All three major broadcast networks this evening covered President Bush’s speech in Kansas today concerning the domestic spying program. They all included the same quote of the president saying, “If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?” And, they all referenced statements made today at the National Press Club by Deputy Director of National Intelligence and former National Security Agency director Gen. Michael Hayden. Unfortunately, none of them did justice to the extraordinarily compelling description of the NSA eavesdropping program offered by the general, or his explanation of errors and omissions that have been quite common in media reports on this issue.

Regardless, what was conspicuously absent from the “NBC Nightly News” report on this subject was the most compelling statement made today by Gen. Hayden: “Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such.”

To be sure, it couldn’t have been a time issue that prevented NBC from including this key segment of Gen. Hayden’s statement. After all, toward the end of the broadcast, Brian Williams had plenty of time to discuss the person in the Kansas State University audience who asked President Bush if he had seen the movie “Brokeback Mountain,” as well as show footage of the president’s answer (from closed captioning): “I hadn't seen it. I would be glad to talk about ranching but I haven't seen the movie.” In fact, there was even time for Williams to speak glowingly about the film (also from closed captioning):

Hugh Hewitt thinks highly of Nicholas Lemann, dean of Columbia University's graduate school of journalism and a staff writer for the New Yorker. Last year, Lemann wrote a New Yorker profile of Hewitt which the subject considered “complete and fair.” Hewitt also was “impressed with [Lemann’s New Yorker] profiles of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. (The Cheney profile earned Lemann some animosity among colleagues, who thought him too gentle with the only man the left fears as much as Rove.)” Apparently, though, it’s possible to both write evenhandedly about right-of-center figures, and run one of the best journalism schools in the country, and still be clueless regarding basic conservative arguments on liberal media bias.

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos invited former presidential candidate John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) on “This Week” yesterday to discuss a variety of pressing issues facing the nation. Primary amongst them was how the senator felt about domestic spying, and current revelations revealed in a New York Times article last month. During the discussion, Kerry made a rather glaring contradiction (hat tip to reader “JDW”) that should have set off alarm bells in any investigative reporter. Instead, Stephanopoulos gave Kerry a pass.

As the discussion moved in the direction of NSA wiretaps, Stephanopoulos played a clip of Karl Rove saying: “President Bush believes if al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why. Some important Democrats -- some important Democrats clearly disagree.” Stephanopoulos said: “He must have had you in mind. You've called the program a clear violation of the law.” To which Kerry replied: ‘We don't disagree with him at all. It is a violation of law and we don't disagree with him at all and this is exactly what Karl Rove does.”

Stephanopoulos then asked:

The NYT's chief political reporter Adam Nagourney was ultra-sensitive to any sign of harsh Republican rhetoric during the 2004 campaign, and he’s no less raw about it a year later, using strong terms to describe Karl Rove’s speech to the Republican National Committee in a front-page story Monday. But what about Howard Dean calling Rove "unpatriotic"?

“With a campaign of high-profile national security events set for the next three days, following Karl Rove's blistering speech to Republicans on Friday, the White House has effectively declared that it views its controversial secret surveillance program not as a political liability but as an asset, a way to attack Democrats and re-establish President Bush's standing after a difficult year.”

It really is amusing, on occasion, to watch the mainstream press go after non-stories that could make the President look bad. The latest example comes from Time Magazine, all worked up about the fact that there are allegedly pictures showing President Bush with Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist at the center of a congressional lobbying scandal. And the AP has decided that Time's non-story is news.

Bush himself has said that he doesn't recall meeting Abramoff.

Both Washingtonian and Time magazines have reported the existence of about a half-dozen photos showing the two together, however.

In attacking White House counselor Dan Bartlett over the NSA's surveillance of al Qaeda suspects, Katie Couric went as far as to cite a convicted terrorist's lawyer's claim of Bush's "crime." In the 7am half hour of this morning's Today, Couric noted "that many people believe that the President broke the law," and then went on to quote from George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley that Bush's order, "was a crime." However Couric failed to mention that Turley is currently part of a convicted terrorist's appeal process, a terrorist who once cheered the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.

Following David Gregory's setup piece Couric pounced on Bartlett:

In a piggyback of a previous NewsBusters report concerning Hollywood producing less films in the near future, The Times Online is reporting (hat tip to the Drudge Report) that movie stars are going to take less money for their services to assist studios in becoming more profitable:

“Facing declining cinema audiences, Hollywood is trying to persuade its top actors to set an example by cutting back a lucrative arrangement known as ‘first dollar’, under which the director, producer and stars receive a share of a film’s box office take regardless of whether the studio has covered its filming costs.”

Apparently, this is going to impact some of Hollywood’s top stars:

There's only a traffic-warning mention of the "March for Life" in my Metro section of the Washington Post today, but they're not free of protest news. On page B-2, reporter Stephanie McCrummen files a press release (or do they call this an objective "news" presentation?) on a Unitarian "protest" event for so-called "gay marriage." The headline is "Church Ceremony Celebrates Gay Pairs: Straight Couples Join in Vows of Commitment at Protest Event in Arlington." Nowhere in the story is there a single conservative voice to represent what the "protest" is against at the UU church in Arlington, not even a cursory explanation of the conservative view, described as "mean-spirited" by the story's subjects.

Facing declining sales and declining interest from a population that is increasingly shunning their product, Hollywood studios have apparently decided to release “substantially fewer films” over the next year or two. Not only that, but Hollywood is also less interested in footing the bill for motion pictures.

According to a Sunday Variety column:

“Substantially fewer films will be produced over the next year or two. And a significant portion of the production costs of the reduced slate will be borne by hedge funds and other investment groups.

“Talk to the corporate hierarchs and you quickly elicit the thinking behind this pullback: Too many movies have been crammed into a market whose appetite for new product has obviously leveled off.”

Apparently, this sentiment is broadly felt across the movie industry:

The folks over at Rasmussen Reports recently released results of a new poll with some rather stunning findings that are not likely to make their way into mainstream media reports. Apparently, not only aren’t Americans shocked by the activities of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, but they hold such a lowly view of members of Congress that they perceive used car salesmen as being more ethical:

“Forty percent (40%) of Americans say that used-car salesmen are generally more ethical than members of Congress. A Rasmussen Reports survey finds that just 27% believe the nation's elected representatives are more ethical.”

As for the Abramoff affair: