The CBS Evening News, which has aired only one full story on the scandal surrounding Hillary Clinton's fugitive donor Norman Hsu, on Friday night ran its second full story on the impact on Rudy Giuliani of Bernard Kerik's indictments as Byron Pitts told Kerik that “people” say you're “a poster child as to why Giuliani shouldn't be President.” Back on August 31, in the newscast's only full story on Hsu, fill-in anchor Harry Smith didn't even mention Hillary Clinton's name in his introduction, but on Friday Katie Couric put Giuliani front and center: “Kerik isn't the only one who could face trouble. It's also bad news for his friend and mentor, Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani.”
In the Hsu story, CBS reporter Sandra Hughes didn't warn about any negative impact on the Hillary Clinton campaign or speculate about what Hillary Clinton knew about Hsu's criminal past or suspect bundling. But in the Giuliani piece, Pitts predicted: “Kerik's legal problems could mean political problems for Giuliani and the inevitable questions of the presidential candidate: What did he know and when did he know it?” In an exchange with Kerik, Pitts proposed: “There are people who say that you, forgive me, are a poster child as to why Giuliani shouldn't be President, because of your own troubles.”
Since the Hughes piece aired the Friday night of Labor Day weekend, August 31 (see transcript below), the CBS Evening News has run three brief anchor-read updates as Hsu has moved through the legal process on his fraud charges and the Clinton campaign returned $850,000 he was responsible for donating, but CBS has already aired two full stories on Kerik/Giuliani as well as a brief item. The first full story, from Bob Orr on Wednesday night, looked at the impact on Giuliani of the expected indictments against Kerik.
The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video to provide this transcript of the November 9 CBS Evening News story:
KATIE COURIC: Meanwhile, here at home, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik pleaded not guilty to a 16-count federal indictment today. Kerik isn't the only one who could face trouble. It's also bad news for his friend and mentor, Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani. Our national correspondent Byron Pitts has more.
BYRON PITTS: Charged with conspiracy, corruption, tax evasion, doing favors for companies linked to the mob, Bernard Kerik, New York's former police commissioner, described his legal woes this way:
BERNARD KERIK, FORMER NYPD COMMISSIONER: This is a battle I'm going to fight.
PITTS: But literally before he could even make it to his car, at least two Republican candidates for President were throwing campaign grenades at Rudy Giuliani.
MITT ROMNEY: The indictment of Bernie Kerik is obviously very sad and disappointing.
PITTS: Senator John McCain on Kerik's short term in Iraq.
JOHN MCCAIN: Supposedly his mission was to help train Iraqi police. He stayed a couple of months, got up and left. That should have been part of anybody's judgment before they would recommend that individual to be head of the Department of Homeland Security.
PITTS: A not-so-subtle dig at Giuliani who recommended Kerik for Secretary of Homeland Security to President Bush. The two men rode a wave of celebrity after 9/11. Now Kerik's legal problems could mean political problems for Giuliani and the inevitable questions of the presidential candidate: What did he know and when did he know it? Long-time GOP political strategist Ed Rollins:
ED ROLLINS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: It's already a distraction to his campaign. It's a question of judgment. This is a guy who was his top police commissioner. He can't just argue he's one of 5,000 people I appointed. This is the most important job in a city government outside the mayor himself.
RUDY GIULIANI: And I should have done a better job of checking him out. I didn't. I apologize for that.
PITTS TO KERIK: There are people who say that you, forgive me, are a poster child as to why Giuliani shouldn't be President, because of your own troubles.
KERIK: Well, I think people have to also look at my record.
PITTS: Tonight, it's two careers at stake -- the man who dreamed of being a policeman and a man still dreaming of being President. Byron Pitts, CBS News, New York.
Friday's MRC CyberAlert, “CBS's Early Show Focuses on Giuliani Scandal, Never Touched Hsu,” recounted a Thursday morning story on Kerik from Pitts:
Thursday's Early Show on CBS featured a full story on the likely indictments of former NYPD Commissioner and Rudy Giuliani friend, Bernard Kerik, but the Early Show never aired a story on Hillary Clinton's fugitive fundraiser, Norman Hsu. News reader Russ Mitchell set up the story: "Republican presidential hopeful, Rudy Giuliani, has stood by his good friend and associate, Bernard Kerik, through good times and bad. But that could change now that Kerik maybe in some big trouble." Reporter Byron Pitts explained how "CBS News has learned former New York City Police Commissioner, Bernard Kerik, could face indictment as early as today on criminal charges, including tax fraud and other counts." While the Early Show had no hesitation in reporting a possible Giuliani scandal, the morning news program failed to mention the Hillary Clinton fundraising scandal involving fugitive Norman Hsu even once. That was true even when Early Show co-host, Harry Smith, had reported the story on the August 31 and September 7 CBS Evening News broadcasts, while filling in for anchor Katie Couric.
