On Wednesday’s CBS "Early Show" evening news anchors, ABC’S Charles Gibson, NBC’s Brian Williams, and CBS’s Katie Couric, were all on to promote an upcoming cancer research telethon, but near the end of segment, co-host Harry Smith asked about former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s new book in which McClellan claims the media did not ask tough questions leading up to the Iraq war and Couric agreed:
I think it's a very legitimate allegation. I think it's one of the most embarrassing chapters in American journalism. And I think there was a sense of pressure from corporations who own where we work and from the government itself to really squash any kinds of dissent or any kind of questioning of it. I think it was extremely subtle but very, very effective. And I think Scott McClellan has a really good point.
Perhaps a better example of "one of the most embarrassing chapters in American journalism" would be Couric’s predecessor, Dan Rather, using fraudulent National Guard memos to attempt to smear President Bush just prior to the 2004 election.
By contrast, Gibson disagreed with McClellan’s characterization: "No, I think that the media did a pretty good job of focusing and asking the questions." Williams offered a similar diplomatic answer: "I think people have to remember the post-9/11 era and how that felt and what the president felt he was empowered to do and that Colin Powell speech at the U.N."
Smith then replied to Williams: "And what the mood of the country was." At that point, Couric once again shared her thoughts: "Definitely. But you know, our responsibility is to sometimes go against the mood of the country and ask the hard questions." Of course, when Couric interviewed General David Petraeus last month she did not seem interested in going "against the mood of the country": "Finally, general, in our latest poll, 54 percent of Americans think the war is going badly -- more than half, obviously. How can you sustain this effort without more popular support here at home?"
Here is the full transcript of the "Early Show" segment:
7:36AM SEGMENT:
HARRY SMITH: Hey, can we talk about Scott McClellan's book which is in stores now and he talks about the failure of main stream media to hold the Bush Administration's feet to the fire in the run-up to the war. Is that an allegation that feels to you like it has merit or not? Charles?
CHARLES GIBSON: When I write my book, I will take exception to that, but I won't write my book. No, I think that the media did a pretty good job of focusing and asking the questions. We were not given access to get into the country, to go along, as Brian was talking about earlier, to go along with the inspectors. But the questions were asked. The questions were asked. It was just a drum beat from the government, and I think it's convenient now to blame the media, but I don't.
KATIE COURIC: I think it's a very legitimate allegation. I think it's one of the most embarrassing chapters in American journalism. And I think there was a sense of pressure from corporations who own where we work and from the government itself to really squash any kinds of dissent or any kind of questioning of it. I think it was extremely subtle but very, very effective. And I think Scott McClellan has a really good point.
SMITH: Brian, we have ten seconds left.
BRIAN WILLIAMS: I think people have to remember the post-9/11 era and how that felt and what the president felt he was empowered to do and that Colin Powell speech at the U.N.
SMITH: And what the mood of the country was.
WILLIAMS: Absolutely.
COURIC: Definitely. But you know, our responsibility is to sometimes go against the mood of the country and ask the hard questions.
SMITH: There you go. Thank you all for being here this morning. Great to see you.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I think it's one of the
May 28, 2008 - 11:44 ET by BDI think it's one of the most embarrassing chapters in American journalism.
I concur with her, the press always seeking the bad news regarding US troops in action, almost never showing the good is the most embarrasing chapter in American Journalism.
MSM Journalism an embarrasment!
May 28, 2008 - 13:02 ET by MaximusBraveheartNo kidding! What an appropriate comment!
No tough questions?
May 28, 2008 - 11:55 ET by americaneagle"Could Afhanistan become another Vietnam?" RW Apple, 10/30/01 3 weeks into the invasion of Afghanistan
"There are questions today why the US military used such heavy firepower to take down a few lightly armed men." Jim Miklaszewski 7/23/03 on the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein
"One danger the administration may face in the next few days is...when we win, will it appear that we have been a bully?" David Gergen 3/31/03 on ABC, one day into the Iraq War
"I know we want to call it a war of liberation, bu I think this looks more like a war of conquest than a war of liberation." Eleanor Clift 4/3/03 on Fox News
Are these the "hard questions" not asked, or the sentiments Katie didn't see during the run-up to and in the early days of the war?
But at least Katie is familiar with abject failure...just see her ratings for proof!
