MediaBloodhound

Special Report: The Conflict of Interest Between Matthews and Coulter

Following last year's publication of Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Chris Matthews invited Ann Coulter onto Hardball. Hosted outdoors on a stage ringed predominantly by a rabidly fawning crowd, her appearance ate up most of the hour (trumping all other news for coverage time, including the Israeli-Hezbollah war then raging in Lebanon, which received some minutes in the show's opening). Though Coulter spewed her predictable factually challenged, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, anti-democratic, slanderous, extremist and generally inhumane and inhuman views, Matthews was happy to oblige. So happy, in fact, that with the paperback version of her book scheduled for release this week, he welcomed back this charming humanitarian - dedicating the full hour to her - for an even longer slog through the cesspool of her mind.

Matthews’ shortcomings as a television journalist aside (and they’ve certainly been well documented over the years by media watchdogs), he portrays himself, and MSNBC promotes him, as one of the foremost observers of our national political landscape. So why would MSNBC and, more specifically, Matthews himself agree to keep bringing back Coulter to promote her vile books?

The usual answer is: hello…ratings. But if Matthews’ reputation is further tarnished with each of these visits, and if MSNBC does, in the end, wind up angering and losing viewers who as a result of Coulter’s appearances threaten or vow to permanently tune out Hardball and in some cases all MSNBC programming (as evidenced in comments on Hardball’s Hardblogger as well as across national online news sites and the blogosphere), then is it really worth it?

Or is something else behind these freak show appearances? (An hour-long engagement with Ann Coulter, who, if forced to stick to the facts, wouldn't have enough to say to make it to the first commercial break for stomach distress?)

Well, the night before Ann Coulter’s most recent visit, Chris Matthews promoted and justified her scheduled appearance with these words: “Say what you will, she sells books.”

On its face, the comment is clearly intellectually dishonest, though nothing you wouldn't expect from Matthews on the topic. Yes, Coulter sells books, yet not without the considerable boost in sales that appearances on Hardball and other mainstream news programs afford her. All too obvious as well is Coulter’s strategy and goal: manufacture controversy in order to sell more books, and say anything, anything, to do it. Everyone's a target for stirring this contrived outrage: a mother mourning her child from an early tragic death, wives mourning their husbands from 9/11, baseless and homophobic musings about public figures' sexual preferences, calls to target innocent civilians the world-over, encouragements to bomb the United Nations and the New York Times building, cheap shots at "chubby Jewish girls." Whatever leaps from the mind of this "brilliant writer," whatever our mainstream media regurgitates and latches onto.

But there is something else happening here, something that finally reveals why Matthews keeps going to the mat for Coulter. And that something is a direct conflict of interest that MSNBC - and especially Chris Matthews - should not only be ashamed of, but held to account for not informing viewers. 

Ann Coulter’s Godless is published by Crown Forum, an imprint of the Crown Publishing Group, which is part of Random House. Who is Chris Matthews’ publisher for his upcoming book Life’s a Campaign: What Politics Has Taught Me About Friendship, Rivalry, Reputation, and Success? You guessed it - Random House.

But wait, there’s more.

Coulter showed up on Hardball this past Tuesday to promote the new paperback edition of Godless, which just happened to be released on the same day of her appearance. (Matthews also fails to point this out to his viewers.) And while this hour-long Coulterfest was nothing more than a deftly marketed, nationally televised promo book party posing as news, it only begins to touch on the disturbing synergy between the two. A little more digging reveals that Coulter's forthcoming book If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans: Ann Coulter at Her Best, Funniest, and Most Outrageous, published by the same Random House company, is scheduled for an October 2, 2007 release. And the release date for Matthews’ Random House publication Life’s a Campaign (his first, incidentally, with Random House)? Whaddya know: October 2, 2007.

How sweet. How cozy. Matthews and Coulter’s next books, published by the same parent company, Random House, are scheduled to hit the shelves simultaneously this fall.

Who knew their fortunes were so directly linked? Essentially, with zero degrees of separation.

Now does Matthews receive compensation from Random House, or subsidiary Crown Publishing Group, or possibly even directly from Coulter herself, for helping to hock her poisonous invectives, for drumming up exposure this time around she could only dream of? (Think of it: Elizabeth Edwards calling in and John Edwards stopping by the next day turned Coulter’s one-hour appearance into, so far, at least a three-day highly visible national story. Quite a godsend for the Godless author.) Only those aforementioned parties involved, and possibly MSNBC, know the answer to that question. But whatever the arrangement, given the context that Matthews is supposed to be doing a news program, coupled with his failure to divulge this conflict of interest to his viewers, the publishing connection alone confirms journalistic malpractice.

The only question is, how deep does it go? Are there monetary incentives beyond the obvious? Stipulated clauses in book contracts, or unspoken agreements, that preclude Matthews from eviscerating Coulter’s transparent falsehoods and lame evasions? Guarantees of hour-long revivals replete with worshipping minions? Marketing buzzwords to repeat, as if from a script, over and over and over again?

We don’t know. Yet.    

But now that we aware of this serious conflict of interest, it should be incumbent upon MSNBC and especially Matthews, if he cares one whit about his reputation and credibility, to come forward, fess up to his stake in her appearances and apologize for not being upfront with this viewers.

Once I discovered this conflict of interest and then reviewed comments Matthews has made during and regarding Coulter’s appearances over the last two years, I was reminded of David Chase's remark after his Sopranos series finale frustrated so many fans: “It’s all right there.” Matthews’ unusually soft touch with such a venomous defiler of truth - a woman who lies about another woman’s dead son just to sell a few more books - all makes sense.

I gathered these comments together in chronological order, highlighting Matthews' most egregious moments of fawning and salesmanship. You might even notice a slight arc in this story. By the end, after reaching new lows as Coulter's pitchman, Matthews seems somewhat conflicted, though obedient to the media machine of which he’s a part. Maybe he’s concerned this charade with Coulter might damage his career, especially if their ties are revealed. Or maybe he’s just tired of holding Ann’s water.

Whatever the case, enjoy the show (all emphasis in bold is mine):

When Matthews promoted Coulter’s July 27, 2006 Hardball appearance on Alison Stewart’s former MSNBC news program The Most, he more than clued us in on how he would conduct the interview. Stewart appears surprised at Matthews’ comments and seems to give him a chance to correct himself. But, no, he meant what he said. It’s Coulter’s show:

MATTHEWS: Well, we’ve got Ann Coulter. What can you say? She’s near the top of the best-seller list. Her book’s been selling like mad. She’s a helluva writer. I stayed up late last night with her reading the book. And it’s, uh, it’s going to be an interesting conversation. I have no idea what to expect. It’ll all be in her control.

ALISON STEWART: Well, I find that hard to believe the way you do your show, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Well, that’s the way it’ll be. Because I’m going to be a gentleman. See what she says.

