The ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts on Friday conveyed Barack Obama's charge of hypocrisy by John McCain on dealing with Hamas, all based on one January 28, 2006 soundbite fed to them by the Obama campaign via the Huffington Post -- “They're the government, and sooner or later we're going to have to deal with them in one way or another” -- though, in fact, in an interview that same day with CNN, in the same snowy setting, McCain made clear the U.S. could deal with Hamas only if it were to “renounce” its “commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel. Then we can do business again.”CBS's Dean Reynolds presumed Obama had caught McCain in a flip-flop: “Obama called McCain a hypocrite for backing Bush, and pointed to an earlier statement McCain had made about Hamas, which runs the Gaza strip.” After the “they're the government, and sooner or later we're going to have to deal with them in one way or another” McCain soundbite, Reynolds reported that “today McCain clarified,” as if he had to adjust his earlier view. On NBC, Lee Cowan highlighted how “Obama pointed to this interview two years ago when the Arizona Senator seemed to hint that eventually talking with Hamas might well be a political necessity.” Following the clip, Cowan allowed: “McCain says, though, that quote was taken out of context.”
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
ABC's David Wright played the McCain clip, but then uniquely acknowledged that it didn't match his point at the time, noting that McCain on Friday recalled “he went on to say, in that interview, that he would not negotiate with Hamas unless it renounced violence and recognized Israel.”
The 2006 clip favored by the media was put into play Friday morning, on CNN's American Morning, by current Clinton campaign operative Jamie Rubin who conducted the Sky News interview.
Rubin, a Clinton administration State Department official married to CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour, and now working for the Hillary Clinton campaign, was invited aboard CNN to expound on his Friday op-ed in the Washington Post, “Hypocrisy on Hamas: McCain Was for Talking Before He Was Against It.”
Once contemporaneous interview video proved that Rubin's selected soundbite, fed to journalists by the Obama campaign, misrepresented McCain's policy position reporters should have ignored it -- or made an issue of the joint Clinton/Obama effort to distort McCain's record, just as they have spent the last 24 hours fulminating over the supposed distortion, by McCain and Bush, of Obama's position on talking to terrorist groups and leaders.
SkyNews is a British news channel owned by News Corporation.
As recounted in an earlier NewsBusters posting by the MRC's Matthew Balan, “CNN Lets Clintonista Denounce McCain’s 'Hypocrisy' on Hamas, But CNN's Own Tape Undercuts Claim,” CNN trusted “Rubin as the authority on what McCain’s stance was two years ago, instead of their own archival video” of the January 28, 2006 6 PM EDT edition of CNN Saturday which the MRC found in our archive:
From the Friday, May 16 broadcast network evening newscasts, the coverage of the 2006 McCain soundbite, all portions of longer stories about Obama denouncing McCain and Bush for accusing him of “appeasement”:CNN correspondent Elaine Quijano introduced the soundbite of McCain: "One prominent Senator says it's an untenable position to have a government in the Middle East led by a group committed to the destruction of its neighbor, Israel." McCain then said in the clip: "Hopefully, that Hamas -- now that they are going to govern, will be motivated to renounce this -- this commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel. Then we can do business again -- we can resume aid. We can resume the peace process. It's very, very important though that they renounce this commitment."
CBS Evening News:
DEAN REYNOLDS: Obama called McCain a hypocrite for backing Bush, and pointed to an earlier statement McCain had made about Hamas, which runs the Gaza strip.McCAIN, JANUARY 2006: They're the government, and sooner or later we're going to have to deal with them in one way or another.
REYNOLDS: Today McCain clarified.
McCAIN: I do not and would not sit down and negotiate with terrorist organizations and never have.
NBC Nightly News:
LEE COWAN: Or worse, he says, distorting the facts -- something he accused John McCain of doing.
BARACK OBAMA: John McCain has repeated this notion that I'm prepared to negotiate with terrorists. I have never said that. I've been adamant about not negotiating with Hamas.
COWAN: And that's something he says is not true of Senator McCain. Obama pointed to this interview two years ago when the Arizona Senator seemed to hint that eventually talking with Hamas might well be a political necessity.
McCAIN, JANUARY OF 2006, IN WEB VIDEO OF SKY NEWS: Sooner or later we're going to have to deal with them in one way or another. [edit jump] It's a new reality in the Middle East.
COWAN: McCain says, though, that quote was taken out of context and told NBC's Kelly O'Donnell today:
McCAIN: My position was that I do not and would not sit down and negotiate with terrorist organizations and never have.
