Here are today's news items from Media Matters for America, click on the title or 'read more' to read the entirety of each story.

2008 Elections

Wash. Post failed to report that Thompson fell short of fundraising goals
In a July 31 article on possible Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson's June fundraising totals, Washington Post staff writer Matthew Mosk reported that Thompson "will file the first accounting of his potential presidential campaign's fundraising activity with the Internal Revenue Service tomorrow, and the report will show that the enterprise raised between $3.1 million and $3.2 million in June, according to sources familiar with the Thompson operation." But the article failed to note that Thompson's fundraising haul falls short of a June goal of $5 million the Post itself reported at the time that the campaign had set. Read more

CNN's Blitzer, Crowley claimed Obama "in sync" with Bush on Pakistan
On the August 1 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, discussing an August 1 speech by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), in which he said that, as president, he would take action against "high-value terrorist targets" in Pakistan, CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley and host Wolf Blitzer both said Obama's comments were "in sync with" or "in line with" Bush administration policy. But as Media Matters for America has noted, The New York Times reported on July 18 that the Bush administration had "reluctantly endorsed" a cease-fire in Pakistan that "intelligence officials and White House aides" saw as one of "the main reasons for Al Qaeda's resurgence" in Pakistan. By contrast, Obama, who was highly critical of Bush in his speech, said: "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will." Obama said of Bush: "He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq -- which didn't exist before our invasion -- and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan." Read more

Carlson: "Obama the weak has become Obama the fierce. Does he mean it?"
On the August 1 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, while discussing Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) August 1 speech proposing a strategy to fight terrorism, host Tucker Carlson asserted: "Like the kid who's had sand kicked in his face one too many times, Barack Obama announced to the world he is no weakling when it comes to foreign policy." Later in the segment, Carlson asserted: "In the space of a day, Obama the weak has become Obama the fierce," and went on to ask, "Does he mean it?" Later, during an interview with Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Carlson paraphrased Obama as having said during the speech that he "want[s] to leave a country [Iraq] where Al Qaeda is strong." Carlson also said that this purported position "seems a big deal to me." What Obama said, in fact, was that Al Qaeda "is not the primary source of violence in Iraq" and has "little support." Obama also said that "al Qaeda's appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence" and that "ending the war will help isolate al Qaeda and give Iraqis the incentive and opportunity to take them out." Read more

Rothenberg detects inconsistency in Obama's different views of distinct situations
An August 2 Los Angeles Times article reported Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) statement in an August 1 foreign policy speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars that "[i]f we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [in Pakistan] and President Musharraf won't act, we will." The article went on to quote Stuart Rothenberg, publisher of the Rothenberg Political Report, saying of Obama's speech: "It's tough to criticize the Bush administration for unilateralism in Iraq, then say you'd be unilateral in Pakistan." Rothenberg did not explain his apparent position that two entirely different situations -- Iraq was a sovereign country that was not involved in the 9-11 attacks, while a recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which Obama cited, indicated that Al Qaeda, which did attack the United States on 9-11, is gaining strength along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border -- call for the same policy. Indeed, in his speech, Obama made the difference clear, saying that President Bush "elevates al Qaeda in Iraq -- which didn't exist before our invasion -- and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan." Read more

Novak lauded Thompson's "cool reaction to crises" as Watergate counsel -- but he was Nixon mole
In the August 2 edition of his syndicated column, discussing "a little joke about Jeri Thompson" that former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) recently told when he introduced her as "my campaign manager" before quickly adding, "oh, I mean my wife," Robert Novak asserted: "That Thompson made light of this at his fundraiser reflects the cool reaction to crises he has displayed as GOP counsel for the Watergate investigation." Novak did not note that, during his tenure in that position, Thompson leaked key information to the office of then-President Richard Nixon, informing the White House counsel for Watergate matters that the Watergate investigating committee was aware that White House conversations were taped. Thompson admitted to the leak in his 1975 memoir. Read more

War in Iraq

Media misrepresent Clyburn remarks to air attacks on Democrats
Several conservative commentators have misrepresented July 30 comments by House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) in an effort to suggest that Democrats want "their country [to] lose a war because otherwise they might lose an election," as Fox News' John Gibson put it. In addition, some media outlets have uncritically reported Republican attacks on Clyburn without providing context. What Clyburn said, in fact, is that if Gen. David Petraeus were to report in September that the military effort in Iraq "is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it," it would cause "those 47 Blue Dogs ... to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us." In other words, Clyburn did not say that good news from Iraq is bad news for Democrats in electoral terms, but rather that a recommendation from Petraeus against withdrawal would impede Democrats' efforts to garner support in Congress for legislation to begin withdrawal. Indeed, Clyburn added: "None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that." Read more