Moments from Coulter’s July 27, 2006 Hardball visit (look at the big brain on Ann!):

MATTHEWS: That’s why she’s a best-seller. You are a controversial lady, you write beautifully. You have a brilliant brain.

ANN COULTER, AUTHOR, “GODLESS”: Thank you.

MATTHEWS: I stayed up last night reading your chapter on Willie Horton, which was absolutely stunning it its satire. It reminded me of the young George Will [you can hear Will choking on his martini olive].

COULTER: Thank you.

[...]

MATTHEWS: OK, I‘m just trying to figure out your—look, you’re brilliant.

[...]

Especially telling is their following exchange:

MATTHEWS: Your book is beautifully written, but you choose ethnic language.

COULTER: -- then it becomes relevant, doesn’t it, whether or not their husbands [referring to the “9/11 wives”] were going to divorce them. That shows how absurd it is to make yourself an expert or use someone as an expert because her husband died.

MATTHEWS: But the book is written so well, and then you get to these points, it’s like you said, now I’ll put it in. If I put the shiv in now, this book will really make noise and people like me will complain about it and you’ll sell another 100,000 copies.

COULTER: Right, because I need help selling books and I need more money now.

MATTHEWS: It’s not the money. It’s success.

COULTER: Look—I mean, that is the most—of all the complaints about this book—

MATTHEWS: I never said money, I said success. It sells books.

COULTER: That is still the most absurd complaint made against me. Liberals have spent eight years trying to prevent me from being published, even writing a best seller, I couldn’t get my second book published. No one in New York would publish it.  Newspapers won‘t carry my column. I promise you, you want to have success in America, don‘t be a conservative.

MATTHEWS: You’re doing very well. By the way, your books are doing very well. And we’ve had you on every time you’ve had a book. And I think we’ve always gotten along, so let’s not ruin it. Okay? Let’s move on.

COULTER: No, you never had me on for “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Or “How to Talk to a Liberal.”

MATTHEWS: A failure in our booking. But I definitely remember “Treason”—that was a remarkable evening. I enjoyed it.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Well, thanks, Ann. You're great.

[...]

MATTHEWS: You have a book that’s going to do fabulously—it’s already doing fabulously—and it will do more because of it being on this program.

COULTER: Yes.

[...]

MATTHEWS: I’m going to come back and talk about more with this brilliant writer. A brilliant writer—we’ll be back with Ann Coulter.

Matthews' wrap-up almost defines his infuriating approach as a journalist:

MATTHEWS: Thanks for coming on. And a smart lady. Her book’s called "Godless." Sometimes being smart isn't enough for a civil discourse. We'd love to have her back.

Coulter & Matthews, take two. If anything, in Ann's appearance this past Tuesday, Chris amplified his role as stand-in publicist. Coulter is upgraded to “author and agent provocateur,” her writing “Emersonian” (I’m glad Ralph is dead, this would kill him) and likened to “Fitzgerald” (yes, as in F. Scott “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past" Fitzgerald). In this round, Matthews performs ever more serious stretches of the imagination to promote his publishing mate. Then, quite curiously, he sounds a tinge guilty by the end. He knows what he’s doing is wrong, and you can see him struggle, ever so slightly, to justify his actions. Ultimately, however, it’s all about moving units and collecting the clams, and journalism be damned: 

MATTHEWS: Good evening. I’m Chris Matthews. Welcome to HARDBALL. Tonight, from our HARDBALL plaza, just steps away from the U.S. Capitol, we have a hot summer show for you with special guest agent provocateur Ann Coulter, author, as I said, of the new book—or actually, the paperback version of “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.”

[...]

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) 

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. We’re outside of HARDBALL Plaza with author and agent provocateur Ann Coulter.

The book is called “Godless.”

What’s the rest of it, the long title?

COULTER: “The Church of Liberalism,” out in paperback today.

MATTHEWS: “The Church of”—and it’s out in paperback today. And we are selling books.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: No, it’s good. It is good to sell books.

[...]

MATTHEWS: No. Well, no. I will read the whole chapter. I have the whole chapter, if you would like.

COULTER: And, by the way, this is from the all-new afterward.

MATTHEWS: See, I know. That’s why I wanted to help you with this.

COULTER: Thank you.

MATTHEWS: We will stipulate that you did say Monica was chubby. But I can’t even find that in here. But it is somewhere in here.

No, this is what—“Hillary Clinton was especially testy about my comments about the Jersey girls, which led to another uplifting discovery. In addition to the consensus position that liberals are godless, apparently, we have all agreed that Bill Clinton is a rapist. No one made a peep about that swipe I took at Hillary, proposing that she have a chat with her husband before accusing others of being mean to women, in light of Juanita Broderick’s claim that Bill Clinton raped her. Hillary beat a hasty retreat on her chubby little legs and hid behind Rahm Emanuel for the rest of my book tour.”

So the context frees you up to say what?

COULTER: So beautiful. Could you keep reading?

MATTHEWS: I think it is Emersonian even, or Fitzgerald. Why do you refer to people’s physical characteristics to make a point?

[...]

MATTHEWS: Ann Coulter, the name of the book is “Godless.” We have sold a lot of her books tonight. I don’t know if I can go to confession fast enough. We will be right back tomorrow night with more HARDBALL. Thank you.

Matthews speaks the next morning with Joe Scarborough and anchor Chris Jansing on MSNBC Live:

JOE SCARBOROUGH (MSNBC host): The sad thing here is -- I mean, it helps the Edwards campaign but the other side of it is, the sad thing is, the sad part of it is it will also help Ann Coulter sell more books. I mean, Ann Coulter always wins. We saw it with the 9-11 widows, when she went after the 9-11 widows. Everybody went out and bought her book, even though it was just a throwaway line or two about the 9-11 widows.

CHRIS JANSING: Well, then, in a weird --

SCARBOROUGH: This is what feeds Ann Coulter. It makes Ann Coulter happy, it makes her publishers happy, it makes her much, much wealthier.

JANSING: Why are you shaking your head, Chris?

MATTHEWS: Because her paperback just came out the other day, yesterday. I mean, this is very well timed.

JANSING: Are you feeling used, Chris?

MATTHEWS: No, because we invited her on the show.

So not only is Matthews disingenuous for concealing his publishing conflict of interest with Coulter, but during another potential pang of guilt, aided by Jansing, he laughably acts as if he didn’t realize all along that the Godless paperback was released on June 26, the day she appeared on Hardball. Matthews' conduct here echoes that of a pathological liar who attempts to come clean but can’t. It’s just easier to keep the lie going. Why spoil the mutually lucrative desserts of this farce? For the sake of journalism? Fat chance.

