What KDKA and CNN Kept Out of Their Murtha 'Surge Has Worked' Coverage

Photo of Tom Blumer.

Murtha0608This post builds on Noel Sheppard's NewsBusters entry earlier this morning.

Noel covered portions of Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha's Thursday interview with Pittsburgh TV Station KDKA used by CNN's "Situation Room" on Friday (transcript here [Murtha segment is about halfway through]; video here).

CNN carried KDKA footage showing that Murtha has grudgingly acknowledged the obvious: That the troop surge in Iraq has, in his words, "in the short-term ..... certainly reduced incidents," but that "I'm not sure whether it's because of the Iraqis are just worn out, but certainly the way they're doing it today makes a big difference."

What KDKA decided to keep from TV viewers is arguably at least as important as what the station showed.

In interview footage left on the cutting room floor, Murtha falsely claimed that less than 1/3 of the Iraqi benchmarks have been met, and that the majority of Americans "want us out" of Iraq as fast as possible. But most explosively, the Pennsylvania congressman claimed that a major reason why the troop surge has been successful is that before that time "we broke down doors, we went in and we killed people inadvertently."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

In partial defense of KDKA, the station posted the entire 20-minute interview at its web site (go to this KDKA link; type "Murtha" in the seach, and select the "Web Extra: Congressman John Murtha Interview"; also, in case KDKA gets uncomfortable, an edited 8-minute version of the interview is at Gateway Pundit).

The opening of the full interview shows that the Pennsylvania congressman clearly feels he is in friendly territory with reporter Jon Delano:

Delano: We're with Congressman John Murtha. Congressman, thank you so very much for talking to us.

Murtha: Jon, it's nice to be with a politician, a person who used to be a politician, now is a newscaster who knows as much about politics as I do.

Murtha's comfort is not surprising. Although Delano's bio at KDKA does not mention his political party, only noting that he spent "fourteen years working in the US Congress," a search of the ProQuest library database reveals that KDKA's Money & Politics Editor is a longtime Democrat whose familiarity with the 34-year Congressman goes back to the early 1980s, if not before that. This excerpt is from a November 8, 1994 pre-election article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (used for fair use and discussion purposes; bold is mine):

KDKA, which has used a variety of political party people as analysts over the years, tonight will use attorney Jon Delano, a Democrat who served 14 years as chief of staff for former U.S. Rep. Doug Walgren of Mt. Lebanon, who lost his seat to Rick Santorum in 1990.

Delano lost in the Democratic primary this spring to Mike Doyle in the 18th congressional district. And even though he's a true-blue Democrat, KDKA News Director Sue McInerney says she's not worried about any conflict of interest.

How nice. One suspects that Mr. Delano is Murtha's designated go-to-guy for friendly interviews, and that given the improvements in Iraq, Murtha was in need of one. During the interview, answering a question on another topic, Murtha began by saying "Well, you can remember when you worked for Doug Walgren ...."

The softball nature of Delano's questioning didn't prevent Murtha from stepping in it at a few points. But, fortunately for the Pennsylvania congressman, Delano's editorial decisions "somehow" kept the following potentially controversial bolded items from the full 20-minute interview out of KDKA's 3-minute broadcast report and, ultimately, out of CNN's:

(At 3:50) Delano: ..... Many people seem to think that things are going much better now in Iraq. Do you?

Murtha: Well, it's, certainly militarily there's less incidents. The problem I've seen is the political decisions that have to be made by the Iraqis themselves. They want us out of there. I want us out of there. I think we've done everything we can do militarily. Incidents have decreased, but still, the problem politically still faces, the fact that we can't solve the problem, the political guidelines that have been set up. I think we have 17 guidelines and they've solved four or five of them. (1) So there's a long way to go.

They want us out, that's the key, and we want out. We have depleted the resources of our military in the United States since we've been in Iraq. We need to rehabilitate them. We're spending $343 million a day, and 68% of the (American) people say "We want out of Iraq." (2) So we need to do it responsibly and carefully, but we need to get out of there.

Delano: Has President Bush's surge policy worked?

Murtha: Well, I think for the short-term, it has certainly reduced incidents. I'm not sure whether it's because of the Iraqis just being worn out, but certainly the way they're doing it today makes a big difference. It used to be we broke down doors, we went in and we killed people inadvertently. Now they're much more careful about that. (3) They're doing it the way you should fight a guerrilla war. That makes a big difference, and I think that the change in tactics is as important as the number of troops that is over there.