ABC's World News:
DAVID WRIGHT: Today McCain was also forced to debate himself. Specifically, the tough line he takes now.
McCAIN, MARCH 26: I would not negotiate with Hamas.
WRIGHT: How consistent is that with what he told Sky News two years ago, shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian election?
McCAIN, JANUARY 2006, IN WEB VIDEO: They're the government, and sooner or later we're going to have to deal with them in one way or another.
WRIGHT: Today McCain clarified that he went on to say, in that interview, that he would not negotiate with Hamas unless it renounced violence and recognized Israel.
McCAIN, TODAY: My position was that I do not and would not sit down and negotiate with terrorist organizations and never have.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
My Take
May 16, 2008 - 20:29 ET by the curator“Obama called McCain a hypocrite for backing Bush, and pointed to an earlier statement McCain had made about Hamas, which runs the Gaza strip.”
Nothing wrong with the reporter's comments here. He's just reitterating what happened. There's no opinion here anywhere.
Reynolds reported that “today McCain clarified,” as if he had to adjust his earlier view.
McCain DID need to clarify. His comments with SkyNews are ambiguous... he doesn't specify what "deal with" entails. Here, the reporter gives him the opportunity to make that crystal clear.
On NBC, Lee Cowan highlighted how “Obama pointed to this interview two years ago when the Arizona Senator seemed to hint that eventually talking with Hamas might well be a political necessity.”
I agree. The clip does seem to imply conversation with Hamas would eventually need to take place. But, again - its ambiguous. So, that's why the McCain aid was given a chance to talk afterwards.
I understand McCain supporters are crying foul about this story. But, the coverage you've cited here is very fair.
They say what Obama's complaint is. Explain what Obama believes to be hypocricy. Play the tape. Then they give either McCain or one of his aids a chance to clarify.
To me, that's straight-up, fair play journlism.
The only ones I'd see fault with is CNN, who Mr. Balan pointed out earlier, have a more clear interview from, aparantly, that same day.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Following the clip, Cowan
May 16, 2008 - 20:37 ET by motherbeltFollowing the clip, Cowan allowed: “McCain says, though, that quote was taken out of context.”
That's the difference. They are treating the claim as fact, and portraying McCain (McCain says, though...) as being on the defensive, and attempting to dispute it. Not only dispute it, but with the oldest excuse in the book: taken out of context.
They treated Bush's comments like a scurrilous attack on Obama from the beginning.
I disagree
May 16, 2008 - 20:43 ET by the curatorI dont' see them treating anything as fact or fiction. And whether or not he was taken out of context is an opinion. McCain's opinion.
If McCain 'says' something... you have to preface it with 'McCain says..."
If they just say "That quote was taken out of context." Then they ARE portraying that statement as fact.
But attributing it to McCain, they're doing the proper job of letting the subjects debate their points.
Its not the reporters job to say who's right and wrong... just to present what those subjects are saying.
I know we always want reporters to report stories objectively... but, we need to watch the stories objectively, too.
If you do that, I think you'll see these examples are textbook, fair journlism.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Well that was just my
May 16, 2008 - 20:48 ET by motherbeltWell that was just my impression. I won't belabor it, because I might be applying more cynicism than necessary.
With respect, I disagree
May 16, 2008 - 22:33 ET by KC MulvilleThis isn't a hands off report on the fact that the two camps are "saying things." Obama's accusation is a deliberate distortion of McCain's quote. Obama's accusation is that McCain advocated the same thing Obama does (negotiation with terrorists). But anyone seeing McCain's original interview would know that McCain meant exactly the opposite. McCain clearly stressed that Hamas has to change its behavior before any serious negotation can begin again. Let's face it, as soon as you hear McCain's demand for a behavior change, it changes the whole meaning of his earlier quote advocating negotiation. And, as soon as you hear McCain's whole statement, you see how clumsy this distortion is.
This is Obama's (and the Democrats') second amatuerish attempt to "gotcha" McCain by deliberately reporting only part of what he actually said. Obama and the Democrats have repeatedly charged that McCain wanted us to be in Iraq "for a hundred years." They've been repeating that lie at every campaign stop and TV appearance. Instead, McCain had clearly said that the length of the occupation wasn't the problem, it was the level of casualties. McCain's "hundred years" was a toss off comment, intended to show how much more important the level of casualties were.
This wasn't fair journalism. Brent offered the fair journalism by presenting the quote in context, which the networks could have done just as easily. Instead, the networks were complicit in a deliberate distortion.