Roll Call reported GOP attacks on Clyburn, but not his actual remarks or any response from him to the attacks
In an August 2 Roll Call article, staff writer Susan Davis reported that Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) said "a positive report by [Gen. David] Petraeus [commander of U.S. forces in Iraq] could be politically difficult for Democrats." The article then reported Rep. Adam Putnam's (R-FL) description of Clyburn's comments as "unconscionable" and noted that the "remarks have prompted lengthy responses on conservative blogs and talk radio." But Roll Call did not quote Clyburn directly, nor did Davis give any indication in the article that she attempted to contact Clyburn regarding Putnam's attacks. What Clyburn, in fact, said is that a report by Petraeus that the military effort in Iraq "is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it" would cause "those 47 Blue Dogs ... to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us." In other words, Clyburn did not say that good news from Iraq is bad news for Democrats, as Davis suggested through her paraphrase, but, rather, that a recommendation from Petraeus against withdrawal would impede Democrats' efforts to garner support in Congress for legislation to begin withdrawal. Indeed, Clyburn added: "None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that." Read more

Weekly Standard used alleged former male escort Matt Sanchez as source to attack credibility of a TNR "Baghdad Diarist"
In an effort to undermine a New Republic article by Army Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp about alleged inappropriate conduct by U.S. troops in Iraq, an article by Weekly Standard reporter Matthew Goldfarb relied on Marine Cpl. Matt Sanchez as the only military source identified by name but did not reveal facts that weigh on the credibility of Sanchez's attacks on The New Republic article: that Sanchez, whose website describes him as a "Marine Reservist" who is "[p]resently in Iraq interviewing the troops," has reportedly been under investigation by the Marines over allegations that he bilked private donors out of $12,000 for a deployment to Iraq he never made and that he apparently once worked as a male escort. He has also admitted to having been in gay porn films, a fact he has acknowledged "leaving ... off my curriculum vitae." Read more

2006 Elections

Wash. Post's Weisman again ignored GOP's "obstructionist" strategy
In an August 2 article discussing House passage of a bill to reauthorize and expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program, Washington Post reporter Jonathan Weisman wrote: "The legislation would launch the most significant growth in federal health care in a decade, and Democrats hope it will fortify their members as they head home soon for the summer recess amid voter perception that they have accomplished little since taking control of Congress." However, Weisman did not report the Republicans' role in blocking Democratic initiatives, which has occurred at an unprecedented rate, according to McClatchy Newspapers -- apparently as part of what Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-MS) has reportedly described as an "obstructionist" strategy. Read more

Ethics

Angle omitted question Mueller was asked, then asserted it was "unclear" whether he had contradicted Gonzales
On the July 30 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle asserted that "it was not clear which program" FBI director Robert S. Mueller "was referring to" when he testified on July 26 that the "discussion" during a March 10, 2004, confrontation in the hospital room of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft "was on a national -- an NSA program that has been much discussed, yes." At issue was whether Mueller had, in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, contradicted the July 24 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that "the reason for the visit to the hospital ... was about other intelligence activities. It was not about the terrorist surveillance program [TSP] that the president announced to the American people." In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, Mueller's statement came in response to the following question from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), which Angle did not include in his report: "I guess we use 'TSP,' we use 'warrantless wiretapping,' so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?" Read more

Media

White House soirée, part deux: Beck, Bennett, Ingraham, Medved, and others met with Bush
In a August 1 blog entry on Townhall.com, syndicated radio host Hugh Hewitt wrote that "President Bush invited ten talk show hosts into the Oval Office for an hour of conversation today -- Glenn Beck, Bill Bennett, Neal Boortz, Scott Hennon, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larson, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Janet Parshall and me. This was an off-the-record conversation, and so I won't be quoting the president." Blogger (and Media Matters for America Web producer) Oliver Willis noted Hewitt's post, and Talkers Magazine's website published a photo of the group. Read more

This mail was sent by Media Matters for America to 'news@energy-net.org'. Please visit us at http://mediamatters.org

You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America.

To change your email subscription preferences, visit http://mediamatters.org/users/prefs.html

If you'd like to unsubscribe from all Media Matters for America emails, you can just click on http://mediamatters.org/users/unsub/_TFiSm6WIkiaci7iLu6ZtH8gu6JaPh8t_vLvpt4dfhY.

To contact us directly, reply to this mail or visit http://mediamatters.org/contact_us