But what this has done is constrain us from putting troops into Afghanistan, which is starting to go bad. So we've got some real problems facing us. The next president's going to have some real decisions he's going to have to make.

(at 10:55) Murtha: ..... We need to restore the credibility of this great country. We're at 9% in Turkey. Our credibility is at the lowest level it's been in years. So that's the first thing he (Obama, if elected) needs to do. (4) We need to work with multi-nationals, other countries. We can't do this ourselves. I kept saying this over and over again. We need to internationalize this effort in Iraq. President Bush didn't think that was needed; he did this without these other countries.

And I think that Barack Obama understands, that he's willing to work with other people. Certainly the way he reached out during his campaign impressed me.

+++++++++++++++++++

Notes:
(1) - Not exactly. From the Associated Press via MSNBC (HT Gateway Pundit) -- "Iraq report: 15 of 18 benchmarks 'satisfactory.'"
(2) - According to Opinion Research Corporation (news release page; underlying PDF), the polling company for CNN, that poll was done in late April, and its results were released on May 5. 68% said they opposed the war, which is not the same as saying that "we should get out." Evidence of that obvious point comes from this March 2008 Gallup poll, in which 65% of those questioned said that "the United States has an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq before withdrawing all troops." Additionally, at the time of CNN poll, 59% of Americans thought the war was going badly. Since the polling date, Iraqi Security Forces and civilian deaths have dropped significantly. I wonder if CNN will have Opinion Research do another poll any time soon?
(3) - This is a serious shot at our troops and commanders in previous years. Especially given how Murtha's claims about the conduct of Haditha Marines have not been supported by the legal outcomes thus far, Delano should have pressed Murtha about the evidence he had for this statement. Instead, the statement was kept out of the broadcast entirely.
(4) - One of these days, a real journalist is going to ask someone like Murtha how more US-sympathetic governments have been elected in places like France, Germany, and Canada during the "lowest credibility in years" Bush Administration.

+++++++++++++++++++

You'll also note at KDKA's broadcast link that Delano rearranged the interview snippets he presented without disclosing to viewers that he did so (this is a particular pet peeve of mine, as it was one of CBS News's favorite techniques for twisting the words of our generals during Vietnam). Delano saved Murtha's "they don't want us there" riff for later in the broadcast report, so he could set it up separately from Murtha's surge comments. Sorry, Jon, that should be out of bounds, unless it's disclosed, in a professional operation.

Of course, past political involvement is not a journalistic disqualifier. For example, the late Tim Russert spent time as a Democratic staffer. But does anyone think Russert would have let Murtha's claim about past military conduct go unchallenged, or that he would have removed that claim from an edited report to protect an old political pal?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It used to be we broke

It used to be we broke down doors, we went in and we killed people inadvertently. Now they're much more careful about that. (3)

So Murtha is still saying our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood?

He has the unmitigated gall to repeat that slander?????

Tom, I hope you and the others saved that full interview. Something tells me it will get sanitized or "disappeared" one way or another.

BTW, on the KDKA site, under the short clip of the news anchors introducing the story it says "KDKA's Jon Murtha reports." LOL

Freudian slip???

 

Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson

The 8-minute YouTube has the meat in it

I don't know how to get to an embedded vid. If someone else does, they should look into doing it (for fair use, of course).

I looked for a transcript

I looked for a transcript on the KDKA site but didn't find one. Maybe it will be up later.

Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson

Shifts in opinion about the war in Iraq

“...at the time of CNN poll, 59% of Americans thought the war was going badly. Since the polling date, Iraqi Security Forces and civilian deaths have dropped significantly. I wonder if CNN will have Opinion Research do another poll any time soon?”

I would not be too optimistic about shifts in opinion about the war in Iraq without another poll to find out how much the American people understand about the war in spite of the media’s non-coverage.

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.

John Murtha

Mr. Murtha, How DARE you show yourself on television without it being the SINCERE apology to all of the soldiers and their family who you so carelessly and HATEFULLY stated are murderers? If I recall correctly ALL of the alleged 'murderers' have been cleared of your ridiculous charges. You are scum , and don't deserve the freedom that is provided to your ungrateful a$$. GET THE HELL OUT OF MY COUNTRY.

"To beat Violence, You must ignore the focus groups. You must send in the Mossad, turn off the BBC, CNN, and don't look back."