The August 31 NewsBusters item, “ABC and CBS Catch Up with Fugitive Clinton/Democratic Donor Norman Hsu,” included a transcript of the CBS Evening News story that, by comparison to the piece two months later on Giuliani and Kerik, went much softer on Hillary Clinton:
FILL-IN ANCHOR HARRY SMITH: There's another political scandal unfolding. A top Democratic fundraiser named Norman Hsu surrendered to authorities in California today, 15 years after he skipped out on felony charges. All that time he was raising money for candidates and hiding, apparently, in plain sight. Here's Sandra Hughes.
SANDRA HUGHES: He's known as a big money man in the Democratic Party, donating a quarter of a million dollars to various candidates over the last three years. But Norman Hsu is also known in California as a wanted man. Today he turned himself in on charges he defrauded investors in a pyramid scheme back in the early '90s.
HILLARY CLINTON: I was surprised like everyone else who knew him and I think he's done the right thing, turning himself in.
HUGHES: Senator Clinton's campaign christened Hsu a "Hill Raiser" for all the money he generates. But yesterday Clinton gave Hsu's $23,000 donation to charity. Other candidates were quick to wash their hands of his money, too, returning it or donating it [on screen pictures and amounts for five Democrats, including $7,000 for Obama]. Hsu is famous for bundling, getting other people to donate on behalf of a candidate, a modern day passing of the hat. But some say this practice can be dangerous to a campaign. A large group of Hsu's bundling checks came from this little green house in Daly City, California that Hsu once listed as a home address. The Paw family, which lives here has given $45,000 to Hillary Clinton since 2005 and $200,000 to other Democratic candidates.
MEREDITH MCGEHEE, CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER: Because some of these people appear to be of modest means, it raises questions about whether or not this money has been underwritten by someone else, by Mr. Hsu or really if the people who gave this money could really afford it.
HUGHES: So far, there is no evidence that Norman Hsu reimbursed the Paw family for their donations. In today's case, he's accused of stealing $1 million. That could put the Democrats' big fundraiser behind bars. Sandra Hughes, CBS News, Los Angeles.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This unequal treatment is
November 9, 2007 - 23:11 ET by motherbeltThis unequal treatment is so obviously partisan that I don't even know what to say about it any more.
You have to wonder, do they literally think "Let's stick Giuliani's name in here too, even though he has nothing to do with it, but they're friends and it will make Rudy squirm"
And on another day think..."This Hsu gave gave all this questionable money to HRC's campaign but there's no need to include the money's destination in the story."
Or is it subconscious?
Giuliani shouldnt' be President because one of his friends proved to be less than honest?
Can you say Webb Hubble, just for starters?????
It's all about "intention" MB
November 9, 2007 - 23:14 ET by exLibHaving been one and married to an exLib, I can tell you it's all about intentions.
Republicans are, by nature, evil. With evil intent, they care for nobody. So everything they do is viewed through that lens. So in Kerik's case, Rudy must have known Kerik was a "bad" guy and just recommended the guy becuase Rudy is a "bad" guy, and now we have "proof"
On the other hand, Liberals are loving, caring people. So everything they do is viewed through that lens. I even heard this on one of the broadcasts - I think it was Blitzer on CNN. He said that Hillary was "embarrased" that Hsu "fooled" her and that she was "innocently" accepting money from HSU and couldn't have known anything about his issues.
So You are right, it's natural.
exLib
November 9, 2007 - 23:22 ET by Army Bratwow... You may have nailed it. It's still difficult to believe that they aren't aware of their own bias. But what you say, coupled with that weird skewed view of the world from the Left in general...they could honestly just not see what is clear to you and I.
Happy Trails...
I just realized that when I
November 9, 2007 - 23:29 ET by motherbeltI just realized that when I edited my comment, I inadvertently removed the line that said "My guess is it just comes naturally."
It's true army brat
November 9, 2007 - 23:40 ET by exLibMy in-laws are all raging lefties and they have no shame at all. They think EVERYBODY thinks the way they do and freely spout off how bad Bush and Cheney are and it takes them a millisecond to make any negative reference to them they can. While they basically give Gore, Kerry, Clinton a free pass on all their stupid comments and indescretions, nothing but excuses for them. Although they prefer Kucinich, since even Clinton is a bit too Conservative for them.
They finally have learned after 10+ years of marriage that when they spout off they will get it back in spades, ususally from their own kin, my wife. Of course that's mainly my immediate in-laws (mom/dad x2).
Some of her extended family gets to spout off at will since she doesn't always feel close enough to them to risk losing their love.
You know, lefties will be the first to say, after a major political or religious disagreement, "But I love you anways". Yet will hold a grudge everytime you see them.
I'll give her family credit in that they don't hold it against us, at least to our faces. But some of the email that were going around during th 04 election had me thinking, "wow, these people really hate us, just because we don't agree with their world view", not because of anything we actually DO.
Hey Ex Lib
November 10, 2007 - 03:02 ET by Del DolemonteHere's a simple set of questions you can try out on your out-laws (that's what they really are). All of these are based on facts, so you have no problems.
1. Was it possible for the 9/11 attacks to have been planned, trained for, and practiced in the 8 months between the time Dubyah took office and the actual day of the attacks?
2. One of the Left's favorite news sources, PBS, did a "Frontline" show about a place just outside of Baghdad where terrorists, including foreign terrorists, were trained in the techniques of hijacking a commericial airliner, using the actual hull of a real airplane to work with. Was PBS lying when they broadcast this episode?
3. Shortly after 9/11, there was a benefit concert in New York City for the victims. When Hillary Clinton came out onstage to introduce the next person, she was widely booed by the NYC cops and firefighters in attendance, many of whom had lost their friends on 9/11. However, when the TV coverage of the concert was re-broadcast, the Hillary boos had mysteriously disappeared. And on the subsequent DVD release of the same concert, cheers had replaced the boos.
Your assignment: Ask your in-laws if that sort of "censorship" is OK on their planet.
4. In 1998, Bill Clinton's Justice Department issued a Federal Indictment against bin Laden. Right up front (the 4th part, as I recall, but I'm no lawyer), Janet Reno and company stated as fact that bin Laden and al Qaeda were in fact in bed with Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Your question to your in-laws: Were Clinton and his Justice Department lying?
5. When she voted for the Iraq War bill, Mrs. Clinton said that she had relied on briefings she had recieved frim her husband's intel people-not just what Bush fed her. Is she lying too?
3. Shortly after 9/11,
November 10, 2007 - 09:13 ET by motherbelt3. Shortly after 9/11, there was a benefit concert in New York City for
the victims. When Hillary Clinton came out onstage to introduce the
next person, she was widely booed by the NYC cops and firefighters in
attendance, many of whom had lost their friends on 9/11. However, when
the TV coverage of the concert was re-broadcast, the Hillary boos had
mysteriously disappeared. And on the subsequent DVD release of the same
concert, cheers had replaced the boos.
Del, that is one that really frosts me. Someday people will have forgotten what really happened, because the doctored version will be the only one around. I don't know if, even now, there is an original recording of that event.
That is the most treacherous type of Communist-style airbrushing, rewriting of history. That is straight out of "1984."
IIRC
November 10, 2007 - 09:37 ET by sarcasmoThey booed Rudy too at the same concert (he's not too popular with some of the firefighters, despite the carefully-cultivated 911-media-image). Wonder if those boos made the final cut, either??
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
The problem here is your
November 10, 2007 - 10:56 ET by Evil CapitalistThe problem here is your recollection.
Clinton booed, boo hoo
November 10, 2007 - 09:44 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsHere's a link, but it's really half booing and half cheering.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
OK, it's normal for some to
November 10, 2007 - 11:05 ET by motherbeltOK, it's normal for some to like her and some not. So why edit out the boos? Because "normal" isn't good enough when it comes to HRC...she gets greeted like a "rock star", remember???
Let's throw in...
November 10, 2007 - 14:10 ET by heldmyw...Norman "Runaround" Hsu!
(BTW, did she give back all his contributions? I heard 'not'.)
Kerik is supposed to
November 9, 2007 - 23:27 ET by MidAmericaKerik is supposed to be a 'scandal' when hillary has a man convicted of stealing documents from the National Archives for the purpose of impeding a Congressional investigation working for her campaign?
Besides Kerik is not yet convicted so therefore is still innocent until proven guilty.
Why doesn't the msm apply the standard they are applying to Kerik to the clinton's? The democrats leading candidate is married to a man who has been accused of multiple sexual harrassment incidents including rape. Who is going to ask hillary what does she know and when did she know it?
They don't care about Sandy
November 10, 2007 - 11:06 ET by motherbeltThey don't care about Sandy Berger. As far as they're concerned, that's over and done, "old news." He even pled guilty, for crying out loud, got no jail time, and they act like he has paid his debt to society and deserves a clean slate now. Even though he still ahs not taken the polygraph test that he agreed to as part of his plea bargain.
Does anyone in the MSM care? Is the sky pink?
According to the media
November 10, 2007 - 02:38 ET by kgAccording to the media, Kerik's first name is "Giuliani's". The headlines are GIULIANI'S Kerik this and GIULIANI'S Kerik that. You never heard the headline "Hillary's" Hsu this or that.
I would bet when Giuliani hired him that Kerik was an honest man. And after time in politics, as Hillary and others can relate to, fell to corruption.
Democrat's Couric know the Clintons are corrupt. She DOES NOT CARE about that. The lack of morals allow lies and propoganda spew from her lips.
Katie is beyond wading in
November 9, 2007 - 23:51 ET by FairlightKatie is beyond wading in negative credibility territory, she has officially drowned in it.
MSM Replies?
November 10, 2007 - 01:26 ET by YaegerMeisterHas anyone sent emails to the MSM culprits asking for simple replies on certain stories asking about their errors no non-responses?
This is what happens when
November 10, 2007 - 02:11 ET by Right2thePointThis is what happens when editorials are passed off for being unbiased news reporting.
MSM Trick:
November 10, 2007 - 02:46 ET by mattmUse the following, or similar phrase: "There are people who say..."
Insert the 'message' you want to convey.
It's just that simple.
WARNING: Never reveal who the "people" are.
I know, matt, I love that
November 10, 2007 - 08:02 ET by motherbeltI know, matt, I love that trick. Just once, during an interview, I wish someone would say "People? Which people, who?" or "Some say? Who are they?"
They should say "I think" or "I wish people would say..." Or at least call it a hypothetical question. That would be honest.
Read and Digest
November 10, 2007 - 03:19 ET by Del DolemonteSenator Lieberman gave one important speech yesterday at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, tracing the history of the foreign policy of the Democratic Party. "Confronted by the totalitarian threats first of fascism and then of communism, Democrats under Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy forged a foreign policy that was simultaneously principled, internationalist, and tough-minded," he said. Back then, the Democrats were "a party that understood that a progressive society must be ready and willing to use its military power in defense of its progressive ideals, in order to ensure that those progressive ideals survived."
"That Democratic foreign policy tradition — the tradition of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy—collapsed just a few years later, in the trauma of Vietnam. And in its place, a very different worldview took root in the Democratic Party," Mr. Lieberman said. "Reflexively skeptical about America's authority to make moral judgments about the rest of the world, inclined to see the planet's leading problems as more often the result of American involvement than American disengagement, and viscerally opposed to the use of military force, this rival worldview was in many respects the polar opposite of the self-confident and idealistic internationalism that had, just a few years earlier, animated the Democratic Party under President Kennedy."
The senator traced Democratic failures to win the presidency to the "disastrous detour" of George McGovern's presidential candidacy. "The American people didn't trust Democrats to keep them safe, and the McGovernite legacy was a big reason why," he said.
"Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically-elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush," Mr. Lieberman said. "No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America's moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. … Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there."
Mr. Lieberman was re-elected last year in Connecticut, a state that leans Democratic. He was the vice presidential nominee of the Democrats in 2000, a year in which he and his running mate won the popular vote nationwide. We see his comments less as directed to the Democrats — though we don't rule out Senator Clinton moving to the right after winning the nomination. Or to the Republicans, who, with the exception of Ron Paul and Governor Huckabee, are a pretty sound bunch on foreign policy. Rather, we see the beginnings of the logic of a foreign policy platform for a presidential campaign of Mayor Bloomberg, who strongly supported Mr. Lieberman's campaign in Connecticut.
Mr. Lieberman concluded his address at Johns Hopkins by telling his audience not to "become so wedded to a party that you are unwilling to diverge from it, when your convictions diverge from it." He told them, "If you choose to identify as a Democrat or a Republican, in other words, I encourage each of you to be independent Democrats and independent Republicans." It will be advice that Mr. Bloomberg — a Johns Hopkins alumnus and major donor — will need voters to heed if he is to win the presidency.