KC...
May 17, 2008 - 01:44 ET by JerIf we peel away the spin, and the soundbites, and the politically-charged hyperbole, and the context-absent summarizations, and cut to the core of the actual words, and the plain meaning of those words, are the policy positions of McCain and Obama regarding this issue identical, slightly different or substantially at odds?
Does Obama explicitly advocate "negotiation with terrorists"? Those are your words...are they also his? Has he ever actually spoken those very words. Does it fairly and accurately represent Obama's position...his clear, unequivocal and current position?
I'm really not sure. The only thing I am sure of is that the worst possible characterization of Obama's remarks, and the worst possible characterization of McCain's "100 years in Iraq" throw-away line will be made into very slick, very compelling negative campaign ads with which to bombard the electorate over the coming months.
Politics as usual.
Jer
Inexperience
May 17, 2008 - 13:56 ET by KC MulvilleIt's a false proof to ask for a link to an Obama quote which says, "I will negotiate with terrorists," because he obviously never would have said that so bluntly. The argument is not that he intends to negotiate with terrorists. The argument is that the unintended consequence of his inexperienced foreign policy is that he will, in one way or another, wind up negotiating with terrorists.
It isn't that I'm putting the "worst possible spin" on it. That's logic, not spin. For anyone who looks at the strategy of it, you can see that Obama is backing himself into that corner. He's walking into the Middle East Car Dealership, and he’s committing to get negotiations started. They will take him to the cleaners.
That clip was also played on
May 16, 2008 - 20:55 ET by GregEThat clip was also played on Fox News's Special Report w/Brit Hume, but I don't remember the commentary around it.
John, Don’t worry the
May 16, 2008 - 21:16 ET by USA4freedomJohn,
Don’t worry the press loves you, remember?
Maybe you can find a little love at some liberal web site that you are talking to..
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080516/NATION/942099047/1001
The part that amazes me is the RNC is “shocked” that things are not going well.
Did any one notice when you tried to ram that amnesty plan up our A$$, how angry every one was. So your answer.. call us names..
I have an idea, every one in the leadership of the RNC should be made to read: How to win friends and influence people...
I’m quite sure but, calling your supporters names is not in the book..
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
Romney / Jendil 2012 (if,we survive)
USA, I totally agree
May 16, 2008 - 23:22 ET by jefflebowskithe RNC has totally written off conservatives. For 8 years they have spent money like....ummm...Democrats! They have backed amnesty and done nothing to secure our borders like......ummm...Democrats! They have done nothing to help with gas prices...not even use the bully pulpit to hammer democrats holding up Anwar and off-shore drilling and new refineries.
Quite bluntly, the Republicans (Wussypants) deserve what they are getting. And it pains me to say that. I thought Bush would be as good and even better than Reagan. What we got was 8 more years of Clinton with morals.
I know that I will get the usual nasty replies from the moderates here....but I am holding my ground. I am no longer a Republican but I will always be a conservative.
Jeff Lebowski
Jeff
May 17, 2008 - 05:05 ET by USA4freedomJeff
I agree. I cant tell you how proud I was of the USA and Bush when he was standing on that pile of rubble that was part of the WTC.
I lost friends in the WTC, (I ran a bar in Hoboken NJ across from the WTC). All the way to now, when I hear him speak I just boil. Its not because of the war, I totally support the war, I wish that we would land on them with a larger footprint. I want other countries when they hear that the US might want to stomp them theyjust cringe..
When we controlled the House Senate and the White House. We act like we are still in the minority. Well look out when the Democrats take over, THEY WILL ACT LIKE THEY ARE IN CHARGE..
It’s was such a waste of a great chance to change the landscape of Washington. With the dam Democrats and the (I agree Wussypants,) RINO’s we chickened out at every chance. The only three things that Bush seems hell bent on is: The war, lower taxes, and having every Mexican that wants to be here welcome. Including putting border agents in jail with the word of a drug smuggler.
Then the RNC acts shocked that we are pissed...
When you have 80% of America going against the immigration plan, (you cant get 80% of America agreeing ON ANYTHING!!). Then with the help of Kennedy and MC CAIN, Bush ignores the weeks of the Congress getting millions of calls e-mails faxes and tried to just ram it thru. Telling us SCREW YOU WE WILL DO WANT WE WANT. Then to add salt in the knife in the back they call us vigilantes, nativest, racist!
