MediaBloodhound

Special Report: Secret Service Denies Obama Security Lapse While MSM Plays Dumb and NBC Plays Dumber; Plus, A Reminder of Who Controls the SS

(Updates below - Update I: NYT matches AP's obliviousness; Update II: In latest article by Star-Telegram, "former head of the FBI in Dallas who was in charge of the agency's investigation of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing" slams Service Service's actions at rally.) 

On Thursday, I wrote about a frightening lapse in security at Wednesday's Obama rally in Dallas. Reporter Jack Douglas Jr. of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram broke the story and has since written a follow-up, to which he updated yesterday. I noted on Thursday that the mainstream media (with the exception of UPI) had completely ignored this story, which has largely continued, with the Associated Press going so far as to publish an article Friday titled "Many Blacks Worry About Obama's Safety" yet without referencing in the piece what had occurred at Wednesday's Dallas rally. Friday's broadcast of NBC Nightly News did mention an alleged breach of security, but the report - a shoddy piece of journalism driven solely by the Secret Service's official denial - was summarily tacked on to the end of a separate report on the Obama campaign. Additionally, in comments left on Douglas' articles on the Star-Telegram's website (one of which he published in his follow-up) and other sites around the web (including this one), people have provided firsthand accounts of the same type of lax security at Obama rallies throughout the country (yes, they need to be corroborated, but they reveal a pattern of lax security that also demands further investigation into this matter).

First, an exploration of the insufficient Secret Service response to these charges, followed by the deplorable NBC Nightly News segment and then a brief reminder of who controls the Secret Service.

Secret Service Denies Security Lapse

Jack Douglas' follow-up includes the Secret Service's denial of any security breach:

"There were no security lapses at that venue," said Eric Zahren, a spokesman for the Secret Service in Washington. He added there was "no deviation" from the "comprehensive and layered" security plan, implemented in "very close cooperation with our law enforcement partners."

Zahren rebutted suggestions by several Dallas police officers at the rally who thought the Secret Service ordered a halt to the time-consuming weapons check because long lines were moving slowly, and many seats remained empty as time neared for Obama to appear.

"It was never a part of the plan at this particular venue to have each and every person in the crowd pass through the Magnetometer," said Zahren, referring to the device used to detect metal in clothing and bags.

So basic checks, the kind performed at any major sporting or music event, were never "part of the plan"? If such checks can be carried out for, say, 20,000 people at a Springsteen concert or 50,000 at a Yankee game, why is it too much to expect the same for our nation's leading Democratic presidential candidate?

Douglas goes to report that Zahren "declined to give the reason for checking people for weapons at the front of the lines and letting those farther back go in without inspection."

Why?

"We would not want, by providing those details, to have people trying to derive ways in which they could defeat the security at any particular venue," Zahren said.

Sure, he wouldn't want to tip off those would-be criminal masterminds to what thousands of people across the country already know: that (at least up until now) arriving late and hanging in the back of the line is the surest way to enter without being checked for a weapon.

The article ends with unique spin from the Dallas police brass:

Lt. V.L. Hale III, a spokesman for the Dallas Police Department, said in a statement Friday that he would not comment on security measures at the Obama rally except to say there was no arrest or incident and that it was a "success from a police standpoint."

So according to Dallas Police Department officials (as opposed to the officers who were shocked and alarmed by the lapse in security), no one actually getting shot or blown up is a "success." Of course, that's not success, but luck.

In Douglas' updated article, he reports on an additional bit of PR spin, provided by a "lawyer and consultant for security concerns," who, unwittingly, seems to confirm a security lapse did indeed occur.

The Secret Service may have been doing all it could at the rally, said Keith Howse, a lawyer and consultant for security concerns and a former assistant police chief for the sprawling Baylor Health Care System.

Howse, who was not at the rally, said the Secret Service may have been screening the people closest to the candidate while letting others go in unchecked who were seated far away in the spacious, 17,000-seat arena.

"It may have ended up not being the best of all worlds, but it might not have been a flat-out security breach," he said, adding: "I think it's important to understand that the Secret Service would not sink below minimum protection" for a presidential candidate.

Settling for making the possible future President of the United States merely a slightly harder target is an acceptable level of security? Doesn't Obama, as well as Hillary Clinton and John McCain, deserve "the best of all worlds" when it comes to federal protection? (Incidentally, I'd be interested to know if Douglas contacted Howse, or if Howse contacted him unsolicited - and if so, if Howse is working in the capacity of security consultant and council for the Dallas Police Department in this matter, or, possibly, even in that role for the Secret Service in this particular case.)