Here is a link to
November 10, 2007 - 08:48 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsHere is a link to Lieberman's speech referenced above if you would like to read it or pass it on. I certainly don't agree with all of Lieberman's politics, but I see him as a true American, a patriot and Democrat, unlike so many of his fellow politicians.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Byron Pitts, forgive me
November 10, 2007 - 03:24 ET by mastersofdeceitposter child of stupidity.
Other poster children of stupidity: Anyone who thinks Giuliani shouldn't be president just because of Kerik's troubles.
Bought and paid for.
November 10, 2007 - 04:27 ET by well99The msm has sold out.I dont know what their asking price was but their blatant bias has come to the point that they dont even try to hide it.So much for impartial journalism.They have no credibility.
well99, I totally agree
November 10, 2007 - 19:20 ET by msh1973well99,
I totally agree with your statement, however, the msm is preaching to people like my mother (age 74) who take everything they say as the gospel truth. I have tried to tell her that the msm is bias in their stories. She was so excited to tell me about the Today's Show going green. She thinks that Matt, Ann and Al are the greatest. I want to pull my hair out!
Well
November 10, 2007 - 20:34 ET by well99You have to remember at one time the media actually did the news.They were non bias.There were exceptions to the rules but you could pretty much trust it.So it is understandable.What I dont understand is young people who believe todays msm.They have the internet and can reseach information to fact check it.Yet they go by what the msm pushes.By the way my mom is 73.
I agree that the ratio of Hsu-coverage is bias
November 10, 2007 - 07:46 ET by sarcasmoBut as far as reporting on Kerrick's links to both the mob and Rudy, that's absolutely-factual stuff the news media SHOULD have been reporting back in Jan./Feb., when I was linking it right-here. They didn't. The fact that they've waited 'till now suggests, if anything, a pro-Rudy bias because -- as I was saying back then when I linked -- they want a RINO against Hillary so she'll win.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Hsu's legal problems could
November 10, 2007 - 11:08 ET by motherbeltHsu's legal problems could mean political problems for Mrs. Clinton and
the inevitable questions of the presidential candidate: What did she
know and when did she know it?
I just took Byron Pitts' quote and substituted Hsu and Mrs. Clinton for Kerik and Giuliani. Read it out loud and hear what it sounds like. Because, heaven knows, you won't ever hear it on the news.
Rudy..Kerik..Hillary & Webb
November 10, 2007 - 08:29 ET by HadaAbecheWho brought Webster Hubbell to Washington and was responsible for him being installed as Associate Director of the Justice Dept..?... Kerik hasn't had his day in court yet. Hubbell was indicted, put on trial, convicted and sentenced yet no one seems to think there was any bad judgement there..??..!
Hillary brought Webb and Vince with her. One was found dead and the other disgraced. What kind of qualifications does she exhibit when it comes to character.
GDS
November 10, 2007 - 12:47 ET by third eyeThe American People arent so naive as to believe the man who made the RICO statute famous for busting the mob, and who had several hits placed on his life by the NY mob, is actually a member of the mob himself. One thing you never hear anymore from the MSM is "Oh, Rudy wont win
the Republican nomination, we dont have to really worry about him."
--That was the belief in the press until about late summer when the
self-serving, liberally biased MSM realized their worst fears were coming true, and that
Rudy, America's Mayor, will most likely be the Republican nominee.
The hypocrisy is enough to
November 10, 2007 - 19:15 ET by msh1973The hypocrisy is enough to make me crazy!
So, Hillary and Bill
November 10, 2007 - 20:01 ET by kathleenirishSo, Hillary and Bill don't have the same supposed problem, and why not? Oh, except their association with each other, both corrupt and having committed a long list of crimes and misdeeds, pardoning felons like Mark Rich and Puerto Rican murdering terrorists, sexually assaulting women, lying about memos,BJ was even disbarred in Arkansas, and being associated with corrupt fundraisers, is A-OK with their lap-dog MSM brown nosers. They make Kerik look like a choir boy.
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
I WANT A BURGER, I MEAN BERGER
November 11, 2007 - 16:13 ET by reelman46When are the pantywaist Repubs going to shove Berger the sockman up the xxx of any liberal news nut that dares talk about "unworthy" pals making anyone unworthy??? Well, when???
Berger the sockman is now warmly embraced by the Klinton inner circle... not shamed, not publicly rejected... accepted back into the fold.
Oh, I fogot, liberals lack shame and respect by definition... its a given... its also what they first steal from any culture. Never mind.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)