That ever shrinking Murrow angel on Matthews’ shoulder is simply no match for the unprincipled pop news huckster into which he's evolved. Later in the show, Chris squares with his conscience, a shaky will to do the right thing that long ago blanched under the bright light of his TV star:

MATTHEWS: No, I think that her book sales are probably brisk. She's selling the paperback right now. You know, I laughed on the way -- at the end of the program last night, I said she'll probably sell a lot of books because of last night, and therefore I have to go immediately to confession. But you know --

JANSING: Good Catholic boy that you are, Christopher.

MATTHEWS: Well, I obviously was kidding, but, you know, we're all in this business, and clearly some authors do very well by being agents of provocation.

It’s all quite sad, really. And I think what disappointments most people about Matthews is that we know he knows better. He may be irresponsible now, but we're aware of his background - that once upon a time sound journalism meant something to him. We know he’s not a hateful, lying, unctuous creep. We know he’s no fascist. In other words, no Bill O’Reilly. No, well, Ann Coulter.

Yet we also can’t reward him for occasionally doing his job or for not being seismically rude and hurtful. In general, as a television journalist, he’s a train wreck and has been for years. One second he’s attacking Hillary Clinton, not because of her record but because she’s too much of a “ball-buster” and he and his boys' club cronies don’t like that in a woman…unless of course that woman is Ann Coulter. In the next second, he’s taking a guest to task for still claiming there were WMD in Iraq…unless of course that guest is Ann Coulter.

But regardless of Coulter’s appearances, this is the method of Matthews’ journalistic madness: like a besotted driver continually veering over the line before tacking back into his lane, night in and night out Matthews spends each broadcast making valid points and asking the right questions one moment, while in the next he fails to pose obvious follow-ups and guides his guests into discussions based on the most insipid, pointless observations. To say the least, it makes for frustrating viewing. Meanwhile, his analytic riffs and off-the-cuff remarks also tend to vacillate between those of an informed Washington insider and someone who sounds like he’s just making everything up as he goes along. Some nights like someone spiked his coffee with cough medicine.

And so it goes in the land of Chris Matthews.

Maybe, just maybe, he could begin to redeem himself by coming clean about his serious conflict of interest in donning kid gloves and shamelessly promoting Ann Coulter’s books on his news program.

No one expects miracles. But that would be a nice start.

How about it, Chris?

The Wounded-Courier: Veep Moves Exec Branch Into “The Office of F**k You”

WASHINGTON – Last week, Vice President Dick Cheney contended his office is not part of the executive branch. Today, however, Mr. Cheney altered his stance during an exclusive interview with Fox News anchor Brit Hume.

Speaking with Hume early this afternoon, the vice president announced that the entire executive branch will now reside within The Office of F**k You (TOOFY).

“Brit, I welcome all Americans to visit The Office of F**k You whenever they please,” said Vice President Cheney. “TOOFY is a new kind of transparency in government, a new dawn for the American presidency. We’ve never had a more direct-responding branch of government than what everyone will come to see from TOOFY.” Cheney further explained, “The executive branch was long overdue for a meaningful overhaul, Brit. I can’t tell you how many thousands of letters I’ve received from patriotic Americans worried about a weakening executive branch.”

In answering what changes we might expect to see, Cheney replied, “Well, Brit, I believe we’ll silence our critics on a few fronts, most notably in the area of exporting torture, the so-called ‘extraordinary renditions.’ Going forward, all torture will be carried out directly from the White House. Among other benefits, this will bring jobs once lost to foreign competition back to America. No doubt having a positive impact on our economy. I’m also proud to tell you that President Bush and I will be in attendance during these sessions so long as our schedules permit.” Hume then asked if this meant Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush would take an active part in the interrogations, to which the vice president said with a grin, “Well, Brit, I’ve been known to throw a mean left in my time, but I’ll probably leave this to the experts. And I imagine the president, though I’m sure you know he’s fit as a fiddle, will probably follow suit.” Added Cheney, “There are lines we probably shouldn’t cross, protocols we should respect.” 

Shortly after the vice president’s announcement on Fox News, White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino confirmed the creation of The Office of F**k You and provided more specific details at an impromptu briefing on the South Lawn.

“In the newly formed TOOFY, all torture will indeed be executed from and in the Oval Office,” Perino affirmed. “It is for this purpose the Oval Office has recently been refurbished with a brand new range of contemporary torture devices, including The Waterboarder, a state-of-the-art machine created in a joint effort by The Sharper Image and CIA that simulates the time-honored method of simulating drowning, but with far greater efficiency and, of course, a sleek decorative design.” (According to a Sharper Image representative who preferred to remain anonymous, The Waterboarder™ also releases a vanilla-ginger ionic breeze that purifies the air for the torturers and any onlookers who happen to be present during the interrogation process.) Perino also allayed concerns she said the White House has received from several environmental groups: “Just to be clear, this device and many now at the administration’s disposal are all green-friendly.”

Perino ended the presser announcing that though Bush administration officials will continue to meet with members of the press, such occasions will be “relegated solely to the Rose Garden, where newly installed precautionary firing squads will stand watch.” This statement prompted a flurry of hands. Perino, however, declined to take more questions, explaining instead before a brisk exit, “The American people will no longer tolerate leaks of information that compromise our national security. The firing squads will stand guard only for the purpose to stamp out these leaks in real-time, protecting our forces abroad and our people here at home.”

While some members of the press voiced concern over the impact these new measures might have on our democratic institutions, many, including New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, think we should give them a chance to work before being overly critical.

“Look, it’s not 2006 anymore,” Friedman told PBS NewsHour anchor Jim Lehr. “It’s a different world out there. Does it sound a little off-putting initially? Firing squads? In-house torture in the executive branch? Sure it does. Maybe. But let’s not lose our heads over this. Not yet, anyway. I think we first need to take a big step back, a deep breath and consider the cataclysmic changes occurring in the Middle East that are finally beginning to affect us here at home.” Friedman then advised, “If in six months we see the measures enacted under The Office of F**K You are working, then we’re ahead of the game. However, if in six months we see they’re not working, then we simply change course. You know what, Jim? That’s the beauty of our democracy.”

Hardball host Chris Matthews took a somewhat different view but also seemed unconcerned about Cheney’s new power grab. Speaking with Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman on Monday night’s program, Matthews said, “The thing is, you gotta love Dick Cheney. You may not agree with him on this, or anything, but he’s everyone’s crazy uncle - you know, one part Jed Clampett, Uncle Fester fiddling around in that dungeon, a little Foster Brooks tossing a few back, Fred Sanford with the ticker, kind of a speedball of Mr. Potter and Chuck Manson and the cop who hunts that guy for stealing a loaf of bread in Les Miserable…he’s got this whole C.H.U.D., Death of a Salesman, Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean, corporate Boo Radley, late-career Orson Welles ‘We sell no wine before it’s time’ quality…I mean he’s just fascinating to watch, this guy. People plunk down ten bucks every day to see horror movies but this guy’s free and he’s there all the time…well, he’s somewhere, in a bunker, hanging upside down from a ceiling, sleeping one off in a coffin during a day pass, in the war room sticking pins in voodoo dolls, singing ‘Raise High the Flag’…”

“I’d have to agree, Chris,” replied Fineman. “But I do think Cheney may have finally overstepped his bounds with TOOFY.”