Concur. All you have to
May 28, 2008 - 13:00 ET by BDConcur. All you have to do is key up the word "Quagmire" and it leads to all the uninformed bull the media put out in the opening days of both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Finally, an audience!
May 28, 2008 - 11:56 ET by OldSailor88Katie had to go on the "Early Show" so that someone other than her mother saw her on TV.
Noli habere bovis, vir!
ROFL...
May 28, 2008 - 13:36 ET by ontheright...very well said.
If she didn't look in the mirror periodically, no one would be watching her...
Invisible Katie
May 28, 2008 - 16:21 ET by nkviking75If Katie wanted to be seen, the Early Show was the wrong place to go.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
It beat out "Katie Couric
May 28, 2008 - 11:59 ET by Roger the ShrubberIt beat out "Katie Couric hosts the CBS Nightly News"? Shocking.
Only self-deluded,
May 28, 2008 - 12:41 ET by mattmOnly self-deluded, clique-insulated, myopic Lefties could look at all the Bush-hating, terrorist-loving, anti-America, anti-military, treasonous coverage the media have been constantly spewing from day one and conclude that they weren't combative enough.
Couric is right, that is an "embarrassing chapter in American journalism." It comes right after the chapter in which CBS hires Couric to anchor the news.
Global warming, Obama, etc.
May 28, 2008 - 12:53 ET by tropicalreportWill Katie come back in 4 or 8 years and say the same thing about global warming or the media's treatment of Barak Obama? So the media didn't ask the right questions or they didn't get the right answers?
One of the most massive failures in journalistic history?
May 28, 2008 - 12:58 ET by Mark JaboMark Jabo
That must explain all the massive firings, shareholder lawsuits and Congressional hearings and burdensome new legislation the media has had to struggle with over the past couple of years.
Wait, ... what?
"And I think there was a
May 28, 2008 - 13:32 ET by Killgrave"And I think there was a sense of pressure from corporations who own where we work"
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
Couric is on her way out, so of course she is going to throw all the rocks she can.
This is a big day for disgruntled former and soon-to-be former employees.
I get less petulance from my teenaged daughter.
Insinuation!
May 28, 2008 - 13:37 ET by NortoIf this insinuation that she "sensed pressure from the 'corporations we work for" does not get her canned, and it should, she will never go away. And what if she did-she would only be replaced by another mime, all of whom are chiming in on "the book."
Time to go to rabbit ears and the lap top. Cannot emphasize it strongly enough. Of course, if the msm straightened out, NBs would be out of business, what would we do then?!
She obviously was talking about this ...
May 28, 2008 - 13:56 ET by 10ksnooker“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger,
that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass
destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."—Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the
authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."—John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real,
but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that
war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation
Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued
to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to
reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to
lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of
proliferation."—John Kerry, October 9, 2002
“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous
dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his
offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating
America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for
weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United
Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that
Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It
has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."—John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
“Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a
very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons
before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is
working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial
vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and
U.S. facilities in the Middle East."—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists,
including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of
his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is
clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to
increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will
keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that
endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the
Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."—Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
I case you forgot what is really embarrassing ...
...and people in the news
May 28, 2008 - 14:56 ET by bigtimer...and people in the news business like the perky little Katie don't understand why their ratings are so low...wonders never cease.
By the way I am sick of the same old mantra from the msm...they have been criticizing the Pres. from just about day one, especially about the war, it has been never-ending, after-all they have an agenda for the leftists to be back in complete power and anybody with a brain knows and sees it every single day....The Pres. got a brief break for a couple of months right after 9-11, that was it.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
I think it's one of the
May 28, 2008 - 15:22 ET by fitzfongI think it's one of the most embarrassing chapters in American journalism.
And she's not even talking about her tenure at CBS News.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
Fake but true
May 28, 2008 - 16:01 ET by wizardjrI almost wiped out another keyboard with my coffee when I saw that statement headlined. How wonderfully true. But then I saw 'the rest of the story' as the marvelous Paul Harvey used to say. I nearly cacked. What was I thinking?
As a military vet I particulary support the headline statement. I also vehemently object to their rationalization of that headline. For years the only news allowed out of Iraq and Afghanistan was bad news. "We're losing." "We can't win." Abu Ghraib. Haditha. One million Iraqi civilians murdered by the military. Etc., etc., etc. In reality our brave young troops are doing a wonderful job. They often sacrifice their own safety and sometimes their very lives to protect civilians. National news coverage of this... nil. Jerks.