sign-off: "Lovell Brigham reporting." Lovell Brigham was a political appointee, serving in the position of director of communications for HHS Secretary Donna Shalala.

"Sunshine Week" Turns Cloudy

The media exploited the VNR controversy just as media professionals were getting ready to begin their much-touted "Sunshine Week." This was described as an attempt to pressure government to be more open with media and to shun unnecessary secrecy. Indeed, the flagship New York Times article appeared the day before "Sunshine Week" started: March 12.  Syndicated columnist Clarence Page contrasted the VNR scandal and the call by journalists for more government honesty and openness.

The media did not report, however, that the RTNDA created its own VNR for "Sunshine Week." The RTNDA website suggested that television stations run the VNRs as news stories. In addition, the RTNDA magazine encouraged news organizations to "assign a reporter or anchor to at least re-track or re-purpose these spots."  This amazing bit of hypocrisy was reported by Scott M. Libin, who is on the Leadership and Management faculty of the Poynter Institute. His article appeared on the Poynter Institute website but the scoop never made it to mainstream media. When he contacted RTNDA President Barbara Cochran for an explanation, RTNDA added the following sentences to the Web page containing the scripts: "As with any material from an outside source, if you use these materials you should label clearly where they came from. Keep in mind RTNDA's Code of Ethics, which states that professional journalists should 'clearly disclose the origin of information and label all material provided by outsiders.'" Cochran is also on Poy
tner's National Advisory Board.

But AIM learned that:

ANOTHER MEMOGATE SCANDAL

The media believe they have been vindicated by the revelation that a Republican congressional staffer really did write a controversial Republican memo on the political ramifications of the Terri Schiavo case. The memo called it a "great political issue" for Republicans because it energized the conservative pro-life base.

We referred to this memo as "dubious" in our last AIM Report and questioned why ABC News, the Washington Post, CBS News and other media had run stories about it without telling readers and viewers how they had verified the document as legitimate. It was unsigned and had no letterhead. There was every reason to be suspicious of the memo because its origin and authorship were in doubt. Reporters refused to authenticate it, leading us to conclude the memo must be bogus. A Washington Times survey found that no Republican Senator had even seen it.

Memo Author Revealed

However, after weeks of suspense, Brian Darling of the office of Republican Senator Mel Martinez admitted writing it and has resigned. But the real story is that liberal Democratic Senator Tom Harkin was confirmed as the source of the document for the media. How did Harkin get the memo? It was a mistake. Martinez was not aware that he had turned the document over to Harkin, as they prepared to work together to save Terri Schiavo's life, nor was he aware of what was in the document. Harkin finally informed Martinez on April 6 that he had in fact received the memo from Martinez himself inadvertently. That's when Martinez launched his own inquiry and discovered that Darling had written it.

The evidence is now clear that it was Harkin and/or his aides who distributed the memo on a massive scale to other Democrats and the press, in order to make Republicans look bad.

Bias at the Post?

The Washington Post's Mike Allen took the bait, falsely reporting that "Republican officials" were the authors, that the memo had been "distributed to Republican senators" and by Republican "party leaders." Allen also reported that the memo had been distributed "only to Republican Senators." None of this was or is true.

The continuing controversy serves as a window into the political reporting of the Post and its use of anonymous sources. The reference to the memo being distributed "only to Republican Senators" was an obvious ruse designed to conceal the Democratic source.

The fact that the document was written by a Republican staffer is almost beside the point. The memo was never an official Republican document and there's no evidence that any Republican Senator ever read it.

Ironically, it turns out that the Democrats and their media allies exploited a Republican memo for partisan political purposes.

In the Dan Rather Memogate case, his defense was that the memo was fake but the story was real. That was ridiculous. In this version of Memogate, however, it looks like the memo was real but the stories were mostly fake or inaccurate. Both cases demonstrate the liberal partisan bias of the media.

What You Can Do

Please send the enclosed cards or cards and letters of your own choosing to Berry Newman of the State Department and Jim Towey of the White House. Also, please help AIM with a contribution and vote of confidence.

CLIFF'S NOTES
by Cliff Kincaid

DEAR FELLOW MEDIA WATCHDOG:   4/11/05

THE HEAVILY COVERED DEATH OF POPE JOHN PAUL II RAISES QUESTIONS about what the Pope thought about the role of the media in society. He was, in fact, a powerful media critic who declared that journalists had a "special responsibility to witness to the truth." Many journalists are saying nice things about the Pope now, but what will they do about the pressing moral problems that the Pope said the media had an obligation to confront? Jeff MacDonald of Religion News Service interviewed me about the coverage, and I told him that it was both superficial and excessive. He quoted me as saying that the issue is not the quantity of attention paid the Pope but quality. A Catholic myself, I said a better tribute to the Pope would have been to analyze in detail where he stood on major issues, and whether the American Catholic church had followed his example and lead. I did mention to MacDonald—and he didn't report this—that U.S. Catholics wanted to see the clergy child sexual abuse fully addressed and resolved. That issue emerged one day after our discussion when the Vatican announced that disgraced U.S. Cardinal Bernard Law was leading a funeral mass for the Pope. Law resigned as archbishop of Boston over his role in the scandal. He did not personally abuse children, but he covered up for those who did.
 