“Look, Howard, don’t get me wrong,” Matthews continued. “Nobody wants to see this guy reading bedtime stories to your kids, but he’s got that requisite loony don’t-screw-with-me quality that makes every American a little weak in the knees. Giuliani’s got it, too. Give him a gun and he’s another guy who won’t be afraid to shoot you in the face and blame you for it. Maybe a little scary but exhilarating too, and hot. It gets me a little bothered, I gotta admit. I start smelling cigars and feel the warm breath of cheap whiskey and I want something, I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I like it. You know? I think you do. Let’s be honest, we all want to be held but with a firm grip. And these are the kind of guys who can get it done. I’m not sure what exactly, but you know where I’m coming from. It’s a confident enigma thing and it’s served in a piecrust we all like. And some of us just want to spoon it, or be spooned, and not think about stuff so much.”

Special Report: ABC Obscures Truth About Autism and Thimerosal

In an ABC World News report on the potential link between autism and vaccines, anchor Charles Gibson framed the issue in a way that would make his faux “myth-buster” colleague John Stossel proud.

Here’s Gibson from Monday night's broadcast:

CHARLES GIBSON: The causes of autism. There are parents who are convinced, absolutely convinced, that a preservative in childhood vaccines is the cause. There is no scientific evidence that is the case. None. So why do parents want to believe there is? It’s an issue that’s caused a deep divide in one prominent family. The family of the man who led NBC/Universal for years.

This ABC report (taking its lead from a New York Times cover story printed earlier on the same day) addresses the issue almost solely through the prism of former CEO titan Bob Wright’s public quarrel with his daughter Katie over how Autism Speaks - the powerhouse charity Mr. Wright started after Katie’s son was diagnosed with autism – focuses its money on research. She's convinced her son acquired the disease from mercury exposure during childhood vaccinations; Mr. Wright leans toward a genetic cause and recently publicly distanced himself and his charity from the views of his daughter.

(What a surprise: Bob Wright coming down on the side that shields Big Pharma; the same man who oversaw General Electric's dumping of untold amounts of PCBs into our water supply, denied it profusely, then, when forced to clean it up, fought every step of the way. Of course, not even the briefest of allusions to Mr. Wright's own toxic past and conflict of interest when it comes to getting to the bottom of potential corporate malfeasance is raised. In fact, quite the opposite: Mr. Wright and his wife are presented as reasonable, generous people and loving grandparents whose only concern is the well-being of their grandson and those also dealing with autism in their families; their daughter, on the other hand, is painted as the disgruntled, desperate and possibly unhinged mother.)

First and foremost, however, let’s focus on the real issue - the known facts and history about the link between autism and vaccines - and put ABC's (and the rest of the mainstream media's) titillation over the public squabbling of "one prominent family" aside. (Yes, I realize they run one of the largest autism charities, but if this fact and their bickering are used to obscure and misinform our basic understanding of the autism-vaccination debate rather than to illuminate it, then it's little more than a red herring.)

And let's start with Gibson’s misleading frame, which certainly sets the tone and permeates ABC correspondent John McKenzie’s report.

As to any scientific evidence linking vaccines to autism, Gibson emphatically, and rather contemptuously, proclaims with accompanying mugging - a unified tic of head, eyes and mouth - that there is “None.” In addition to the specious nature of this statement, Gibson instantly mischaracterizes those who think such a link exists as nothing more than desperate parents grasping for a root cause. What's worse, Gibson follows with: “So why do parents want to believe there is?” Wanting to believe something and believing it are of course vastly different things. And Gibson's use is certainly intentional, a cheap ploy to sway his audience. The kind of slant and open disdain one would expect from a Fox News anchor. “Want” here presupposes these parents are willfully ignorant of the truth in order to sustain their belief that vaccines contributed to their children’s autism.

With Brian Williams’ ratings slipping at NBC and Katie Couric still in the basement at CBS, ABC (as well as Gibson himself) has gone out of its way to promote its suppertime newsreader as taking up the mantle of The Serious Anchor in Network Television. Yet in this introduction alone, Gibson stops just short of saying, “What is wrong with these people?” while throwing up his arms in a huff. And his statement that there is “no scientific evidence” linking autism to childhood vaccines is astonishingly intellectually dishonest, if not patently false. Not to mention an insult to his viewers, parents with autistic children, and the many researchers, scientists, independent journalists and legislators on both sides of the aisle who’ve fought for years to uncover the truth. 

In John McKenzie’s report, though he extends the misleading frame, saying, “But when it comes to vaccines, scientists say they have the answers” – as if there are no scientists with differing views on this issue – he does go on to cite, “Three government reviews, looking at all available information, have found no credible evidence of any link between vaccines and autism.”

Gibson’s “no scientific evidence” and McKenzie’s purported consensus among scientists are of course a far cry from conclusions based exclusively on “three government reviews.”

Especially when government agencies and politicians, including the FDA, the CDC, and former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, were exposed for colluding with the pharmaceutical manufacturers of mercury-containing vaccines in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s devastating 2005 Rolling Stone exposé “Deadly Immunity.”

Kennedy writes in the opening lines:

In June 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials gathered for a meeting at the isolated Simpsonwood conference center in Norcross, Georgia. Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meeting was held at this Methodist retreat center, nestled in wooded farmland next to the Chattahoochee River, to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had issued no public announcement of the session -- only private invitations to fifty-two attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly "embargoed." There would be no making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them when they left.

The federal officials and industry representatives had assembled to discuss a disturbing new study that raised alarming questions about the safety of a host of common childhood vaccines administered to infants and young children. According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency's massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines -- thimerosal -- appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. "I was actually stunned by what I saw," Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants -- in one case, within hours of birth -- the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold, from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children [it currently stands at one in every 150 children].

It would seem CDC epidemiologist Tom Verstraeten’s mention of a “staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism” also exposes Gibson’s “no scientific evidence” to be either hastily researched or intentionally misleading.

Yet that’s only the tip of the iceberg, as there is a wealth of scientific evidence not only indicating this link, but also confirming the frightening toxicity of thimerosal, which, incidentally, ABC also fails to inform its viewers is a known neurotoxin and contains the second deadliest element on the planet.

What follows in Kennedy's investigation is more than bad science. Even more than criminal. As Kennedy says, it's quite possibly “one of the biggest scandals in the annals of American medicine.” 

Even for scientists and doctors accustomed to confronting issues of life and death, the findings were frightening. "You can play with this all you want," Dr. Bill Weil, a consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the group. The results "are statistically significant." Dr. Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado whose grandson had been born early on the morning of the meeting's first day, was even more alarmed. "My gut feeling?" he said. "Forgive this personal comment -- I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on."