NBC Nightly News Coverage of the "Alleged" Security Breach

Brian Williams spared 75 seconds for this story on Friday night. He sounded annoyed while framing it for his viewers, his voice betraying an utter lack of curiosity. Williams' handling of this segment displayed the worst of network news: a failure to frame a story with intellectual honesty or to ask and follow up on the most glaringly obvious questions. NBC may have been better off taking its competitors' lead and ignoring this news altogether. Instead, this lame effort turned out to be even more insulting - to its viewers, to the safety of a potential future president, and to journalism in general.

Story of the Day: Disturbing Security Lapse at Dallas Obama Rally

With the John McCain-New York Times story dominating the news cycle, the most underreported political news of the day is the startling breach of security, evidently ordered by U.S. Secret Service, at Barack Obama's Wednesday rally in Dallas.

Yes, you read that correctly.

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (via Raw Story), which broke this news (a Google News search reveals that United Press International is thus far the only other mainstream media outlet to either pick up or report on this story):

Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.

The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security.

Dallas Deputy Police Chief T.W. Lawrence, head of the Police Department's homeland security and special operations divisions, said the order -- apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service -- was meant to speed up the long lines outside and fill the arena's vacant seats before Obama came on.

"Sure," said Lawrence, when asked if he was concerned by the great number of people who had gotten into the building without being checked. But, he added, the turnout of more than 17,000 people seemed to be a "friendly crowd."

The Secret Service did not return a call from the Star-Telegram seeking comment.

[...]

Several Dallas police officers said it worried them that the arena was packed with people who got in without even a cursory inspection.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because, they said, the order was made by federal officials who were in charge of security at the event.

"How can you not be concerned in this day and age," said one policeman.

The police officer makes a good point. Though I'd add that President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas nearly a half century ago, his brother five years later in Los Angeles on the way to almost certainly winning the Democratic presidential nomination.   

No one wants to think about such a horrific potentiality. But we damn well better pay attention to it in order to avoid similar inexplicable breakdowns in security for any national candidate, especially a wildly popular black presidential candidate - often compared to JFK, RFK and MLK - who's promising to end a war that Republicans and their friends in the defense and oil industry want to prolong indefinitely.

Story of the Day: WaPo Joins NYT, Calls Telecom Amnesty "Victory" for WH; Nightly Newscasts Ignore Vote Altogether

Yesterday, I wrote about the Senate's despicable vote to grant retroactive immunity to our illegally, unconstitutionally spying telecom companies (link includes full Roll Call Vote, showing where each of our senators stood). Among other things, I noted Glenn Greenwald's comment about The New York Times' framing of this vote:

Here is the first paragraph from Eric Lichtblau's NYT article this afternoon:

After more than a year of heated political wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory Tuesday by voting to broaden the government's spy powers and to give legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program.

To conserve resources, newspapers should just create a macro of that phrase -- "the Senate handed the White House a major victory today" -- and then just program it to be automatically inserted into every article reporting on anything done by the Senate. That system would be foolproof.

Well, now our other paper of record has delivered on this one-two "victory" punch. Here's the lede of today's Washington Post article by Paul Kane:

The Senate yesterday approved a sweeping measure that would expand the government's clandestine surveillance powers, delivering a key victory to the White House by approving immunity from lawsuits for telecommunications companies that cooperated with intelligence agencies in domestic spying after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

And how did our three major broadcast networks - ABC, CBS and NBC - treat this story on their nightly news programs?

They didn't. If you are unfortunate enough to still get your daily news wrap-up from these woefully inadequate sources, you wouldn't know that yesterday America took a big jackbooted step closer to a full-on police state.

Now, we're right in the middle of an historic campaign season, so these networks can't be faulted for allocating hefty chunks of time to that. But here are just a few of the non-campaign-related stories they deemed more newsworthy than one of the most important pieces of legislation of our time:

ABC World News with Charles Gibson

"Rent-a-Pet" - Description from website:  "If you don't want to commit long-term to a pet, you can rent a dog for a day."

Think that's embarrassing? Here's how Gibson introduced the story: "This is a big night for dogs. A beagle by the name of Uno has a chance to make history by being the first of its breed to ever win best in show at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, always a very popular event. But for those who don't own or necessarily want a champion, there's a company that's come up with the idea of renting dogs, one day at a time. One more concession these days to people who can't commit. Is this a good idea? Who would rent a pup? Is it fair to the dog?" Has Charles Gibson lost his mind? Am I watching the last story of a local newscast? Is this The Daily Show? (Please note: this wasn't even the final story of the night.)