WHILE SOME CATHOLIC PRIESTS WERE A THREAT TO OUR CHILDREN, THE IRANIAN MULLAHS are an urgent threat to our very survival. I recommend two books, Atomic Iran by Jerome Corsi and Iran's Nuclear Option by Al Venter. Corsi says that the threat is immediate and that Iran could have the nuclear bomb in a matter of days or weeks. He thinks the mullahs will try to smuggle a nuclear device into the U.S. and detonate it, killing hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans. Venter goes into detail about the hidden Iran-South Africa connection. Some people forget that the white government of South Africa produced six atomic bombs. Those were reportedly destroyed when a black majority government took over. But remnants of South Africa's nuclear program remained. I recently interviewed Venter, an international correspondent for nearly 30 years, who was presented with an ethical dilemma in 1997 when he met with Dr. Waldo Stumpf, head of South Africa's nuclear program. He says Stumpf told him a story—off the record—about the atomic energy minister for Iran arriving with a shopping list of nuclear materials for a nuclear bomb. Venter, then working for the Jane's Information Group, was shocked by the story of Iran's search for a nuclear bomb but was constrained in telling it because it had been given to him off the record. He considered it a story that could change the course of history. "The world has a right to know," he concluded.

AFTER CONSULTING WITH HIS EDITOR, WHO SAID IT WAS A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE, VENTER went public with an article in Jane's International Defense Review, causing an international sensation. Newspapers in France and Britain picked up the story and Venter was denounced in South Africa. Another journalist confirmed the story, but Nelson Mandela, then South African president, assured the Clinton administration that no such meeting had taken place. On December 4, 1997, then-State Department spokesman James Rubin (the current husband of CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour) accepted the South African explanation and expressed "high confidence" in South Africa's commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. Venter says that if his story had been taken more seriously back then, in 1997, the problems we are facing in Iran today might have been avoided. But the Clinton administration was determined to give South Africa a pass. Unfortunately, the Bush administration may be doing so as well. Please send the enclosed postcard to State Department official Constance Barry Newman about this.

VENTER SAYS THAT SOUTH AFRICA UNDER MANDELA AND NOW THABO MBEKI IS ACTIVELY assisting the Iranian nuclear program. His book contains examples of such cooperation, such as assistance to Iran by South African scientists and arms companies. And he says that Mbeki, like Mandela, has surrounded himself with followers of radical Islam who see the U.S. as the main enemy.

AIM ASSOCIATE EDITOR SHERRIE GOSSETT HAS BROKEN AN IMPORTANT STORY ABOUT A CONTROVERSIAL Muslim group getting federal funds. The group, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), considers itself moderate and mainstream but has sponsored conferences in the past that included speakers known for violent anti-Jewish rhetoric. Mohamed El-sanousi, Director, Community Outreach & Communications for ISNA, told AIM his organization has already received two grants in 2003 and 2004 under the faith-based initiative from the Department of Health and Human Services. Sayyid M. Syeed, Secretary General of ISNA, told AIM that "For four or five years we've been invited to White House events." The Department of Health and Human Services confirmed that ISNA received two contracts worth $25,000 each. But members of the Senate Finance Committee called on the Internal Revenue Service to turn over tax and fund-raising records for major Muslim charities, including ISNA, as part of an investigation into possible links between the charities and terrorist groups. We suggest sending the enclosed postcard, expressing concern about this, to Jim Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

A NEW STUDY, "A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS," HAS SCIENTIFICALLY DOCUMENTED A STRONG liberal bias in most of the major media. The study by political science professor Tim Groseclose of the University of California at Los Angeles and Jeff Milyo of the Harris School of Public policy at the University of Chicago counted the times that a media outlet favorably cited various think tanks and other policy groups, and compared that figure to how many times they were favorably cited by members of the House and Senate. You can find this important study at: http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm  The average score in the House was 44.5 and the Senate was 40. They found that the three most frequently cited groups were the Brookings Institution, the ACLU, and the NAACP. Here's how the news organizations came out: Wall Street Journal - 85.1, New York Times - 73.7, CBS Evening News - 73.7, Los Angeles Times - 70.0, CBS The Early Show - 66.6, Washington Post - 66.6, Newsweek - 66.3, NPR Morning Edition - 66.3, U.S. News & World Report - 65.8, Time Magazine - 65.4, NBC Today Show - 64.0, USA Today - 63.4, NBC Nightly News - 61.6, ABC World News Tonight - 61.0, ABC Good Morning America - 56.1, CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown - 56.0, PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer - 55.8, and Fox News Special Report with Brit Hume - 39.7. They stated, "Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News' Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress."

NOW WE HAVE MORE PROOF OF THE MEDIA BIAS THAT WE HAVE BEEN DOCUMENTING. YOUR support for AIM means that we can continue to do something about it. Please use the enclosed postcard to send a vote of confidence to AIM, together with a financial contribution for our work. Many thanks.

For Accuracy in Media
Cliff Kincaid
Editor


Comments 0 Comments  |  Post a Comment


Name:

Email:

URL:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Support AIM
Join AIM

Red Line
Email Signup
*  Email:
    Zip:

*  Code shown:
(without spaces)