Murtha

There was a time, not long ago, when John Murtha's name was associated with a strong national defense and respect for veterans and the troops. Remember, this guy used to be one of the reasonable Democrats who you could work with.

He got a little taste of fame, like a shot of heroin, and he became addicted to the attention. Now, he can't stop himself. He labels everything in the military like they were all baby-killers. Disgraceful.

to state the obvious

It is hard to believe that a person with such limited intelligence can win a position of power.   It is truly discouraging to realize that John Murtha has the power to make decisions that affect us all.  I haven't felt this low about government since Bubba was president and albore was vice-president. 

Meanwhile, how many of you heard from the MSM....

...that over the weekend 1,200 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines re-enlisted in a ceremony in Baghdad?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/

I saw it on Fox but nowhere else.

Imagine that.

Must be a bunch of guys who

Must be a bunch of guys who get their jollies killing civilians "in cold blood."

<sarc>

Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson

It was also covered on

It was also covered on MSNBC on Friday. 

I'm only guessing here, but

I'm only guessing here, but I think these leftist clowns are doing a 180 on Iraq in order to give cover to Obama. From what I understand, Obama will be visiting Iraq soon, and odds are he will magically change his stance of an immediate pull-out.

It's all about political cover, and leopards changing their spots in order to grab that much-coveted "middle" vote.

I find it very interesting that leftist ideology is so bankrupt that they can't sell it outright to mainstream Americans. They have to resort to tricks and outright lies, and of course they have the support of the MSM.

What I am hoping...

...is that things will continue to improve so much that in mid to late October Bush can announce an immediate withdrawals to bring the number of troops to less than 100,000 by the end of the year with an additional 50,000 in 2009.  Talk about talking the wind out of the Defeatocrats sail.

But then again the Left would say such a withdrawal is just a cynical and desperate attempt to help McCain.

Obama is on the record as

Obama is on the record as saying that he will listen to the commanders on the ground but that he is the final decision maker when it comes to strategy.  Boy, doesn't that sound familar. If I'm not mistaken Pres. Bush has been saying that from the begining, about listening to the commanders on the ground. Also, how scary is it that Obama, who has no military expereince, will possibly overrule the judgement and recommendations of those very commanders on the best way to proceed.

Also, why is it that the Dems want to END the war and the Repubs want to WIN the war?

 

It might be easier if

It might be easier if somebody really stated what "winning" is.  What is the finish line to which somebody can have the ticker-tape parade and say, "We have won this war!"

There will be no formal surrender on board a warship in the Pacific.  There is no definitive enemy leader that we can point to and say "This is the guy, kill him and this whole damn war is done".  Its no longer a case where the President can pull out a banner and a marching band on a warship and say the job is done.

And I'm not trying to be difficult.  But I'm really curious...If we keep on sticking around in Iraq, what do we need to do to say we  have won this war??

Obama hasn't realized that

Obama hasn't realized that you can't "end" a war. You either win it (whatever your definition of "win" is), lose it, or withdraw from it.

I think we know which of those options Obama has in mind.

Do the words "Peace with honor" ring a bell? 

 

Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson

You pose some very good

You pose some very good questions.

I listen to Hannity often, and when he goes off about "victory" in Iraq, I want to pull my hair out (what's left of it). He never goes into detail about what "victory" means.

The only thing we can do is stay in there and beat the hell out of the bad guys. Of course, the bad guys have no problem disguising themselves as normal people, hiding out in mosques and schools, and using women and children as human shields. The trick is to kill as much of this filth without accidently wasting innocent bystanders.

And it doesn't help that we have crybabies over here that want to give Constitutional rights and presumption of innocence to terrorist animals. Our Republic has gotten so soft and fat that people have time to over-think this nonsense.

/Monday Rant

Victory can mean different

Victory can mean different things to different people. This war, which was waged on us and our allies way before we acknowledged it, is not "our father's" type of war. You are right, we will never have a peace accord or a signing ceremony. But does that mean we should not continue the offensive on these terrorists? If we can get another ally in the middle east, is that a victory? If Iraq can govern and protect itself, is that a victory? If we continue to kill, no use in capturing enemy combatants anymore, terrorists is that a victory?

I hear you.  But this is

I hear you.  But this is what discourages me.  We will never eliminate all the terrorists in Iraq.  We will just reach a point where the number of terrorists remaining in Iraq is deemed an acceptable number and we will slowly pull the troops out. 

I never understood Nixon's whole "peace with honor" mantra.  After the Paris Peace Talks, he finally declared that we had peace with honor and we started bringing the troops home and ultimately South Vietnam was overtaken by the north.