But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and executives at Simpsonwood spent most of the next two days discussing how to cover up the damaging data. According to transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, many at the meeting were concerned about how the damaging revelations about thimerosal would affect the vaccine industry's bottom line. "We are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits," said Dr. Robert Brent, a pediatrician at the Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Delaware. "This will be a resource to our very busy plaintiff attorneys in this country." Dr. Bob Chen, head of vaccine safety for the CDC, expressed relief that "given the sensitivity of the information, we have been able to keep it out of the hands of, let's say, less responsible hands." Dr. John Clements, vaccines advisor at the World Health Organization, declared that "perhaps this study should not have been done at all." He added that "the research results have to be handled," warning that the study "will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group."

And it only gets worse.

In fact, the government has proved to be far more adept at handling the damage than at protecting children's health. The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to "rule out" the chemical's link to autism. It withheld Verstraeten's findings, even though they had been slated for immediate publication, and told other scientists that his original data had been "lost" and could not be replicated. And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring it off-limits to researchers. By the time Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to bury the link between thimerosal and autism.

Flash forward: Dr. Marie McCormick of the Harvard School of Public Health led this flawed and underhanded IOM study, a conspicuous omission from the ABC report. Instead, here is how ABC correspondent John McKenzie presents Dr. McCormick:

Government experts say it's nothing more than a coincidence and that further studies on vaccines and autism are not justified. "I think, frankly, it would be a waste of money that could be used much better elsewhere," said Dr. Marie McCormick of the Harvard School of Public Health.

Especially on genetic clues of this crippling illness, say McCormick and her colleagues.

No bias there, huh? But here’s what Kennedy uncovered about the study back in 2005:

In May of last year [2004], the Institute of Medicine issued its final report. Its conclusion: There is no proven link between autism and thimerosal in vaccines. Rather than reviewing the large body of literature describing the toxicity of thimerosal, the report relied on four disastrously flawed epidemiological studies examining European countries, where children received much smaller doses of thimerosal than American kids. It also cited a new version of the Verstraeten study, published in the journal Pediatrics, that had been reworked to reduce the link between thimerosal and autism. The new study included children too young to have been diagnosed with autism and overlooked others who showed signs of the disease. The IOM declared the case closed and -- in a startling position for a scientific body -- recommended that no further research be conducted.

Obviously, this recommendation remains unchanged. Though this shouldn’t be a surprise considering the ongoing conflict of interest between those charged with ensuring our drug safety and their often close ties to the pharmaceutical companies that produce our drugs.

Kennedy notes:

Indeed, in the tight circle of scientists who work on vaccines, such conflicts of interest are common. Rep. Dan Burton [a Republican from Indiana whose grandson suffers from autism] says that the CDC "routinely allows scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on intellectual advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines," even though they have "interests in the products and companies for which they are supposed to be providing unbiased oversight." The House Government Reform Committee discovered that four of the eight CDC advisers who approved guidelines for a rotavirus vaccine "had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine."

[…]

"Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is directly related to the autism epidemic," his House Government Reform Committee concluded in its final report. "This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding a lack of safety data regarding injected thimerosal, a known neurotoxin." The FDA and other public-health agencies failed to act, the committee added, out of "institutional malfeasance for self protection" and "misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry."

This conflict of interest involves prominent politicians as well. Kennedy details one of the most appalling cases:

The drug companies are also getting help from powerful lawmakers in Washington. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has received $873,000 in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, has been working to immunize vaccine makers from liability in 4,200 lawsuits that have been filed by the parents of injured children. On five separate occasions, Frist has tried to seal all of the government's vaccine-related documents -- including the Simpsonwood transcripts -- and shield Eli Lilly, the developer of thimerosal, from subpoenas. In 2002, the day after Frist quietly slipped a rider known as the "Eli Lilly Protection Act" into a homeland security bill, the company contributed $10,000 to his campaign and bought 5,000 copies of his book on bioterrorism. The measure was repealed by Congress in 2003 -- but earlier this year [2005], Frist slipped another provision into an anti-terrorism bill that would deny compensation to children suffering from vaccine-related brain disorders.

Moreover, regardless of autism’s link to vaccines, why would pharmaceutical companies continue to use thimerosal, a deadly neurotoxin with a long history of lethal outcomes?

For Merck and other drug companies, however, the obstacle was money. Thimerosal enables the pharmaceutical industry to package vaccines in vials that contain multiple doses, which require additional protection because they are more easily contaminated by multiple needle entries. The larger vials cost half as much to produce as smaller, single-dose vials, making it cheaper for international agencies to distribute them to impoverished regions at risk of epidemics. Faced with this "cost consideration," Merck ignored [Dr. Maurice] Hilleman's warnings [Hilleman was “one of the fathers of Merck’s vaccination programs” who, in 1991, recommended discontinuing the use of thimerosal], and government officials continued to push more and more thimerosal-based vaccines for children. Before 1989, American preschoolers received eleven vaccinations -- for polio, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and measles-mumps-rubella. A decade later, thanks to federal recommendations, children were receiving a total of twenty-two immunizations by the time they reached first grade.

Thimerosal has since been removed (or in certain cases reduced in strength) from most vaccines in the U.S., but it still remains in some here, most notably flu and tetanus shots. Yet vaccines containing thimerosal in its original strength continue to be distributed to poorer nations around the world. Again, it’s about the bottom line. Government officials and vaccine manufacturers point to the very real danger of epidemics occurring if populations are not properly vaccinated. But no rational person would argue that point. The problem is, there’s never been a valid study proving the safety of thimerosal.

Consider these chilling revelations (also from Kennedy’s 2005 investigation):

• "You couldn't even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe," says [Dr. Boyd] Haley [“one of the world’s authorities on mercury toxicity”], who heads the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky. "It's just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage."

• Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first developed thimerosal, knew from the start that its product could cause damage -- and even death -- in both animals and humans. In 1930, the company tested thimerosal by administering it to twenty-two patients with terminal meningitis, all of whom died within weeks of being injected -- a fact Lilly didn't bother to report in its study declaring thimerosal safe. In 1935, researchers at another vaccine manufacturer, Pittman-Moore, warned Lilly that its claims about thimerosal's safety "did not check with ours." Half the dogs Pittman injected with thimerosal-based vaccines became sick, leading researchers there to declare the preservative "unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs."