I wrote letter after letter, I sent bricks taped to their letters asking for donations, I told them: build the fence, start with this brick and then maybe I will send you money. Oh yea, what’s the deal on the fence.. oh still working on it. Yet we send money to Egypt to help build their fence, unbelievable..
Do you think that some how we could drill for our own oil??
I would put voting for oil in Alaska up every week, then post every one that votes against it in the paper, high lighting the RINO’s!!
Mc Cain missed this last vote, what a shock..
Yep I’m pissed, been pissed for about 3 years.
You jack asses in the RNC, you reap what you sow.
Maybe you should plant more corn..
Here is just an idea, if its good for the country, it will be good for your party.. See how easy that is..
Repeat it to your self, good for the country, good for the party..
Work on it.. maybe in 4 years you can win us back.
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
Romney / Jendil 2012 (if,we survive)
Matching CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC
May 16, 2008 - 21:57 ET by CarlosSSomeone needs to tell the clowns at ABCNNBCBS that they're "reporting" the Obama talking points a little bit too much in lock-step..., and people are noticing this...
Spinning
May 16, 2008 - 22:18 ET by ScrapironThe Lame Stream Media is spinning the American people exactly like Hitler used the media and courts to spin the German people. The only bright light is that the Lame Stream Media types will be first to die if they get the government they are asking for. No questions, dead at the hands of their own masters.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
One way or another
May 16, 2008 - 22:29 ET by CobraMan"Today McCain was also forced to debate himself. Specifically, the tough line he takes now."
How is McCain debating with himself?
McCain said "They're the government, and sooner or later we're going to have to deal with them in one way or another."
He later said "I do not and would not sit down and negotiate with terrorist organizations and never have."
I think it's obvious as to how McCain will deal with Hamas, and it won't be by negotiating with terrorists.
So, just how is this "debating" with himself? This is yet another MSM manufactured “controversy.”
When so-called "real
May 16, 2008 - 23:54 ET by RMRWhen so-called "real journalists" are willing to use a "doctored tape" by a hyper-partisan like Rubin to smear John McCain and shield Barack Obama. They are saying quite clearly that they are prepared to do whatever it takes to get Obama into that White House.
But never mind that John McCain. Just continue ignoring those "hate-filled" conservatives. Continue reaching over that aisle, and eventually you will convince those libs that "bipartisanship" is the way to go. Trust me.
Speaker Pelosi's outrage
May 17, 2008 - 01:23 ET by riff_raffI suppose, at some level, I can understand Nancy Pelosi lashing out at GWB for his comments about potential-appeaser-in-chief Obama. After all, a while back she shlepped half-way around the globe (at taxpayer expense) just to suck up to that second generation, genocidal, antisemite Bashar Assad:
http://www.observer....
So if GWB didn't smack down Pelosi for that traitorous act, why the big stink over something similar that Obama has not yet actually done?
And what is it with these high ranking federal government libs kissing up to totalitarian fascist dictators?
http://www.weeklysta...
http://tbn0.google.c...
http://vwt.d2g.com:8...
Apparently they're in awe (or maybe jealous) of the unlimited power wielded by these tyrants, and by hanging out with them they're hoping to pick up a few pointers on how they get away with it.
lies on every side...
May 17, 2008 - 06:28 ET by sentforth5This truly is shaping up to be the absolute worst political landscape as there has ever been; the dems lie and the cons figure that it is okay, because the in-context films are available, but that still does not matter, because libs do not care to hear or acknowledge the truth, so the body politic begins to look like a third grade classroom when the teacher steps out for a second..and for the Christian mind, our beloved LORD spoke through St. Isaiah in ch. 3 saying:(speaking of the last days)
"..And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and everyone by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable."
So we see the bitterness before our eyes this very day, and it is frustrating, but it is the LORD'S will.
Hold on, beloved children...HE is still in control and HE will perform HIS perfect plan of salvation. It is difficult to watch, but we who trust OUR FATHER will be warmed by the very fire that will devour all this evil.
Just sayin' is all...
I'm seeing some folks trying
May 17, 2008 - 09:44 ET by BruzillaI'm seeing some folks trying to make a distinction without a difference. How many times have we heard groups like Hamas say they renounce terrorism or accept some other condition, only to immediately go back to what they were doing? Does anyone with half a brain actually believe that if Hamas says "We renounce terrorism and recognize Israel" that they are actually going to mean it? If Obama is gullible for wanting to meet without preconditions I think McCain is just as gullible for thinking groups like Hamas will live up to their word.