If we truly are doing all of this to bring democracy to Iraq and stabilize the country, I just hope its not a victory that will be deemed irrelevant five years from now. 

Exactly right, Cureboy,

Exactly right, Cureboy, which is why we should not pull our troops out until the Iraqi government is ready. At some point, the Iraqis will be able to handle the terrorism that takes place there - they are doing this more and more now. At that point, the use of US forces will not be necessary. If we leave too early, then there is a real possibility of overthrow of the government. I think this is why the Iraqis are saying they are looking forward to withdrawal of US troops, but are not putting a timeline on it.

Yes.  But when will the

Yes.  But when will the Iraqi government be ready?  Six months from now?  10 years from now?  If we have this open-ended policy of sticking around to lend a helping hand, I worry that Iraq will never take seriously their own responsibility.  I mean, let's face it, the United States military is the most highly trained, dependable, and honorable military in the history of the world.  I would want to keep them around me as long as possible. 

I just wonder if the good news we've seen of late with less violence in Iraq is a result of having more troops in the region as opposed to the Iraqi people stepping up to the plate. If its just because we've sent more troops, then I worry that the problem is just going to reappear as we drawn down that number.  I do hope that's not the case, though. 

By the way.  This is something that really irritates me.  When people say its good news whenever a statistic is released to the effect of "only 32 troops were killed in Iraq last month".  Show me the news bulletin that says "No troops were killed in Iraq last month" and then I'll celebrate that as good news!

 

Not to scare you, but the

Not to scare you, but the USA has been trying to work on it's governement for over 200 years, it's not perfect but..... As for the troops, in all likelihood we will have some sort of presence there for the foreseeable future, e.g. Korea, Europe. The Iraqies are still signing up for the police and military despite the terrorists... They have pride in their country and will want to be on their own to show the world what they can do. As with  us, it might not be perefect but it's better than a dictatorship...

Nope.  The US government

Nope.  The US government still isn't perfect.  But then again, its also been about 220 years since we had a foreign nation with troops risking their lives here in America so that our democracy could thrive.

I have no doubt that we will need a long term presence in Iraq like we have in Korea.  However, I would like that long-term presence to be a couple of thousand as opposed to the 130,000 we have there now to keep things stable.  We just can't keep that large of a number over there indefinitely.

 

 

CB, I believe the War of

CB, I believe the War of 1812 which ended in 1816 means closer to 198 years instead of 220.  And then consider America teh USA also means Hawaii and other territories you are dead wrong even more.  The Philipines were protectorates at teh time so any Army on taht soil such as teh Brits would be considered helping us?  Perhaps it is stretching but no more than you sking what victory is and fretting over us being there for a few more years.

Canadians and hen shoot em in the dark.

Yeah. I guess I am fretting.

Yeah. I guess I am fretting. Whats a few more years. A few more thousand lives. As long as we achieve an official victory that a president can reference in a speech.  Instead I'll fret about other things like whether or not I get caught on the rain. 

But then again, its

But then again, its also been about 220 years since we had a foreign nation with troops risking their lives here in America so that our democracy could thrive.

That is because the US is one of a handful of nations willing to do the hard work of liberty.

However, I would like that long-term presence to be a couple of thousand as opposed to the 130,000 we have there now to keep things stable.

Frankly, the numbers are not the important item since the US had more troops than that by a factor of two in CENTAG during the 1950's, 60's, 70's, and 80's.

We had nearly that number of troops in South Korea up until the 1980's when the second US division posted to the Korean peneisula was removed.

It is the role that those troops take on.

If their sovereignty means

If their sovereignty means nothing to them, then we will be there forever or until we say enough. I see nothing in these people that suggests that they want to be under our military's protection. If you worry about that, then you don't have much understanding of the pride the Middle Eastern populations have in their heritage.

Our military leaders are doing a fine job of assessing the situation and making decisions based on that information. The results are the Iraqi and US forces are putting a great deal of pressure on the terrorists and insurgents. This is the likely reason for the reduction of US deaths in theater. I, too, would like to see zero. But when you have 100K + troops in harms way, it will happen. I would also expect to see maybe 2-5 deaths per 100K as a result of normal training and resultant accidents, so we are unlikely to see 0 in Iraq.