• In the decades that followed, the evidence against thimerosal continued to mount. During the Second World War, when the Department of Defense used the preservative in vaccines on soldiers, it required Lilly to label it "poison." In 1967, a study in Applied Microbiology found that thimerosal killed mice when added to injected vaccines. Four years later, Lilly's own studies discerned that thimerosal was "toxic to tissue cells" in concentrations as low as one part per million -- 100 times weaker than the concentration in a typical vaccine. Even so, the company continued to promote thimerosal as "nontoxic" and also incorporated it into topical disinfectants. In 1977, ten babies at a Toronto hospital died when an antiseptic preserved with thimerosal was dabbed onto their umbilical cords

What's more, the government-funded studies claiming to put to bed any causality between thimerosal-laced vaccinations and autism remain shrouded in secrecy.

As Kennedy pointed out on The Huffington Post just yesterday:

The CDC and IOM base their defense of Thimerosal on these flimsy studies, their own formidable reputations, and their faith that journalists won't take the time to critically read the science.

Or worse. After wading through mainstream news articles and observing how this issue has been, and continues to be, portrayed by most of our national news networks, one would be naïve not to question big media’s corporate ties as a potential conflict of interest in its coverage of the vaccine-autism connection.

Kennedy goes on to say:

The bureaucrats are simultaneously using their influence, energies and clout to derail, defund and suppress any scientific study that may verify the link between Thimerosal and brain disorders. (These would include epidemiological studies comparing the records of vaccinated children with those of unvaccinated populations like the Amish or home-schooled kids who appear to enjoy dramatically reduced levels of autism and other neurological disorders.) The federal agencies have refused to release the massive public health information accumulated in their Vaccine Safety Database (VSD) apparently to keep independent scientists from reviewing evidence that could prove the link. They are also muzzling or blackballing scientists who want to conduct such studies.

Meanwhile, reports like the one filed by ABC World News on Monday night continue to provide the cover these bureaucrats need in order to suppress the whole truth surrounding this issue.

If there’s nothing to hide, if we all should begin focusing elsewhere, then journalists and government officials alike should encourage the opening of the Vaccine Safety Database so they can be free to disprove Mr. Kennedy’s contention that their “purpose was to provide plausible deniability for the consequences of their awful decision to allow brain-killing mercury to be injected into our youngest children. Those deliberately deceptive and fatally flawed studies were authored by vaccine industry consultants and paid for by Thimerosal producers and published largely in compromised journals that neglected to disclose the myriad conflicts of their authors in violation of standard peer-review ethics.”

It’s egregious enough that Charles Gibson and Co. fail to provide vital historical context, utterly ignoring decades of scientific evidence revealed in Kennedy’s investigation, as well as countless other significant findings on the subject dating back to the 1930s. But for Gibson to omit such evidence and then simultaneously claim the evidence he’s omitted doesn’t exist is astonishingly irresponsible.

It’s what we used to call propaganda in this country. Not news.

Gibson not only misinforms viewers about one of the most serious health crises we face, an undeniable epidemic (again, one in every 150 children), but with his negligent omissions and glib misstatements he unfairly disparages the thousands of parents who have plenty of reasons to believe high doses of mercury in vaccines have at least something to do with their children’s development of autism. 

Finally, while focusing on the public fallout between Katie Wright and her parents, Gibson and Co. fail to even disclose what “controversial theory led Katie's parents to issue a public repudiation.” Without the necessary context, viewers are left to think the “controversial theory” was simply her belief in the vaccine-autism connection. When, in fact, Katie’s son Christian has, according to Kennedy, “recovered significant function after chelation treatments to remove mercury.” Thus, it was her public disclosure of these chelation treatments that inspired Bob Wright’s open censure of his daughter.

That’s the controversial theory Gibson and Co. felt was unnecessary to present to their viewers. And, indeed, it’s a telling omission. Indicative of their consistent obfuscation in covering this issue.

As with nearly every aspect of the autism-vaccine debate, ABC, along with the predominance of its colleagues in big media, continues to toe the company line.

Story of the Day: The Most Busted Name in News

Bernard Shaw, an original CNN anchor for two decades who retired in 2001, recently voiced his frustration with his former employer's qualitative slide. On the Chicago PBS affiliate WTTW-Channel 11, Shaw said, "I'm very, very disappointed with the way the news management at my favorite network has gone….CNN continues to ape many of the on-air mannerisms of the Fox News Network, and I don't like that."

Shocking, huh? Did his retirement package prohibit public criticism for a specified number of years? And how apropos that Shaw’s statement is made via public television. God forbid our national news networks allow for long overdue constructive self-criticism. (My kingdom for a TV news ombudsman!) 

So it should be no surprise either that the “Most Trusted Name in News” is quite Fox-like online as well, if not moreso. Stopping by CNN’s website last night, before hopping over to Fox News’ homepage, reminded me of just how difficult it is to tell the two apart.

And with that in mind, it’s time to play The Hard News Challenge (cue generic game show music): OK, which group of last night’s “latest” top news stories (not to be confused with "most popular") are from Fox News’ website and which are from CNN’s [editor’s note: I’ve omitted one story because it gives away the answer]?

• 6.8 Earthquake Strikes Off Guatemalan Coast
• White House Ex-Aides Subpoenaed
• Shiites Hit Back After Mosque Bomb
• Sextuplets’ Mom Suffers Heart Failure
• Golfer, 76, Saves Drowning Dog, Plays 18 Holes
• Tape: 911 Operators Did Little to Help Dying Woman
• Lightning Shreds Pants on Man Mowing Lawn
• Bush Calls Time on Stolen Watch Story
• Britney Spears’ Mom: She’s “Just Figuring Things Out”
• 1800s Weapon Found Embedded in Whale’s Blubber
• Baby Fight “More Than Worth It,” Birkhead Says

• 6.8 Quake Strikes Off Coast of Guatemala
• Stocks Rally to Best Day of the Year
• Teacher Resigns After Garter-Belt Pose
• Harriet Miers Subpoenaed in Firings Probe
• Atlantis Spacewalk
• 911 Operators Refuse to Aid Dying Woman
• Researchers Use Protein to Reverse MS
• Doctors ID Early Signs of Ovarian Cancer

All right, contestants, that sound means time is up. You're welcome to use your lifelines if you have any left. But this must be your final answer. If you thought Fox was bringing you news of a sprightly dog-saving septuagenarian golfer, a heart-failing mother of sextuplets, a pants-shredding lightning experience, supportive words from Britney’s mom, an antique unearthed in whale fat, and a quote from the father of Anna Nicole’s love child, you would be...wrong. I'm sorry. Thanks for playing. But congratulations to those who will advance to the speed round.

First, these words: Yes, that group of hard news stories was courtesy of CNN. You know your standards are hitting shale when Fox is out hard-newsing you.

But wait, here are some of today's latest breaking stories from CNN’s website:

• Woman Faces Jail in Toilet Paper Theft
• Ex-Husband Wants Frozen Embryos Tossed
• Why Isaiah Washington Was Let Go from “Grey’s”

All right, we're back. And now for the speed round of The Hard News Challenge. Due to their serious nature, which two top stories from last night remain on CNN's website?