"Swimming with Walruses" - Description from website: "Ice swimmers in the Russian Winter." Gibson begins, "A follow-up to a story we did a couple of months ago, when we ran some pictures of men jumping into the Moscow River. At the time, we didn't know a lot about them. Only that they chose to swim in sub-zero temperatures. And we chose to watch them from afar. But we remained intrigued, and so we sent our Moscow correspondent Clarissa Ward out in the cold to investigate." OK, so let's get this straight: in addition to this story trumping the historic telecom amnesty vote, it's a follow-up to a non-story World News had already presented two months ago. And so important did Gibson and team ABC deem it, they dispatched their Moscow correspondent; at a time when foreign news desks are being slashed every day, it's heartening to know that ABC is putting their resources to good use. I guess this Russian story was too fluffy for their Moscow office.

"HGH Goes Mainstream" - Description from website: "The use of growth hormones is a problem in America, and not just among athletes." Obviously this is only "news" because of the current Roger Clemens case. Out of more than 300 million Americans, this report cites that roughly 30,000 of them are currently using HGH by prescription. It's not approved for prescription for cosmetic purposes. But it's unclear from the report how many of those 30,000 Americans are taking HGH for specific medical conditions, for which it is approved through prescription, as the report also notes. It's the kind of sensational story that could've been aired any day this week, or even next week, or possibly next month.

CBS Evening News with Katie Couric

"The Fed Who Infiltrated the Mob" - Description from website: "In an exclusive interview with CBS News, Armen Keteyian speaks with undercover FBI agent Jack Garcia, who infiltrated New York's notorious Gambino crime family, taking down its bosses in 2005." A terribly pressing story, indeed.

NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams

"A Guide to Genetic Tests" (second installment of the three-part series "Who We Are: The Truth About DNA, where chief medical correspondent Robert Bazell explores the role DNA plays in history, health, and the legal system") - Description from website for last night's report: "Tests that examine your risk of developing a disease are widely marketed, but doctors often don't know what to tell patients after they receive their results — and many doctors disapprove of the tests altogether." No argument here on the general worthiness of this report, but rather on the timing. There's nothing urgent about it. Had NBC aired this segment of the series on the following night, it wouldn't have mattered. Most people wouldn't have noticed. And if NBC feared they would, Williams could've easily slipped in a programming note that the segment was bumped one night in order to bring viewers news of the day's major breaking story.

Of course, the clear winner of the evening is ABC World News and Charlie Gibson, with their impressive hat trick of worthless stories.

Never mind our burgeoning police state. I'm worried about how Uno performed last night.

NYT Front|Back: A Rock vs. Iraq

Since the inception of NYT Front|Back, MediaBloodhound has captured a slew of Onion-like examples of stories The New York Times has seen fit to print on its front page (for those of you new to MBH, some personal favorites are here, here, here and here.) The feature even got some press in Editor and Publisher after I emailed the excellent Greg Mitchell regarding his article "Before 9/11 Changed Everything," in which he said, "Oh, for those days when the Times was criticized for running soft news on Page One! If we could only turn back the clock." I pointed out to Greg that regardless of the changed world, our paper of record never altered its practice of placing soft news (mixed with serious of course) on its cover, which was precisely what inspired this ongoing series (however sporadic new items for it are posted). (Needless to say, Greg, as opposed to many in the mainstream, not only took criticism in stride but sent it to his managing editor to publish in E&P's letters to the editor.)

After a long hiatus, here's another entry (some days The Onion really has nothing on The Times):  

FRONT:

Between States, Hard Feelings Over a Rock's Place

What can one really say about this? Long story short, Ohio and Kentucky are fighting over who owns a rock. Literally. Did the world screech to a halt at some point during the last 24 hours that might have caused The Times to run out of viable news, let alone stories deserving of the cover?

Intro and excerpts:

An eight-ton rock rested for generations at the bottom of the Ohio River, minding its own business as time and currents passed. It favored neither Ohio to the north nor Kentucky to the south. It just — was.

[...]

Some Ohioans say the rock is an important piece of Portsmouth history and should be put on display. Some Kentuckians say the rock is an important piece of Kentucky, period, and should be returned. And some in both states say: I’ve been distracted by war, recession and a presidential campaign, so forgive me. But are we fighting over a rock? [You left out: And are you featuring this story?]

Last month the Kentucky House of Representatives passed a resolution demanding the rock’s return to its watery bed, with one of its members suggesting that a raiding party to Portsmouth might be in order. Not to be outdone, the Ohio House of Representatives is considering a resolution that asserts the rock’s significance to Ohio, and its speaker has said he is ready to guard the boulder with his muzzle-loading shotgun.

BACK (page 8):

Car Bombing Outside Market in Iraq Kills 23

Glowing reviews of the "surge" notwithstanding, the daily bloodbath in Iraq beats on. Though news of it is often shoved to the side, even, in The Times' own words, when it comes to "one of the deadliest" terrorist car bombings of the year.