We will never get rid of

We will never get rid of all the murderers, rapists and other scum. But we need to keep on combating/policing them. That is the same thing with the terrorists. There will always be some that think Bin Laden and company's way of life is the answer. But if we can continue to change hearts and souls you never know. Just because we will never eradicate these terrorists doesn't mean we loose. We loose if we stop going after them and let them have an easy time of it, ala Afghanistan pre 9/11.  

As for Nixon, it was nothing more than face saving. The war was so unpopular, thanks to Kerry et al and the media, that he had to try and make it look as good as possible for the US.

Ooooohhhnooooooo!

Our approval rating is 9% in Turkey.

I'm sure that rating will vault way up when we have a president named Hussein.

How can our nation live with knowing we have a 9% approval rating in Turkey.

I wonder if that beefhead Murtha thinks its because we're in Iraq or if it is our support of the Kurds. When BHO is president will we throw the Kurds under the bus?

These aren't the Kurds I know.

I'm not going to be able to sleep tonight knowing that 91% of turks disapprove of the United States.

I wonder what was our all time high in approval in that great nation.

Iraqis are worn out?

Murtha hypothesizes that the Surge has worked only because the Iraqis are "worn out."  Of course, that probably has nothing to do with U.S. troops.  Perhaps after a long Ramadan, they just needed some time to nap and catch up on their calorie counts.

Perhaps PBS could do a documentary wherein the Japanese didn't surrender because of U.S. naval & air victories, the successive taking of strategic islands or the atomic bomb drops.  Instead, the Japanese probably just got a little bored with the whole "war thing" and just went home.

 

<insert witty signature here>

But does anyone think

But does anyone think Russert would have let Murtha's claim about past military conduct go unchallenged, or that he would have removed that claim from an edited report to protect an old political pal?

YES!  I do.

Please stop glorifying Russert.  He was fairer than most Liberal journalist by reason of how biased/activist the rest have become, but he was not perfect.  His approach towards non-Democrats was far harsher in the general and the specific.

Russert's overall performance should be considered the baseline of any journalist, not the zenith.

As for Murtha, what a disgusting dung beetle.  On second thought, I have more respect for the dung beetle.

Here! Here!

Totally agreed on Russert.  Whenever somebody in the media passes away, there are so many tributes and so much navel-gazing that it becomes nauseating.

But whenever some common folk die -- people who daily produce something that people find useful (like food) -- they get a one inch obit in the local gazette.  It should really be the other way around.

<insert witty signature here>

On the subject of

On the subject of death...

Russert, best known as a television news personality, was given a State funeral fit for a hero or top politician as judged by all the media coverage so slavishly afforded.  His Mass was the place to be seen by D.C. elite.

Jesse Helms, a man who shaped the policy and moral fiber of this country for years, was denigrated and marginalized in comparison by the media. Maybe I missed the hours of tribute and live coverage on television.

The MSM has run amuck.  Liberals have run amuck.  Murtha gets away with viciously slandering Marines.  It is Lord Of The Flies time.

RRAM Tough! 

strat, I think Russert was

strat,

I think Russert was as good and fair a reporter as he could be, especially given his background as Democrat operative. I'm sure he was a nice man, a good family man, had many friends, and loved his father. Having said that, I also thought his death, however shocking (as with all people who die early), was blown out of all proportion. Even considering he was one of their own, the coverage the media alotted to it seemed somewhat indulgent.

Agreed.If I sounded

Agreed.

If I sounded harsh, not mentioning Russert was a good family man and a decent human being, it was because I have already spoken to the positives in a previous thread.  This post went to the heart of his treatment as not only neutral journalist but also over-the-top media coverage of his death.

I salute Russert for what he was, not necessarily for what he has been eulogized.

That being said, I have concern that Russert's replacement will far surpass the bias of Russert, promoting more activist lines of enquiry with their ideological opposite guests.

 

RRAM Tough! 

I think it's time for this

I think it's time for this doddering old fool to retire. It's also time for the media to stop trying to edit and obscure his crazy ravings.

Tom

Thought you would be interested in knowing that Rush Limbaugh has a link to this page in his Stack of Stuff Quick Hits Page for Monday, July 7:

Story #2: Murtha Admits the Surge Worked, Then Lies

RUSH:
Jack Murtha, last week in Pittsburgh on KDKA television, admitted that
the surge is working -- but he lied when he said that only three of the
18 benchmarks for the Iraqi government had been met.  It's more like 15.

--------------------------------------------------------

Which political party is invested in our defeat in Iraq?

Thanks

Kewl.