• Baby Fight “More Than Worth It,” Birkhead Says
• Golfer, 76, Saves Drowning Dog, Plays 18 Holes

Congratulations to everyone who guessed correctly! And thanks again for playing.

I'm guessing it must be a slow news week in Darfur, Chad, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Russia, China and Iran. Oh, and in America, too.

But at least we're having fun, right?

[Correction: "9/11 Operators Refuse to Aid Dying Woman" should've read "911 Operators Refuse to Aid Dying Woman," which it does now. That was a typo on my part. Sorry for the confusion. To the commenter pointing out that "9/11" is a dead Fox giveaway, a) it surely would've been, b) nice catch and c) maybe it's still an example of the insidious psychological effect of having "9/11" drilled into my head all these years.] 

Story of the Day: NY Times Journalist Michael Powell Returns

Michael Powell dropped by again late yesterday to sort of wrap up his side of our ongoing discussion. Since I feel as though I did that in my last response, and also because this venue naturally provides me with the unfair advantage of having the last word, I will largely get out of the way this time and give the floor to Mr. Powell.

First, to everyone who’s been following this, where Powell and I agree to disagree should be obvious at this point. But in reexamining his piece over the course of our discussion, Powell has come around to recognize that he’s “very much in accord on context” and “could see a tweak here and there that might have helped here.”

It may not be the mea culpa some crave, but I believe it’s certainly a positive step on many levels. A New York Times reporter, a veteran mainstream journalist, not only was willing to enter the fray over his article, multiple times, but also freely embraced criticism, taking it seriously enough to reconsider his position, concede some points, and, yes, suffer the wrath wrought by all negligent mainstream news pieces before and since.

Can you imagine Joe Klein ever doing this? Or Judith Miller? Or David Broder? Or Tom Friedman? And remember, as opposed to Powell, these are journalists whose work has been widely criticized for years, yet the best they can muster in response is vitriol, condescension, willful ignorance or obliviousness. My criticism was of Powell’s one article, not his body of work. Nonetheless, he was willing to answer it.

Even in better times, mainstream journalism of course had its shortcomings. Like any profession, it employed its share of standouts and hacks. Though the Bush years unleashed a troubling form of journalistic malpractice that has gravely damaged the public trust. Aside from what’s so desperately needed of the mainstream media right now – more substantive, balanced and accurate reports - nothing will do more to begin to mend this trust than the kind of dialogue in which Mr. Powell was willing to engage. And I hope other mainstream journalists follow his lead.

Michael Powell's latest comments:

Dear Mr. Bloodhound,

I take your points, though I suspect we'll probably just leave this at an agreement to disagree. Certainly, many readers picked up on the tone of the piece, not least the Giuliani camp. I would argue, from the lede to the kicker, that it's clear that the tension is between Dr. J and Mr. Hyde. So we're talking about a makeover as opposed to a conversion. (As I note in the piece, Giuliani's done this before, in 1993).

I hear Batocchio [a blogger who left a comment] on Chris Matthews, but if I am now responsible for his comprehension, I'll hurl myself off of the top of Times Square.

As for the piece I penned a while back for the Post, keep in mnd that was, explicitly, a profile (and quite a bit longer than the NYT piece).

That said, I'm very much in accord on context, and I could see a tweak here and there that might have helped here. And Krugman offered a good, plain-spoken critique this week of much campaign coverage. But I'd also argue that as the MSM evolves, in no small part in reaction to the web and bloggerdom, readers will (and are) adjusting to new tones, new slants, some fooling around in the pages of the mainstream papers. Some of this will work, some won't. As I've often encouraged young writers: Take chances. The worst that will happen is that the bungee cord breaks and you do a header.

Anyway, dialogue is good. I remain working for MSM because it's one of the few places where you can simultaneously engage in good spirited arguments with people of many different views. But I'd acknowledge, rapidly and happily, that we're the better for the criticism (even when I'm accused--elsewhere--of being a gay lover of Rudy Giuliani. Exposed at Last!)

Best

Michael Powell

And his addendum:

Oh, and one other thing, and not addressed to Mr. Bloodhound.

Some of the other rumblings are kinda juvenile. Mr. Powell has been put on notice, Mr. Powell is ...

C'MON.

The attempt here is to have a nuanced discussion, largely successful on both sides. I'm laying out a rather elementary point. Yes, of course, bien sur, each story should have enough context and internal fairness to stand on its own. As I said, I'm very comfortable with that.

At the same time (this is called holding two thoughts in mind at one time--higher level simian behavior. If I can do it, trust me, anyone can), we have a broader goal: To paint, over time, a complex picture of a candidate. Can you do that in one piece? Nope.

That isn't to argue that you should simply take my arguments, or my pieces, on faith. And frankly, there's no danger of that. I'm all for rigorous criticism and good points, and I read a fair amount of this here (For the record, I have read blogs of all kinds for years ... ) But let's hold the threats, not least because those become not scary but laughable.

Real criticism of the type offered by Senor Bloodhound, forces one to think and defend and--who knows--rethink, and that's healthy. But that requires listening on both sides.

Michael

Story of the Day: NYT Reporter Michael Powell Answers the Bell

If you missed the beginning of this correspondence with New York Times journalist Michael Powell, start here.

Powell's latest, more in-depth comment follows:

Ad hominen? A curious complaint given the shots you dished up. Buuuuuut lemme be very clear. As a native New Yorker, I'm fine with ad hominens all around. I was just cruising the web, saw your original blog, smiled and wrote a quick comment.

It's intriguing to read the interpretations--and yes, to my mind, misinterpretations--of my piece. I dig blogs, even when the bloggers are so ferociously caught up in their moment/politics/sense of righteousness that they miss the forest for the trees.

That said, I also freely/ fully/forever acknowledge that I've often had occasion to think: "Y'know, in retrospect I'd have worded something differently etc ..."

So, that throat clearing aside ... the NYT (as it true of most of the big papers) takes a layered cake approach to political coverage. For every major candidate we will do some investigative work, some bio/thematic, and some life on the trail pieces.
 
I will do work that falls into all three categories over the next few months. I covered this guy many moons ago, when I was city hall bureau chief for a different paper. And I wrote a much longer piece on him for the Washington Post back in, oh, 1999 or so. My coverage gave the man his due but was hardly adoring. Don't trust me, find the pieces on the web. Anyway, before launching into some longer pieces on Giuliani, I wanted to reacquaint myself with his campaign style.

What I found was a famously tempermental pol who was, so far with considerable success, keeping his bubbling id under wraps. As I would maintain is very clear from the lede, I am most certainly not suggesting that Rudy's snarl has been surgically removed, but merely put under wraps.

I know many people--not least a number of my fellow New Yorkers--who find this hard to believe. They tend to dismiss Giuliani because they remember the roiling roaring mayor and cannot imagine that a man such as this could become president.