Intro:

At least 23 people were killed Sunday after a car bomb exploded north of Baghdad at a checkpoint run by the police and citizen patrols of Iraqis who have turned against the insurgency, Iraqi officials said.

Amid a steep overall reduction in violence here over the last several months, the blast, near a market outside of Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad, was one of the deadliest this year. At least 40 people, most of them civilians, were wounded, the hospital in Balad reported.

This report also reveals the ever-changing narrative on the ground. If it's to be believed, Iraqi citizen patrols, also called "Awakening groups," are making inroads against Sunni Arab extremists (while paying a big price).

Special Report: Clinton vs. Obama on the Cluster Bomb Vote

(updated below - includes full text of Senate Amendment No. 4882; update II: copy of Senate Roll Call Votes.)

"[Cluster bombs are] the single greatest risk civilians face with regard to a current weapon that is in use." -Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch

David Rees, the man behind the hilarious and trenchant Get Your War On, reminded me yesterday of another especially egregious - yet much less known - vote cast by Senator Hillary Clinton, which no one in the mainstream media is talking about:

But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

Analysts say Clinton did not want to risk appearing "soft on terror," as it would have harmed her electibility.

No, neither candidate is perfect. Indeed, as Rees points out about Obama:

Nobody who voted for 2005's wack-ass energy bill is perfect. Nobody who voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act is perfect.

Yet he goes on to say:

But of the two remaining Democratic candidates, one decided her vote on Amendment No. 4882 according to a political calculation. The other used a moral calculation.

Whomever you're supporting, or even if you're not supporting either candidate, Rees makes a fair point here. On not one but two of her most important life-and-death votes in the Senate, Clinton embraced political expediency over the protection of innocent human lives.

Moreover, if such issues as the horrific realities of cluster bombs were given their due in the mainstream media, Clinton's vote against Amendment No. 4882 would've and should've been fair game in assessing her record.

The United States of America is the largest manufacturer of cluster bombs. This weaponry maims and kills thousands of innocent human beings globally each year but reaps huge profits for the defense industry, which in turn, of course, pays exorbitant rates to advertise during U.S. network news broadcasts.

Thus, its absence from our "national debate" is no grand mystery.

First, a brief background on the cluster bomb. Then, an exploration of why Senator Clinton's vote against its ban is highly relevant to President Clinton's actions back in 1997.

The Cluster Bomb

Nick Turse describes the ghastly nature of cluster bombs in his article "Did the U.S. Lie About Cluster Bomb Use in Iraq?":

Blogroll Amnesty Day

Thanks to mensches Jon Swift and Skippy (both longtime friends of MBH), what began as a mindless purge has now spawned a celebration of voices deserving more attention in the blogosphere. Mr. Swift has the background behind Blogroll Amnesty Day (B.A.D.). Those who take part today were asked to post links and love to a handful of smaller blogs.

I'd also like to point out that I first read some of the blogs I'm linking to as a consequence of guesting at Mike's Blog Round Up over at Crooks and Liars. Mike Finnegan (along with C&L proprietor John Amato, Nicole Belle and Blue Gal) have consistently supported and promoted smaller blogs, and Mike's roundups daily present the best of the blogs, both large and small, in a refreshingly democratizing fashion. (C&L - along with Skippy and Avedon Carol - was also generous enough to be one of the first to link to MBH in its infancy and support this site as it has grown out of its teething stage.)

So, here's my roundup of some noteworthy folks on this sunny Blogroll Amnesty Day - go forth to their sites and multiply! All are deserving of more traffic, all always leave me wanting more:

Sensen No Sen

Newscorpse

Collateral

Vagabond Scholar

Happy Valley News

Dashiell

Hawke and Dove

Ice Station Tango

The Opinion Mill

Jose Padilla Articles on Campaign for America's Future

I recently co-wrote five articles on the Jose Padilla case with veteran Chicago investigative journalist Lew Koch, who covered the trial. The talented and prolific Rick Perlstein published this series on Campaign for America's Future. The mistreatment of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, is unprecedented in our nation's history. The series begins on the day of his sentencing, less than two weeks ago, and weaves its way back through a case eerily reminiscent of Kafka's The Trial. These articles explore Padilla's hellish journey at the hands of a Bush administration bent first on a big counter-terrorism victory and later on saving face, even if it meant the systematic destruction of a human being and the trashing of our Constitution:

Citizen Padilla (Part I: Judge Cooke's Torturous Sentence)

Citizen Padilla (Part II: Manufacturing a Terrorist Mastermind)

Citizen Padilla (Part III: The Radioactive Patsy)

Citizen Padilla (Part IV: A Veil of Ignorance)

Citizen Padilla (Part V: Judge and Jury)