They're wrong, to my mind. To the extent that he keeps this aspect of his nature under wraps, and showcases the rather more impressive side of his talents as a candidate, he becomes quite formidable. Speaking of formidable, his ego also is of copious size, as was clear -- again, I thought -- from the conclusion of the piece.

There are many people who read this piece and, to my mind, got precisely the bemused tone rather clearly. (We run pieces every day that adopt all sorts of tones, from deadly serious to ironic to light-hearted). There are also apparently a number of no doubt very smart (and lemme posit that I very much accept that your irony squiggly is in place)people who didn't read it that way. I would argue that this is, in part, because people see "Giuliani" and want to read an evisceration, or a deep dive into his views on torture, on civil liberties. I understand that.

But there is a continium of coverage. The point here was to note this is a formidable pol and--based on his history as a candidate in 1993--don't count on him imploding.

Judge us over the course of the next eight months, and I feel very confident that you'll see a collection of pieces that add up to a complex whole.

Anyway, I've gone on too long. But I figure there is underneath the mutual ad hominens a more serious discussion waiting to happen...

Best,

Michael

My reply:

Michael,

Before I respond to your specific comments, I just wanted to say that it speaks exceedingly well of your character to drop by here again and take the time to give more thoughtful consideration to your article and its criticisms, as well as to provide valuable insight into your (and The New York Times’) approach to covering such stories.

While I believe my “shots” didn’t stray from criticizing the content of your article (whereas the first words of your initial response were, well, “Your mama…”), I agree there’s no fertile ground in hashing over what each of us might perceive as an ad hominem attack. And being a fellow New Yorker, yes, generally speaking, we eat ad hominems as if they were a breakfast cereal. 

I’ve thought about the points you’ve made, took your suggestion and read your 1999 Washington Post piece on Giuliani, and reread my critique and your latest article again.

To my mind, your WashPo article is an exemplary piece of journalism (not to mention electric prose). In pointing out Giuliani’s undeniable political chops and indefatigable nature, you give him his due but you also do not spare details of his darker traits and actions. Moreover, you weave in past and present, including vital historical context, and frame the story so it’s clear that Rudy and his people are projecting a certain image – some true, some false – and you are capturing this, and filtering it through your journalistic lens rather than merely reflecting what Rudy and his people aim to project. The piece feels balanced, honest, true, and leaves the reader with a keen idea of who Rudy Giuliani is.

It’s precisely what I believe is conspicuously absent from your most recent Giuliani piece. You point out that The Times “run pieces every day that adopt all sorts of tones, from deadly serious to ironic to light-hearted,” but I don’t see how a difference in tone alone – in this case, from your perspective, highly ironic – can justify a lack of necessary historical context. Arguably, employing such a tone for an article about a man who might be president (an undeniably weighty topic), might very well demand even more historical context, just as, say, satire on The Daily Show requires both the setup (footage of President Bush scolding Russia for curbing civil liberties and human rights) and the punch line (footage of Vice President Dick Cheney denouncing the Geneva Conventions at this year’s West Point commencement). Without such context, no matter how ironic your intention, you run the risk in many people’s eyes – mine included - of veering dangerously close to stenography, of perpetuating exactly the kind of false images the Giuliani campaign hopes to entrench in the national political discourse.

I understand the “layered cake approach,” in which you guys cover a candidate from varying angles over an extended period, might preclude you from capturing everything about a candidate in one article (though you performed that adroitly in your WashPo piece). You mention the aim of your Times report is to make people realize Giuliani is a formidable politician who should never be underestimated (something anyone who’s followed his career would be foolish to deny). But a prominent thread throughout your piece underscores how he is using his image as “America’s mayor” and the 9/11 warrior as the primary vehicle in his bid for the White House. So, even with the layered cake approach duly noted, historical context centering on this legend of Rudy, to my mind, seems not only justified but necessary for balance.

I don’t deny that over the next eight months, taken together, I might “see a collection of pieces that add up to a complex whole.” But I think it’s also incumbent on any journalist (especially one at our nation’s Paper of Record) to make sure that each piece stands on its own, that – regardless of tone - each presents the necessary information for citizens to make the most informed decision about a candidate. That’s the root of my frustration with your article and with so many other articles written in a similar vein, whether the portraits are positive or negative. What’s more, who knows how many people will just read this article on Rudy and miss the others. In addition to the very real possibility he will already be largely defined in the public’s mind by the time those later articles are published.

I’d argue it’s not so much new technology that’s giving big media a run for its money, but rather the thirst for sufficient context so lacking in much of our mainstream news. The cry of “stenography” from alternative media and those of us in media criticism is largely rooted in this (as well as imbalance, but I believe a deficit of context often creates imbalance).

You’re a deft journalist and a skilled wordsmith who has proven he’s quite capable of being simultaneously informative, insightful and entertaining. Your WashPo article, to my mind, underscores this fact and, in contrast, shows why I think you came up short with your Times piece. I hope I’ve made my previous criticisms more clear, or maybe we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Either way, I thank you for having the courage and class to engage in this conversation. And I look forward to more in the future. 

Cheers,
MediaBloodhound

Story of the Day: Responding to NY Times Reporter Michael Powell

A few days ago, I critiqued journalist Michael Powell's New York Times article "To Temper Image, Giuliani Trades Growl for Smile."

Today, I was pleased to actually receive a reply from Michael in my comments section, if less than satisfied with his response. Michael replies:

Your mama needs to reinsert the irony squiggly in your DNA. But congratulations: It's really hard to read that piece [his article] and take every single word seriously, but you done it. Another irony-immune blogger. You go dude.

Michael Powell

My reply follows:

Michael,
Thanks for stopping by and for your response.

My “mama” would be thrilled to receive a shout-out from a New York Times reporter. Though, if she were healthy enough, she would assure you her son’s “irony squiggly” is firmly in place. She might even point you to some satire on her son’s site, and say, “See?” She might even explain, “But the thing is, Michael, he labels his satire as such, whereas you’ve written, as you seem to be saying, a highly ironic news article – whatever that is – which is neither labeled “news analysis” nor “op-ed” nor, for that matter, “satire.” My mama, again, if she were well enough, would probably think you’ve missed the point of my critique, or, instead, knowing exactly what I was getting at, that it struck a nerve, causing you to react defensively rather than to thoughtfully consider constructive criticism in a professional manner.

She’d also probably think your reflexive, ad hominem swipe – chalking up my critique to me being just “another irony-immune blogger” – ironically, mirrors the very lack of substance about which your je t’aime Giuliani piece inspired criticism.

Finally, though she’d be thrilled a real-live New York Times journalist referenced her, if she had the energy, she would definitely say, “Michael, you can do better than this.”

And, well, I’d have to agree with my mama.

-MediaBloodhound

I genuinely look forward to Michael's response and also hope he takes the challenge to answer my original criticisms of his article. I respectfully welcome this much needed debate.